Slashdot Mirror
Linux *Won't* Fail on the Desktop?
HanzoSan sent in a story claiming that Linux will Succeed on the desktop, and not
just the server market where it already has had much success.
I think that the latest version of KDE has demonstrated
that it can compete, but with the increasing
dependance on file formats that have no support on
Linux, it's going to be awfully difficult. That
said, Linux has been my desktop for many moons,
and I don't plan on changing it (Maybe
If Apple released TiBook's with 3 mouse buttons I'd
at least have an option ;)
Give 'em a reason.
What do people need? Currently, they need compatibility with Microsoft products (and they don't even have that between releases of microsoft products!)
But if they can get all their old data and still keep chugging, that's an incentive.
But other than that, What is being offered? (I mean ASIDE from reliability! Does it come in a cute titanium frame?)
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I installed Yeloow Dog Linux on one of the iMacs in our Dev lab (first Linux install ever), and man, was I impressed. Hundreds and hundreds of apps came with, and as a lifelong Win/Mac user, I felt comfortable right away. Since that experience, I have stopped bitching about Linux useability. Thanks, Linux! (sparkle from teeth)
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
C'mon, haven't we heard enough of the "If only apple would ship with a 3 button mouse!" thing?
;)
I mean jeez, just order your damn powerbook, then head over to just about ANY online retailer and pick up a 3 button scrollwheel intellimouse or something. You won't even have to install any drivers
Until some universal file formats are agress by all the compaines out there , then it will no take over. But when your document can be opened in an os , on any word processer... well that will be the end of ms won't it.....
Cruise TT
I recently switched from a Linux/KDE desktop at home, to a PowerBook G3. My USB/2-Button/Scroll wheel mouse works just fine with Mac OS X, and even some OS 9.
Totally agree about the tibook being weak with the buttons.. I wish apple would get off the *we have really stupid users* kick, because I dig their hardware.. Minus the silly one-button, this-is-too-complicated-for-my-little-brain, mouse..
(I am far to hyped on coffee this morning, and really ',' happy.)
I support disseminating Linux as freely as AOL does its CDs.
Perhaps that might be a good idea. The big advantage of free software is the fact that this could be done. You can't beat the price. However, people do not have the same awareness of Linux as they do AOL.
How about an ad-campaign a la IBM Infrastructure commercials to explain Linux in plain English? Without awareness, few would be likely to pick up the CD.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
or OS X. Until then not a chance. I run Linux on my servers (to avoid the gestapo aka BSA) and Windows for my clients (both mine and my customers). This is where Mac OS has a great advantage. Stable Hardware platform. It doesn't have to be all things to all people like linux is trying to accomplish.
Personally I like all the window managers since fvwm and have no problems but being a computer nerd it's a tad different than explaining to my grandma that to get her optical mouse to reinit she needs to kill XWindows and startx. Where as Windows has the default recovery everyone knows by heart Ctrl-Alt-Del.
...one of two things has to happen. The average user must become more computer savvy, including being able to deal with a command line and wanting to understand to some degree what the OS is doing.
The other thing is Linux will have to become more like a the black box that other OSes are. Everything is hidden and little to no knowledge of what is going on is required.
It is unfortunate but if you look at other technologies, similar things have occurred. For example, look at the automobile. The complexity of them has gotten to the point that the average driver has little idea of the inner workings and they don't really want to know anyway. I realize this is a bad analogy but hoepfully it makes some sense.
"It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
I love my iBooks trackpad.. Out of all the trackpads I've ever used, Apple's is the best. It has good support in the OS too with good features like click-drag..
But all of that is irrelevant anyway, you know why? Because you can just plug any USB mouse into the sucker. That's what USB is for CmdrTaco..
I guess that depends on whose desktop you're referring to. Linux is already popular on geek desktops. Getting Linux on the desktops of your average Joe (or Jane) is entirely different.
I would be mightily impressed if a distribution of Linux was released that my mother could use easily.
I would think that linux would stand more of a chance, if all of the developers of all of the various open source projects that go into linux would work on having all of their applications work together in a way like windows or macOS would, for example, being able to install/uninstall software a little easier, and .make the desktop work a little more efficent, while I can handle using linux the way it currently is, the majority of users still would be confused on some points.Although the file formats are definately going to hurt the progress of linux, I would think the fact that the community hasn't really made an outstanding, new way of doing things that is better than M$ or apples operating systems will hurt it more.
Succeeding on the desktop is more than just KDE or even nice applications. It requires substantial hardware support. People don't want to be severly limited in the type of printers, scanners, video cards, sound cards, etc. they use and they will expect them to work exactly the same as under their current system. The cost saving of using Linux is wiped out if you have to spend more to get a supported printer or if you have to spend an extra half hour figuring out how to change the resolution of your screen. Linux is still a little ways from that point so widespread desktop use is unlikely to happen any time soon.
(Maybe If Apple released TiBook's with 3 mouse buttons I'd at least have an option ;)
Aaaaaargh! With OS X you can use a 5 button mouse if you'd like! Just go and buy one! Can we please let this rest already!
Pooty tweet
Once again, slashdot completely ignores Gnome. Good work boys. How do you think De Icaza et al. feel when they don't see the word Gnome in a Slashdot article touting linux on the desktop like this?
...way to encourage all projects.
ZERO
You don't need 3 buttons in Mac OS. My TiBook is on its way.
*drooool*
So much for my linux desktop.
reech bee-yond ur clip-0n
;-)
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Come'on Cmdr, the three button mouse line is like shooting fish in a barrel. Be a little more inventive.
How about the new Quicksilvers don't have an off button, only an on button. How do I turn it off?
And nothing changed. The fact is while MS Office dominates the workplace desktop, and DirectX games dominate the home desktop, linux will never triumph.
I realise people will reply to this and say "StafOffice is cool" or "Wine + Transgaming is cool", but think for one iota of a second how many people are using these products.
The fact is, the availability and quality of software will drive the OS market.
I dunno which of Linux/Windows is better, so I run Cygwin in Win4Lin.
...hangs on a few things:
StarOffice/OpenOffice: they need to iron out the last few bugs and market it, for crying out loud! Not just for Linux, but on Windows as well, so that they can wean the business sector off of MSOffice.
Games: despite what many "serious" computer users will say, the PC industry was built on gaming, and gaming is what keeps pushing the hardware improvement cycle. Serious Linux players such as IBM and HP should give substantial (if discreet) grants to efforts such as Transgaming's WineX so we come out with a complete DirectX API for Linux.
Marketing: the different Linux players, big and small, should pool some of their resources to create a "flavorless" marketing organization who promotes the Desktop use of Linux (without specifying a distro in particular). The goal is to challenge common misconceptions about Linux: that it is hard to use, that there are no apps, that it is not graphical, etc., in a series of cool, professional looking ads in print and televised media.
Aim for the Business Desktop first: more people will consider switching at home if they've been "coerced" into using Linux at the office first, only to realize that it was as easy to use as Windows, and a lot more stable.
Don't install so many apps by default in common distros: personally, I don't mind it, but Windows users might be overwhelmed by the choice. Let them choose their browser, e-mail client, office suite, etc. during installation, or with a post-installation "setup" program.
I do believe that Linux has a very good chance of becoming more widespread on the desktop...the fact that it can't be bought off by Microsoft is a big plus! But I'm not kidding myself: the Linux revolution might have better chance of taking place abroad first (Europe, Africa, Asia) - and given America's (and, by extension, Canada's) annoying record of always doing everything different than the rest of the world, it could still take some time here...
Reminder: find a new sig
Recently I've had quite a bit of experience with a newbie linux user.(ie my roommate) As he doesn't have a comp, I installed linux on a POS (tm) machine and set it up on his desk for his personal use.
...).
There seem to be few problems with his use of the computer. However, he has been getting increasingly beligerant about the fact that I haven't had the time to set up direct 3d rendering on the machine so he could play RTCW.
As I use Slackware Linux full time on my computer I think that GNU/Linux is quite ready for the desktop but not necessarily the desktop of a non do-it-yourselfer. Remember these are people used to playing games out of the box or not having to go through too technical of a setup to get them working. EZ Configuration is tops on my list for new users who don't necessarily have the time to RATFM(read all the
I especially like this suggestion which the author suggests as a paradigm shift: "Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool. Like an erector set, applications could be constructed for specific needs. And like hammers, saws, wrenches and screwdrivers in the physical realm, such tools are easier to utilize than large factories (or contemporary application programs)."
This is the classic call to arms of Unix, way back when. "Build a tool that does one job, and does that job well." And then make the tools work together. Unix was originally built for programmers, but there is no reason to believe that "ordinary users" cannot benefit from that philosophy as well.
I say, go back to first principles, and we all win. It worked for hardware in the 1980's with the advent of RISC technology. Software too has become too bloated.
Yes, I can just imagine it - Linux being sold on millions of OEM machines;
Customer: 'Hello, Dell? On my Kay-Dee-Eee PC Gamecube, I cant find Device Manager. My Office Assistant also doesnt seem to be on here either. Shall I put this Windows XP CD I got free with Line-ux into the floppy drive?'
Tech Support: 'Ok, we have a problem...'
Customer: 'Can I speak to your supervisor please?'
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
From what I've seen of people who post on Slashdot, most of them use Windows anyway...
Linux wannabies
Admittedly, if a corp says uses this, you have to use it.
It'd make a good poll.
How many people are using Linux **right now** as they view this page.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I don't think RMS is going to like that one.. :)
Seriously though, I think there's one major issue which the article writer has forgotten: fear.
Many (most) IT directors think that 'No-one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft'. If they go with Linux and it's a failure, it could well be their neck on the line; if they choose a Microsoft option and it's a failure, well everyone already knew Microsoft were crap, but what choice did we have?
The only way this can be combated is with slow erosion of the Microsoft market - it used to be that "no-one ever got fired for choosing IBM", so it's certainally possible to topple the Microsoft monopoly - it just isn't going to happen overnight.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
I to have been using linux at my desktop for many years now, and liking it very much.
However, when compared to windows, everything appears to be very slow. Launching of windows, getting visual feedback, it's all a bit snappier on windows, on the same pc. I think most people that come from a windows world trying linux+KDE or something will be disappointed with the speed of operation.
Maybe in a couple of years, with processors in the 100GHz range this won't matter anymore (although a new layer will be added by then to slow things down even more) but for now I see a lot of hurdles to overcome
no sig error.
Ximian rules! everything you need for a desktop
and self installing. easy to update with the provided
red-carpet tool go to
www.ximian.com
to install run as root
lynx -source go-gnome.com | sh
I know that everyone is always saying this, but there are a few things that "linux" needs to do to gain the average user's desktop.
I use SuSE 7.3, and love it, but there are a few things that were somewhat difficult for me to figure out, and I can't imagine what the non-techie user would do about these things.
-printing: it is currently a shade less than a nightmare to configure printing in linux. I believe this varies wildly depending on what printer you are using. One false move, and your printer starts printing a million pages of gibberish.
-Internet connectivity: I think the biggest hurdle for this one is the evil WinModem. Also, some ISP's just plain don't have a clue how to help users set up connections using linux.
Some other ideas:
-I have no idea how this one might be implemented, but some sort of "sanctioned" place for technical support for users would be good. I think one central place would give users some comfort instead of being told that they need to find their technical support on newsgroups.
-We can always use more support from hardware manufacturers. This seems to be getting better and better all the time!
-Lastly, the ubiquitous Games! We need more!
barnisinko
Love the use of MS Powerpoint for the slideshow.
--
b0rk!
I dont want Linux to "succeed on the desktop" - but i am a blackbox-purist, so my two cents probably arent important?
Dude! Stop it with the 3 mouse button bitching already!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, I hear there is already some good support for Winmodems, especially those with the Lucent chipset. There's even some vendor support for other chipsets.
Does anyone know if any of the distributions include Winmodem support yet?
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
I use Linux every day. I love Linux. I appreciate more than I can say all the hard work the developers have put in.
That being said, there is *no way* it is anywhere near ready for the desktop. I had problems with Grub the other day on my Red Hat box and it took me about 45 minutes to track down the solution and correct it via a rescue disk.
My mom could never in a million years do that, nor would she want too. The top three reasons Linux won't be on a computer desktop soon, as I see them are:
1. Still too difficult to use, though light years ahead of where it was.
2. Not enough applications that "Joe User" can go buy in a store, all nice and shrinkwrapped.
3. No Microsoft Apps. I don't care about that, and you probably don't either, but a whole world of people have their documents, presentations and spreadsheets in MS format and need office, at a minimum.
Personally I like all the window managers since fvwm and have no problems but being a computer nerd it's a tad different than explaining to my grandma that to get her optical mouse to reinit she needs to kill XWindows and startx.
Just do Ctrl-Alt-Backspace: that's simple enough...It will kill the current X session and restart it automatically (if you've setup X to run automatically at boot time, which you would do for grandma anyway). Noted advantage over Ctrl-Alt-Del: it doesn't reboot the whole machine, so it's a lot quicker. And if that doesn't work, well the ole' three-finger-salute does work as well.
Linux is as easy as Windows, only different.
Reminder: find a new sig
Gobe Productive is coming to Linux and it's pretty darn good. Check out their trial version on Windows. This will bring a lot of business users over to Linux.
...Marketing
I know flames will fly, and not a lot of people believe in it, but that's what MS has a big advantage in. People watch TV. People see MS ads. People might occasionally see an apple ad. People only see IBM's Linux Server ad (and the common person has no clue what its about).
Also, maybe having some local demo's in malls. Just to let people play with it, like they do in bestbuy, etc...
See what its like so you don't need to be afraid...
If someone made a good commerical ad and had demos in public places that showed how pretty it is, how inexpensive it is (people will need to buy it for the support), and how there aren't licenses and most everything is free, then you'd have a "general layman interest."
That "general layman interest" is a catalyst Linux needs. Its powerful. That's when people "try" things. Isn't that all we're asking for? Just "try" it??
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
>In a nutshell, the Linux community must develop both
.rpm format; but apt-get handles dependencies more gracefully. Perhaps what we need is a synthesis of the two, which would use the .rpm file format and apt-get's syntax. Instead of having a centralized package depot like apt, or many randomly distributed files like rpm, you strike a balance: maintain a server that lists current URLs for packages, which would be hosted on the project's page instead of centrally. Typing "rpm-get install Snicklefritz1.3" would check the central database for current URLs of the RPM and its dependency BruberMIPS0.9.5, download them from two different sites and install them. (Note: the "spell" system in Sorcery GNU/Linux works kind of like this, only it downloads source and auto-compiles instead of downloading pre-built packages.)
>a quality GUI system for configuring hardware and a
>standardized system for installing and removing
>software. Developers must be persuaded to provide
>Linux drivers, especially for "Winmodems," and to
>port their software products to Linux.
Agreed on the need for a GUI "system properties" type hardware configurator. KDE's hardware configuration leaves something to be desired. (Specifically, it doesn't offer much in the way of actual configuration options. If you want to do any non-trivial fiddling with your hardware, you might as well go straight to a console, 'cause you're going to need it anyway.)
As for installing and removing software, it would be good to have a more-or-less universal software management system. The two current contenders are RPM and Debian's apt-get, of course. Both have advantages and disadvantages -- for example, it's more common to find fresh builds of programs in
In addition to persuading companies to release Linux drivers for their hardware, we also need to convince them to open-source the drivers. I seem to recall ATI already did this. There is even less reason than usual to make your driver proprietary; after all, the driver is useless without the hardware to match. People would still have to buy the product in order to get use out of the driver, and in the meantime students could study the driver code to learn about low-level hardware interaction. And stuff. (nVidia, are you listening?)
About all linux needs to make it into the desktop world is ease of use for Eye DE 10 T's, by adding "wizards", or gui configs. And start asking questions in plain english as obbosed to "techeese".
-- Tim
TKrabec Pahh
Linux is on my desktop, and it hasn't failed me yet!
When you can give the user a "launch the installer, ask a couple simple questions, watch it install the files, and put icons wherever the user wants" installation system then you will have a better chance at the desktop. Even better if the uninstall is just as easy.
I mean, what the Hell are dependancies to the Winbox user? And why should they care? Apt-get is close, but not enough.
Eyecandy is all well and good, but if they can't install programs easily then it's not going to work.
Yay. Taco made another comment about Apple mice.
Color me surprised.
C-X C-S
Makign j0eks about teh appel m0ose is FUNEE!!!
Better than a 3-button mouse would be an interchangeable module there in the "trackpad" space -- a space for whatever pointing device the user preferred. (And Apple could tell hardware manus: here are the specs, free. Go make things.) I would greatly prefer my iBook to have a trackpoint-type pointer, because I think they're millions of times nicer than touchpads. The other advantages (it was a good deal, and the battery is better than most laptops) ended up winning out, but I do curse the silly touchpad. Would be great to be swap out the touchpad for a trackpoint.
I haven't used a trackball on a laptop lately, but current optical desktop trackballsare great, and I didn't mind it on my powerbook in 1993, so maybe that would be another option.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I recently helped a fellow CS grad student install Linux on his laptop. KDE looks pretty, Netscape 6 runs great, and emacs handles all the text editing he needs. But frankly, I find it hard to advocate Linux to replace his Windows partition entirely.
It's really the distribution taken as a whole that counts. This includes drivers, program setup, configuration, etc.
We ran into some stupidity when installing Linux. When the computer goes into suspend mode and then wakes up, XFree86 would hang. In order to play games, he has to kill off aRTs daemon to get reasonable performance; and if he kills it off, he'll have no sound in KDE. When configured for DHCP and the laptop is disconnected from network, system start up would take a long time (older Windows also have this problem, but not 2000 and XP). There are a few more problems like these, and they really look silly to my friend who has been a long time Windows user.
I told him a Linux system is a pain to set up the way you want it, but after it's set up it'll rarely choke on you. This has generally been my experience running Linux every day. Fortunately we had most things working and he's happily dual-booting between Linux and Windows.
One of the killer things about my OS X Powerbook is how I can plug my digital camera or FireWire cd burner and it not only has a driver, it already knows what to do with the device. With my camera, it automatically asks me if I want to transfer all the pictures off the camera.
I've never bothered hooking it up to my Linux box. I'm sure nothing would happen.
Where Apple goes, often most of the industry follows. Jobs' "Digital Hub" strategy is dead on once you've seen it in action. It makes a computer really useful for the home user.
For the business, I am increasingly in doubt. Microsoft file formats are so common it's futile to try to use Linux in the office. If the free office suites do the job, fine. But I think the only place Linux will succeed are in custom installations (like the Burlington Coat Factory point of sales units) or where cost is essential (like the city using Linux for offices in the Florida Keys).
For the business user on the go, Linux won't make it unless there is a desktop with the kind of commercial development behind it like Apple's or Microsoft's. The level of integration and consistency of interface needed is far, far away in the Linux world.
But Linux will fail on the desktop. Microsoft will make sure of that.
What app is there for linux, Office, Acrobat? Sure some may be compatable but MS Office will always rule, PDF creation in Acrobat will always rule, just one click any you have a great lookin PDF file, a few more clicks you have bookmarks and set links and any novice can do that, spend more time you do forms, or creat FFD files.
So go ahead all you cheap ass linux freaks, I'm sick of this Linux shit, get a life you nerds.
since a large percentage of the desktop users only use the internet and processing of .doc files all we need is some icon recognition and an install that doesnt ask too many questions. Put some Icons on the Desktop labeled "internet" and "office". Take away the X configuration by putting some safe values default and add trimmed xconfig that just lets you change resoulution and color. A plain english Network setup and.. Whalla! linux on the desktop. Of course they have to leave in the stuff that all of us love but we can click an extra button to get it. Just make it Dumb by default.
:)(smile)
Unless you want to be tech support 24x7 (oh wait I already am!)
I believe that Microsoft is going to be facing an uphill battle to maintain their high OS prices. Given that even Walmart is now selling an OS empty computer, the window of opportunity is there. When a good internet-ready PC costs less than $500, it's hard to justify 'bundling' an OS for another $150 or $200. It is the most costly piece. I believe that some OEM manufacturers will eventually establish a baseline OS that has minimal cost overhead due to it's reliance on open source. When computers/PCs become disposable commodities (e.g. $500 every other year), the margins will become so low Micorosft will simply exit the market. They already know that this is the path with their convergence on the "home hub" X-box model. The word processor, e-mail, and internet browser haven't changed that much in the last 10 years...feature bloat I can do without, and so will consumers when they can save a couple of $100 a purchase...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Installing SuSE 7.3, Red Hat 7.2, Mandrake 8.1, Lycoris DesktopLX or Caldera 3.1 is as easy as installing Windows
I've at least seen the others, but has anyone used this Lycoris distro? How does it stack up?
--saint
As an oldtime user of Linux I DO have the advantage of being at home on it. I've used Linux as my desktop for seven years. (Mostly KDE.)
The interesting thing is that I throw people on it without any training to see what happens.
F.ex. an eleven year old girl sat down and logged in (I gave her the password) and configured it just the way she liked it.
She installs software and plays games, does research online and writes school reports without ANY help from me. She's not trained on computers either, just not afraid.
I've thrown grownups on it too, and as long as they are not afraid of trying, they think it looks great and is easy to work with.
So I don't know that it's not ready, except for thoses who don't understand or are against change. I agree that it is not quite where windows is at, after all these years, but don't throw it away either. Many offices could readily change and have the tools they need using Linux, and gain the stability and speed we come to love.
It just does not cover ALL desktop needs.
I don't think this is really an issue. Linux has been my only OS at work and at home for 2 years now. Ever hear of plain text? Very cross platform compatible it is. Openoffice opens all the MS format docs I've ever had to open. I've not felt pressured in the least to install any other OS at all besides for curiosities sake. My wife uses linux, my mom uses linux, and she's just turned 60, my kids use linux. You just don't need anything else and if you think you do, you just haven't looked at all the apps that come in any new linux distribution. This desktop argument is stale, old news, and a waste of time. Linux has already taken over the desktop on the 6 machines I have access too, and quite a few more of my friends machines.
/dTd
Here, write your own script.
;)
$FREE_OS *Won't* Fail on the $OS_APP_TYPE ?
Posted by $EVIL_EDITOR on $DATE
from the $LAME_BYLINE dept.
$KARMA_GRUBBING_USER sent in a story claiming that $FREE_OS will Succeed on the $OS_APP_TYPE, and not just the $OTHER_OS_APP_TYPE where it has already had much success. I think that the latest version of $WINDOW_SYSTEM has demonstrated that it can compete, but with the increasing dependance on $PROPRIETARY_STANDARD that have no support on $FREE_OS, it's going to be awfully difficult. That said, $FREE_OS has been on my $OS_APP_TYPE for $LENGTH_OF_TIME, and I don't plan on changing it. (Maybe if $ALTERNATIVE_COMPUTER_MANUFACTURER released $COMPUTER_TYPE with $FEATURE I'd at least have an option
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Yes, because when I buy an IBM/HP/Gateway/Dell/etc/etc/etc/etc I never replace the mouse that came with it because it's such a perfect mouse in every way.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be such a huge market for different mice. Yes Mac ships with a crappy mouse. So do all other computers. Get over it, get off your lazy ass and buy a $10 fucking mouse.
"I can't consider buying a Mac because it doesn't have a good mouse" "goatse.cx" "I'd love to see a beowulf cluster of" "Cowboy Neal option". PLEASE RETIRE THESE MEANINGLESS ANACHRONISMS!
(rant mode off)
this is getting old and so are you
blog
I just finished a couple of weeks trying to be primarily a Linux client on our company network (I was using Mandrake 8.1 -- a Great release). I am now installing windoz 2000. Why? Not that I don't like linux, I've put it on multiple laptops, I have a server I run at home and I like to do my perl/cgi development on linux. No, it is because of these reasons:
...
... Next time I'd just ignore the warnings and install everything as root.
... Linux is neat ... Linux is stable ...
1. No NOTES client. We use LN for e-mail and many DBs. Tried VMWARE desktop 3.0 -- too slow, frequent lock-ups (which require the blue checking HD deal -- and take time). Also didn't like the smaller screen (tried the full screen mode and this locked up both the VM and linux twice). Tried hitting LN through a browser (works, but doesn't have a fraction of the features and ease on the client).
2. Limited support for Netware. Only way to map to a network drive was to use the console to do ipx_configure and ncpmount -- it works and I can put it in my start-up script, but not easy for the average user
3. Never did get the network printer working. Tried HardDrake MANY times with MANY settings and never once had anything exit the printer. Even worse -- no messages at all about where my test pages might have gone (even an obscure queue not found message might have helped in my trouble shooting).
4. Getting sound working was a trial. After buying a new sound card and disabling the MB on-board sound, I still needed to purchase the OSS driver to get it working, but don't play around with the controls or you will have what sounds like a 78 piled high with dust. And volume is all over the map Xmms needs my volume WAY UP, but the Mandrake boot song WAY LOW - forget and you are blasted out.
5. Not being root all the time is the mantra - and yet everything I tried to do seemed to want me that way. SU all day long. No SU editor - I guess you need to evoke a graphical based editor from a console where you've logging as SU. Maybe I'm an idiot
Enough rant
And yet it is still too complex for my average windows type user. So even though I feel like a turn-coat -- I am back to W2000 (actually NT4 has been a pretty good and bullet-proof OS for me over the last couple years) and a dual boot Drake 8.1 for development.
OK we have KDE and Gnome and a great moltitude of window managers and desktop apps.
I think the real problem remains X(Free): it's too heavy and it doesn't provide any form of widget directly.
Maybe I am wrong but what we need is a linux kernel with a decent, fast, reliable and self-contained GUI (please don't forget the "classic" tty shell such as bash).
What we get today is a GUI with tons of layers (CORBA, DCOP, QT, GTK, and so on...) that reduce the performances and create a lot of problems during compiling because the incredible number of libs dependencies.
If someone needs X, well, he could use it in "rootless" mode on the GUI as already happen in Mac OS X.
A simple installer should complete this visionary desktop-oriented distribuition of Linux.
when it will be able to run most Windows applications and use Windows drivers. Discuss.
Also, the claim that "No one would buy a car with a welded-shut hood" is much further from the truth than the author imagines. I bought a new car last year, and when i brought it to the dealer a month later for the first check up, it turned out that the hood latch was defective, and hood wouldn't open! Guess what - i didn't notice it, because i hadn't tried opening the hood, and in fact i have tried never opening it since! I just preferred to trust the mechanic that there was a problem with the hood and that they fixed it.
And most people I know who own new cars treat them exactly the same way: let the mechanic worry what's inside and focus on driving. Though as a geek I have different expectations of software, I understand that most people use software the way I use my car. So, for linux to prevail on the desktop, it is not sufficient to argue that proprietory software doesn't let you know what's inside. Joe User doesn't care. They do care, however, about how much it costs and how well it works.
Get *over* the fact that Macs only have one button! That's the *silliest* reason I've heard *not* to buy one. The OS supports multiple buttons - hook up a USB mouse, away you go... left click, right click, middle-click, scroll, go *wild*.
Sure, I understand missing the extra mouse buttons on the TiBook, especially when running Linux. I know, I have one. *But*, you'll note on Apple's keyboard layout that the Apple key and a secondary Enter key are located on either side of the keyboard. Simply remap them as mousebuttons in YellowDog or your Linux of choice. They're within easy reach when your hand is on the trackpad and work quite well.
Unless you're running X I suppose, but trust me, outside of Gimp or remote X logins, there's very little reason to run X.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Linux. Its a daily part of my life...as a server OS that maximizes my old i386 hardware. I won't be using MacOS X Server either. The PPC hardware is too nice to stuff in a closet. It begs to be used by human hands.
I think its time for hard core Linux zealots to really examine what a beauty MacOS X is. Pop over to CompUSA or an Apple Store, shove the crowd in front of the new iMac to the side, click on the Terminal icon and see what a pure UNIX experience is really like. After that, I think your fear of Steve Jobs and his magical black turtleneck will go away.
Note to CmdrTaco: If I hear another mouse button joke and Mac from you, I am going to hand Ms. Fent an original iMac hockey puck mouse so she can beat you into submission. The PowerBook G4 has USB, take some of that dowry and buy one.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Dominance on the Desktop is largely a function of what people are used to in a user interface.
A strange thing happened in the last three years of running Linux on my desktop. I have become so used to it, that it becomes a real pain in the ass for me to use non-X desktops. This is because Windows, the most common desktop out there, doesn't use the middle button for pasting text highlighted in one window into another window.
I didn't realize how much of a convenience this is until I started using Windows for about ten minutes (printing up resumes in a Kinko's. If you must know, my printer is kaput, hardware problem. :() All the sudden it wasn't N steps, it was N+4 steps to copy and paste text, and I found that my productivity was slower than it could have been.
On the other hand, my two former roommates (when and if they borrow my computer) always start surfing the web by opening a Netscape session. This is true even when I have a Galeon session open and displaying a web page in that very same part of the desktop. (see footnote 1). This never fails. It's as predictable as a pendulum in a grandfather clock.
This suggests a strategy for taking over the Desktop market. Fortunately, it's one that Ximian and KDE seem to already have in mind: emulate the functionality of Windows and/or Mac as much as possible, to make new users happy. Or sorta happy. Granted, GNOME and KDE aren't as lightweight and geeky as, say, WindowMaker, but they're free and close enough to Windows and Mac so that Windows and Mac users (in many cases) can make the switch to Linux and not feel totally useless.
(Footnote 1: I know what you're thinking: "Dude, you left yourself logged on. *Smack*." Yep, I leave myself logged on to my own Linux box for days on end. In any other setting besides the privacy of my own home, this would be a problem.)
Finding God in a Dog
Look at Microsoft--yes, that's right, the Evil Empire. What you have there is an absolutely massive, coordinated, and most importantly, deadline-oriented effort towards the development of Windows and associated applications. Device manufacturers can schedule the writing of their drivers for Windows because they have an excellent idea of when and what the next version of Windows is going to be.
Then, of course, there are the applications. Let's take MS Office. It is, quite simply, the best office suite out there. Its total functionality is far beyond what is offered by StarOffice or KOffice. I've heard the argument "Oh, but those two do enough for the average user." It doesn't matter if they do; they don't have the marketing or the clout to reach the average user. The only way this would happen is if the efforts in their development were to reach a level equal to that of Microsoft. This is definitely possible--look at Adobe Photoshop. It is a direct competitor to Microsoft's Picture It!, but it is the industry standard. Why? The resources and the coordination of the efforts behind its development.
It is important to understand the sheer amount of work that gets done at the Evil Empire--they're not just sitting on their butts; they work all the time. Their software development is a picture of coordination and organization; it's also a level of productivity that you will only find in paid employees that are content in their jobs.
The coolest voice ever.
Linux is not a "Windows Emulator" so when you are able to learn that...discuss.
-- Powered By Linux
The article, IMHO, was excellent, and its call for a standard system of installing & uninstalling software is right on (We need the equiv. of InstallShield for linux apps).
However, for Linux to really make an inroads, it needs something which is usually very overlooked: Windows NT Authentication!!
I know this is a big request, and it probably constitutes breaking the DMCA since its a closed, proprietary system, but its the truth. I can name over 50 people right now who would never use windows, except that they have to because their corporate intranets run on IIS, and they can't access them under Linux.
Until Konqueror or Mozilla can understand WinNT Authentication, Linux won't be able to be effectively used in a mixed environment where Windows is the server (lots of large companies use this configuration; Mine sure does.) Just my $0.02.
I think LUGs (Linux User Groups) could be more proactive in not only gaining members but educating people on the usablity of Linux.
.NET reminders on their mind. People can walk into any store and play with machines that have Windows and OS-X installed. We should be able to do this with Linux too.
If you seen some of the Video Professor commercials, they apparently go out into malls and set up and let people try out their software (teaches basic computing skills) for free.
What if LUGs around the country got into the community, perhaps even tying in with a local computer shop if they were Linux friendly, and let regular people see what Linux looks and feels like? There is so much FUD going around and people think Linux is some command line, black and white, terminal-looking OS.
If they don't tie in with a computer shop, I would *think* they should be able to do this for little if any cost from the mall as long as they are a non-profit group and weren't selling anything.
And I'd love to see the their faces when they ask how much it costs or see how many programs come included. When I first tentatively loaded Mandrake Linux 8.0 last May, I was blown away by how many programs came with it and how easy it was to install.
I think the masses should be particuarly receptive these days. It's been enough time for those demands to register that new Christmas XP loaded PC and sign up with
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Ok here goes for the ubiquitous over Zealous Apple users comment: Dammit if you can afford a TiBook - get yourself out to {name of super computer store near you} and buy one. Lazy bastard. ;-)
If you haven't tried a recent Linux distribution, you will be pleasantly surprised at its evolution.
I recently had the experience of installing Redhat 7.2 onto a laptop. Yes, the install was easy, but I made a mistake in setting up the resolution for X which could not be corrected from within X at all. Xconfigurator was of no help either. I had no choice but to go back to the install and try to reinstall X and try again, but even that did not work. Ultimately, I had to redo the *entire* install from scratch to solve my problem.
So sure, maybe it is easy to use (if you're lucky), but is there some kind of windowing manager out there which allows you to change the screen resolution and color depth just by right clicking the mouse? Yea, I know this might be somewhat off topic, but I'd like to know.
BTW though, the laptop is now running flawlessly with the corrected installation I did, no problems at all.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
It is the problem.
Linux cannot fail to survive on Desktop. A year ago Windows 98 and NT was able to be bought in most stores and as OEM. But now the only thing you can buy with computer and on the shelves is Win XP. With all its spyware (I mean MS registration). People just becomes tired of WinXP.
I work with (and for!) a lot of people who use and like Windows. I was also part of a test group at our company that switched from Outlook / MS Office to Netscape 6.2 email / StarOffice, and I have several juicy tidbits regarding this that fit in well with this article.
I just got finished setting up three computers with Windows XP Home from Dell. Computers really are a commodity now -- the Dells were gorgeous, easy to open, and functioned perfectly for a cost of $588 each (shipped!) Google "Dell refurbished" for other good deals. But I digress.
I set my mother and my dad's secretary up with the new computers (two at the office and one at my parents' house.) Keep in mind that Windows XP is about as far from Windows 98 (which is what they had) as you can get while still being Windows, and Office XP is somewhat different from Office 2000.
With two clicks I had set up a system whereby they could connect the secretary's 56k modem (my parents live/work in the middle of nowhere) to the Internet and have everyone else's computer connect through hers. I then set up remote disconnect -- where it shows the icon in your system tray and you can connect and disconnect the modem from any computer in the office. Windows XP comes with a nifty disk that you can put into any Windows computer (besides Windows 2000) and set up the connection sharing.
With another few clicks I had set up the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard, which uses Ethernet or a serial cable to connect to the other computer and download settings (fonts, favorites, etc.) I even backed up other programs and had them transferred automatically.
When my mom plugs in a digital camera, a wizard pops up and shows her all the pictures on the camera. She can then copy them to a disk or to the hard drive. She can print 4x6s, 3x5s, or wallet prints from the OS. Burning files to a CD is as easy as selecting the files, dragging them to the CD drive, and clicking Write To CD. Yes, folks, Windows XP may have a whole host of Big Brother issues (most of which I turned off upon installation), but it sure is easier to use. The whole experience reminded me of the Macintosh.
Compare this with installing Linux. Even setting up Linux to see NTFS drives is a pain, let alone transferrring files and settings (since that is most likely what you are going to want to do upon installation.) I've used Mandrake pretty extensively, and even it has some weird problems (like asking which version of XFree86 you want to use, and not automatically detecting the monitor and setting a reasonable resolution.) It took me hours to figure out how to get Mandrake to change to a lower resolution (Ctrl + -). There is little documentation. And this is on Mandrake 8.1.
There is just a lot of stuff on Linux that is poorly documented and/or buggy, and that carries over to the Windows versions of open-source software in a lot of cases. Netscape 6.2 (which I am using on a daily basis) is easily one of the worst email clients I have ever used. It won't let you switch on-the-fly between text and HTML mode. Attachments randomly refuse to open. At least it's stable, which is more than I can say for any version of Staroffice (5.2 or 6.0 beta.) Save a file as Excel format? Crash. Open a large file? Crash. Apply special formatting? Crash. I'm running Windows 2000, so no, this has nothing to do with Microsoft. A favorite quote of a co-worker also on this project is "Yeah, I use StarOffice to open documents, but if I want to get any real work done, I just use Excel."
It's not there, and after seeing Windows XP (which, BTW, has no activation bull if you buy it preinstalled), I'm not convinced that it ever will be. I will happily use Linux on the server, but I consider Windows an excellent client OS.
See my post history / journal if you want more info.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Linux adoption is a game of the mind, not product. Whatever the tech-savvy may say, Joe User will remain convinced that Linux is a tough-to-use OS, primarily meant for servers.
Bottm line: Changin perceptions is a lot harder than putting together a crack OS. Windows has got too much going for it ("better product" is not one of them) for Linux to get anywhere close.
Knowing the /. conventional wisdom on this subject, I'll probably get branded as a troll. But here's my take: So long as there is the degree of fragmentation in the Linux world as currently exists, a mass migration to Linux via the desktop is highly unlikely. Why? Because people don't want to have to chose between two desktop managers, between ten different word processors, between x different flavors of y.
This is not an indictment against freedom to choose! But it's been my observation that most people (especially the tech-unsavvy) don't want to have to choose if at all possible. They want one desktop, one word processor, one of y.
For Linux to break the M$ stronghold, distros will need to provide two things: (1) A "simple" install which provides the typical user with the minimum (ideal: zero) number of installation options, and (2) an "expert" install option for those of us who want to tweak our systems to the nth degree and not use an install process aimed at the LCD of the population.
Distro vendors themselves will need to agree on what a "simple" install is comprised of...and use the same components. Otherwise, we're back to square one on the fragmentation issue. Developers can make this process easier by putting aside their petty disagreements and pooling their energies to make production-quality software a reality, rather than the endless stream of beta-version software that never seems to quite make the jump to release-quality.
I'm so sick of hearing about how Linux isn't ready for the desktop. 'Digitial hub'? 'Integrated office suite'? By those standards, Windows was never ready for the desktop either! If we follow MS's own argument, their world-dominant desktop OS wasn't and never has been ready!
Microsoft should face up to their own arguments and realize that they've never really been ready for the desktop. Anybody who remembers all the days of fighting with emm386.sys parameters in their config.sys will agree with me here. Those problems lasted will into Windows '95 (which didn't come out until almost 1996) and the office suite didn't really get shoved in until Office '97.
MacOS had an 'integrated office suite' in 1986, maybe even before. They even had Hypercard as an 'application development platform' analogous to the Web with its Java applets and servlets. They had the Apple Desktop Bus before USB was even vaporware. They've been a full decade ahead of the curve and MS has been playing catchup.
By the MS Marketing Machine's own reasoning, we should all use Macs, they've been 'ready for the desktop' better and longer than either Windows or Linux.
Or maybe everyone should get a clue and just use what freaking works for them. I've been running Linux almost exclusively since 1994. It was ready for me eight years ago. It's total BS that MS keeps re-defining what it means to be 'ready for the desktop' and sheey idiocy that the entire industry forgets its own history and eats it all up in a crass feeding frenzy.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Developers don't have a way of providing a universal device driver that will work under any release of a kernel. Heck, a device driver for 2.4.10 won't easily work in 2.4.17! Exactly how is a device manufacturer going to release a driver (either open source or binary) that an end user can *easily* install? As it is right now, device manufacturers who support Linux have to do so with little added expense. Mostly because most of the people using Linux are technically adept enough to get their devices drivers working. But if Linux gets more popular on the desktop, the cost to device manufacturers of supporting Linux is going to dramatically increase as end users aren't able to install their device driver by themselves. I think this is going to be a limiting factor on Linux's popularity.
Until a device manufacturer can easily install their device driver in to just about any running linux kernel, I don't see them jumping on board to provide linux drivers. Until that happens, I don't see linux making much headway on the desktop.
I don't like this. I run debian on every computer I own. I'd really like to see Linux become popular on the desktop, but I think it has to overcome many hurdles. One of which is easily allowing device manufacturers to install their drivers.
$.02.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
is when the most commonly used Xwindows application is not Xterm ;)
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
I have been successfully and happily using Linux with Ximian as by desktop for about six months. Next week I am going to have to start using Windoze again unless somebody can recommend a way to view Quicktime 5 w/ Sorenson on Linux, both standalone and embedded within a webpage. I also need SMIL support.
I've tried vmware, its Quicktime performance is pathetic (I have an 800Mhz machine w/ 256 MB RAM). I've also tried the Crossover plugin with little to no success.
Why the heck doesn't apple release a Quicktime for Linux?
How about a set of Pom-Poms for all articles that are just shameless cheerleading?
.xls ... Gnumeric ... OpenOffice, KOffice, antiword ... ghostview ... The Gimp, gqview, et al. ... Netscape 6
.doc
.p{s,df}
all kind of graphics
.xhtml
Anything else? I can't remember of other file formats I'm confronted with during daily work.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
To get linux adopted with an average computer user (2 y.o. box, w/ printer, scanner, windows), there are several things needed. First, they need to be able to get a set of Mandrake/Redhat/insert distro here CDs with a decent manual from their local computer store (or possibly online - but not d/ling ISOs). For the most part, this is already in place. Second, they need to be able to put the CD in the drive, and have it install with 10 button presses. Again, this is available with most distros (Mandrake esp.). Third. Their hardware should work out of the box. This is extra important for printers, scanners (usb!!) and winmodems. This is a big one. Many (most) parallel printers work fine, but usb printers and scanners are a big problem (Mandrake is trying to resolve this w/ their 8.2 release - currently available in beta2 form), and we all know about winmodems (although some have been known to work). Forth, applications. Joe/Jane so-and-so should be able to email a Word document home from work, and be able to view and print it with no loss of formatting, etc. Also, people don't need to be subjected to the deluge of different software options (case in point, a standard Mandrake 8.1 install comes with no fewer than 6 different browsers). Fifth, people need to be educated to the point that they can know what Linux is, what the differences, advantages and similarities between it and Windows, and how they can benifit from the switch. Finally, a potential user will have to want to switch. People have come to accept the failings of Windows, and they don't realise that they don't need to be subject to system crashes once or twice every day. Because of this, people will be reluctant to switch and put time and effort into learning a whole new system.
My other sig is funny!
(My diary entry from kuro5hin)
I've always been a Windows user. (Not a lover, just a user.) I never really had the chance to move into Linux. The one time I had successfully installed it, I jacked it up by trying to update it and screwing up all of the dependencies. (I eventually couldn't even boot anymore, and didn't feel like going through everything again.)
So I've used Windows almost consistently, from way back when Win3.1 was around. I've used Win95 -> Win98 -> Win2000. I've also used WinXP at work, and refuse to install it at home, because 1) it's mostly eye-candy (read: bloatware) and (most importantly) 2) it calls home. (No FUD, No third-party quotes; I've seen it myself.)
Regarding calling home, many XP-lovers vehemently deny this. Here's what I know and don't know: I do know that almost all MS products call home. I installed Tiny Personal Firewall at work and caught screensavers trying to connect to Microsoft, now why the hell would a --screensaver-- need to connect home. (Conspiracy Theory) Maybe because if the screensaver is on, you're probably not at you're computer, and therefore it's prime time to install new software, send back large amounts of data, or whatever. (/Conpiracy Theory)
I don't know what data they're sending back; however since at the time I ran almost all pirated software (including office2k, development tools, other stuff) I'm not/wasn't willing to take that risk. Furthermore, XP is a lot slower. It offers many "GUI-enhancing" features to make the interface look nicer (read: run slower). Switching to classic-mode pretty much gives you a little slower Win2000 with a few cool features (below) and a lot of privacy issues. So is worth the switch? Let's see.
The cool features of WinXP:
1) Logging in to another account while keeping one account logged in. Great, great feature. I hated having to turn off WinAmp just so I can get Administrator rights. However, since Win2000 has the "Run As" service to run programs with different permissions, and since only one program (Exact Audio Copy) wouldn't run correctly through "Run As", I could still drop into Admin mode, and burn CDs, install programs, etc, while basically still in Normal User mode.
2) Window grouping. Cool feature but not worth privacy issues.
3) System tray hiding. Cool feature, but again, not worth the privacy issues.
I know there were other nice features, but again, nothing so revolutionary that I even considered going to XP.
Anyways, so that's why I never went to XP. (I'm not going to even debate WinME, as that is just complete shit.)
Win2000 I will stand by. It's a relatively solid OS. Even when I pulled a running hard drive out of the drive, it didn't crash. It's also fast, and it's mostly a power system. Not that much eye-candy, but still a nice, clean interface. I'm not going to go too much into the good things about Win2000 since most of you already know them.
Why I switched:
The quick answer: I got trojan'ed. I don't know how they got in, I considered myself as having a pretty secure system, but they got in, and there was no way I could remove it. Oh well, shit happens. Since I had to format anyways, I decided to try out Linux. I d/l'ed and burned Mandrake 8.1 and Debuan 2.2r5, and tried installing both mutliple times. Debain I never really got working. (I could boot into it, but couldn't get the network up, and didn't have much time, so just to stuck to Mandrake.) Anyways, Mandraek has a very easy installation procedure (comparable to Windows). It detected most (all?) of my hardware correctly and set up my network without a hitch. It took me a while to get everything I wanted to work correctly, but after a few days I had it:
Things I wanted:
1) Network access, obvious
2) Good browser, email client, newsreader, IRC client, and AIM client
3) MP3 Player, and MP3 database tool (I have over 50 gigs of mp3s)
4) Movie player that supports Divx, MPG, and ASF as a minimum
5) Office software to read Microsoft docs
6) Other things so I could do my homework (Devlopment tools and editors).
I got everything except the movie player up immediately (Emacs, Mozilla/Galeon, Evolution, Pan, XChat, Gaim, Freeamp, and Gnumeric)
For the movie player, I tried a bunch of different tools (avifile, xmps, etc) but couldn't get them working very well. MPlayer requires self-compiling (due to compile-time optimizations) so I decided to go ahead and try that. MPlayer requires GCC 2.75 to compile, since 2.76 is buggy. Of course, Mandrake ships with 2.76. So I had to find old distros, and `rpm --force' install them over the newer files, along with changes some links so the correct tools were called. Anyways, after a lot bitching and moaning, I finally got it to compile. And in all honesty, MPlayer kicks some serious ass. (mplayerhq.hu) It supports about 20 or 30 different codecs, along with reading Win32 dlls. It's very fast and very clean. Highly recommend using that. (Additional features I found very cool were (all possible while in the middle of a video) 1) changing hue/contrast/brightness, 2) resyncing audio !!! 3) full keyboard controls and all sorts of other stuff. ) MPlayer is absolutely a bad ass product!
Anyways so now I finally had everything I really needed. I played with it for a while, and realized why I have absolutely no reason to go back to Windows. Let me explain:
What I like: (++ specifies features I -really- like.)
1) Everything is completely, really FREE.
2) Absolutely love being able to have true multiple logins. (Ctrl-Alt-Fx and login)
3) True console mode, with no X; True console emulation in X.
4) Multiple desktops, rolling up windows, Gnome applets.
5) Completely customizable X interface. (As in I'm not tied down to a single fancy interface: I use sawfish with Gnome, though Blackbox also rules)
6) Software:
Sawfish (++Setting your own key bindings.)
Galeon (++Tabbed windows)
Evolution
Gaim (++multiple protocols, plugins)
Biff (I'm using kaw_applet though)
ncftp
++++++MPlayer
FreeAmp (++internal database, exactly how I want it)
Gnumeric
Shell scripting
Things I don't like:
1) It doesn't think my video card supports 1280x1024 in 32-bit mode. Utter bullshit.
2) One of my cdroms isn't in great shape, and it sometimes locks when I try to read a cd. (Actually a I don't know if it really locks, but it goes into kernel panic, and then sits still for about a minute, when I hit reset out of impatience.)
3) There is no program as good as Dreamweaver. Bluefish is nice, but Dreamweaver was truly amazing.
Everything Windows has that I like I ahve found on Linux, for free (usually GPL'ed) and without ads. That's pretty f*cking cool. For the first time in my life, my computer is running on truly legit software. I also like that. Most importantly, the minute I started using Sawfish, and noticed the custom keybinding support, I absolutley fell in love with X. When I got Gnome also working alongside Sawfish, it became a truly cool system.
Windows isn't bad, and I actually like Win2000. However, in order to change the interface, you need to loada utility on top of the Win2000 interface (ie: WindowBlinds) which really slows the computer down. Here I can just change the interface, or even run just a pure X interface if I want absolutely very little memory usage.
Windows definitely has an edge when it comes to ease of installation and the learning curve, expecially since most people are already familiar with Windows. However, for anyone who wants a little more control, a litte more power or customization, Linux is definitely the OS of choice, especially now that almost all software exists on both OS's.
The entertainment industry and MS finally make it impossible for the average user to use their legally purchased media and devices in a manner that complies with the Fair Use Act.
Linux will take the desktop, it's just a matter of time. Remember to some companies, an operating system that can't run every little stupid-flash-game.exe is actually a good thing. The business desktop is different than the home desktop, they should be adressed differently. With a very specific set of goals per company/deparment it is a feasible target for many NOW. That is where great Linux desktop numbers will really begin.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
andicdotes [...] developpers [...] sklashdot [...] incoherant [...] slahsdotted
Hmmm - somebody in a rush to get an early post out, eh?
Linux is difficult and it sucks. No apps, no games, no emulation. Loads of packages, things I don't need and every distro released is barely backward compatible. it completely sucks.
That's it. What'll it take to get companies like mine to roll out Linux instead of Windows? Well, surely the cost of Linux is a lot more attractive than the idea of rolling out new Windows machines (W2K here, mostly). I'm a Linux user. I love it, especially on the server (and we have a number of Linux servers now at my company).
But our company has an investment made in infrastructure that it can't just throw away. One example - as much as I don't like it, we have Exchange handle email. Not just email, but more importantly, the calendar functionality, which lets us book meetings, meeting rooms and equipment (ie one of the projectors). We can exchange meeting requests/responses. We can look at each other's calendars to see who's available when, or where somebody is at any given time. In a larger company, this is very important because we can't keep tabs on everybody all the time.
So far there's been plenty of email clients available for Linux. There's been plenty of programs that can do calendars. But it's besides the point:
If a company like mine goes to Linux, they will have to have the ability to phase that change in, and thus retain compatibility with the existing tools and services that we use. Those who switch to Linux need to be able to share their data with the folks that stay with Windows, and vice-versa.
StarOffice gives us everything we need in terms of processing Word documents and Excel spreadsheets reasonably well. But until there's a compatible alternative to Outlook (all of it) that can connect to Exchange and handle the calendar functionality, you won't be able to convince anyone here to change over. As much as I love Linux, I can't switch my desktop machine over because I, like most everybody else in my company, rely on Outlook, as evil as that is.
Give me the opportunity and I'll switch - I've already switched a number of our servers to Linux, including all servers which run the application I develop. Give me a decent Linux alternative to Outlook, and I'm certain I could convert most of the company to Linux for their desktops.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Frankly, ask your father to install ICQ, the latest Mozilla, and an email client beside Outlook.
.NET).
.NET or Java WebStart. That's the path of the future (admittedly half-cooked right now).
They just can't. And that's the power of Microsoft. They lay everything out for these users, and that's it.
Installing software should not be part of most people life. New software should come to you automagically (hence the idea behind
setup.exe are not so easy for my father. He has to find the setup.exe, download it, and then...
1) He doesn't have enough hard disk space. What can he do? He doesn't know.
2) You are assuming he has administrator privileges on his machine. Now comes the virus man! Oh! That's user-friendly.
Frankly, users should not install software. Look at
So Microsoft has no edge right now. setup.exe are not for dummies! Not anymore than RPMs.
And frankly, installing rpms *is not hard*. You don't even need a console to do it.
You might have trouble selling a car with the hood literally welded shut, but the bulk of the cars sold today are effectively only a step or two removed from this for most of their owners. And if you think the "solution" is to sell engines and wheels and seats and glove compartments separately, so that people can assemble the car they really want themselves, you're living in some other universe. Linux vs Windows on the desktop isn't the battle, and thinking it is is the surest sign Linux will lose. The mass-market battle is about applications and setup, not operating systems and customizability. If people can walk into Circuit City and walk out with a $599 Linux machine that runs Office, IE, email and IM the moment they plug it in, they'll be happy to. In theory the corporate market has another layer of IT requirements that might lead them to different decisions, but in practice they almost always want basically the same thing.
The easiest (and maybe only) way Linux will succeed is not by convincing people that it's better than Windows, but by asserting that it's basically the same as Windows, just cheaper or faster or something, ala AMD vs Intel. "Different but better" is a much harder sell. Witness Apple's struggles, and they've got marketing and money, two things any open-source project will likely be short on.
actually the apps are there. they just need fine tuning.
the number one important thing that linux needs is a decent installer. Loki gave us one in their final death throwes.. it's awesome. and the like of KDE,gnome and EVERY app should drop what they are doing and start adapting it to their app.
To hell with making some minor bugfixes this week, get an installer on your app that even a lobotimized monkey can use.... that's the loki installer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
For the acronym impaired, and to escape the lameness filter, "You Have Been Trolled. Have A Nice Day." Remember, even Taco can't resist that urge to troll
:Peter
install: tar -xvzf pkg.tar.gz
/usr/lib, their config stuff in /etc, their bins in /usr/bin, etc. Scatterring you pkg crap everywhere is the MS way of doing things.
uninstall: rm -rf pkg
These commands work just fine. The problem with tools like rpm is that too many pkg maintainers think that they should install their libs in
Here's why. Even assuming that today's Linux Desktops are good, user friendly, etc, and assuming that there are tons of apps to replace those which currently run under Windows, and, assuming that Linux is cheap, and Windows costs $200 and comes with a case of the runs.... Linux still won't compete for the typical user desktop because Windows has what, about a ten year head start? The existing base of MILLIONS of Windows machines is why a new desktop for the PC won't work. The end users want something that will work perfectly fine (or at least good enough) with the screensaver they bought at Walmart five years ago... they want something that will let them easily (and wrecklessly) open silly attachments that their AOL buddies email them. It's all about what's there. It really has nothing to do with what's better. My opinion is that Linux may compete as a Power User Desktop, but never as a typical user desktop.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Windows applications and Windows drivers can stay in Windows and watch their market dissapear if Linux achieves desktop goals. Windows application emulation is an ugly path that only supports the proven monopolist.
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
i use linux as my desktop but I'm an apache/web admin so it makes sense. I dont want to see it become a popular desktop, cuz then you'd get AOL and all sorts of needless crap. I was hoping this issue died last year and that the linux 'community' (whatever that is) would focus on making linux the top industrial strength backside to our tech lives. Why so obsessed with the freakin desktop? Look, if you want your grandma to have a *nix on her desk then buy her a mac.
Quit with the juvenile broken-record "3-button-mouse" bit already! Any of the following that are USB-compatible will work:
rooooar
Now, I'm not saying that anyone with a pair of neurons and some understanding of linux wouldn't be able to fix these things, get my triple boot working, and have me singing the praises of Linus within a five minute keyboard-clanging session, but this is NOT accessible to people who expect to pop in an install CD, wait 20 minutes, and start downloading porn. The floppy drive failure in Mandrake was most disappointing, since that's supposed to be the distro for newbies, and because I had to use the damned floppy drive to boot mandrake (having installed lilo to hda3 instead of hda)!
I'm back to a single-OS setup now (yes, still win2000), and planning to just buy another system on which to experiment with Linux. The point of that ramble was that if Linux is not ready for Windows-proficient users wanting to make a change, or experiment with something new, then it's certainly not ready for for the "ooh, I can make the cursor different colors!" crowd. Here's hoping Mandrake 8.2 fixes that floppy glitch, and saves me the cost of a second system.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Linux will win the desktop war? There is no desktop war. Microsoft owns the desktop. Apple is nipping at their dominance. Linux is not even on the map. There isn't a war, not even a battle.
when Earth is hit by a major asteroid, or something.
One really, really obvious feature that I've never seen is integration of the command line shell and a file manager. A lot of file managers let you open up a file manager view of a directory from the command line (even MS Windows with "start "). Except for a hack I saw once in Windows Explorer, I've never seen the ability to launch a command line shell set to the directory you're currently viewing in the file manager. This feature alone would make me use X windows whenever I had any choice in the matter.
Or even more exciting, If you could have a window that was half-command line, half-file manager, such that when you changed directories in one half, it would change directories in the other?
Walmart is selling computers without windows.
Get a free ipod.
All those tools need to agree on a very exact format specs or else the user cannot use the tools together.
;) While there is still plenty of room for the toolbox, its use is largely confined to professionals and enthusiasts that require a high degree of specialization.
All those tools need to operate in roughly the same way or else the user will have to learn a lot more.
All those tool developers need to remember that 99% of their market is for that subset of features that the dedicated application needs. Thus, adding much more will bloat it with complexity and size that simply does not reward the user.
All those tool developers all need to setup their applications with the majority of the users tasks in mind so they don't force the users to do more work than is necessary.
All those tool developers should provide a certain amount of interoperability besides just file formating and such. e.g., How does the user perform an "undo" after one tool has been applied?
All those tools need to agree to collaborate on support problems rather than pointing fingers at other tools.
The point is that creating seperate tools in this fashion is simply not appropriate for most applications. The organization and development costs for this "tool" methodology to make it appropriate for the end users totally exceeds the costs to produce a superior application under the "traditional" unified application framework. The analogy that I'd make, in response to the "tool box" analogy, is what tool do most users, that actually use tools, actually carry with them? A leatherman (and maybe a limited toolbox at home). The toolbox is too bulky and ackward in most situations where a leatherman (or like tool) is totally appropriate.
What you are doing is laughing at the Swiss Army knife that is MS and kin that tries to be everything to all people and assuming that the toolbox is the best solution because the swiss army knife is almost useless. Well it's not impossible to devise a better unified tool than both for most users. Its name is the Leatherman
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since a 3 button trackpad module should be available from any number of OEMs, what's keeping a 3rd party from just retrofitting them? At the price of a TiBook, an extra $60 shouldn't matter.
What about those of us who do use it, and find it usable for some tasks but completely broken from a basic User Interaction perspective? Slashdot readers, by and large, demonstrate utter cluelesslness about basic human-computer interaction principles. If *they* like it, every target market should like it! And if they don't, well, slapping a GUI and some icons onto it will convince everyone else. The fact that the KDE and Gnome environments are pretty does *not* mean that the Linux platform has good UI. It only means that an attractive shell has been painted on. I like linux. It will never succeed if partisans refuse to admit its true weaknesses. --the verb
no apps? no emulation? have you used linux in the last few years?
People who think such a shift can never happen should have a read of "The innovators dilema". A sudden dumping of one technology in favour of another newer/cheaper/etc. can and does happen (look at the speed with which sun workstations got dumped in favour of PCs or before that when Vax's got dumped in favour of Sparc's ....). The question seems to me to be what extra does a Linux Desktop bring besides being an MS look-a-like ...
And also Solaris and IRIX and HP-UX and AIX. Do I need to define "success" for you?
I've lost track of the articles he's posted that end with "I wish Macs had more buttons on their mice..."
This article isn't even remotely related to Macs!
This article actually brought a smile to my face...
"Quite a few distributions of the Linux desktop are close to becoming products that can successfully compete against Microsoft Windows."
Translation: It's still not there yet.
"Each system can be installed without harming Windows."
Indeed, that's the first step. The second step is to automatically transfer / map "My Documents", "Favorites", "Fonts", etc. I haven't yet seen a distribution that will willingly copy over files from Windows, but Windows XP will willingly copy files and settings from any other Windows computer via Ethernet. Linux needs this to have a successful dual-boot audience, and it would be nice for system upgrades as well.
"With closed-source systems, users are stuck with programs and upgrades they cannot change."
Who says? I regularly contribute my feedback and bugs to everyone from Microsoft to MySQL to Trillian. I pay for the products, and I send in every bug report / feature request I find. In most cases, I don't want to program it myself anyway. If many people request a feature, it will be there. And often the programmers come up with a more intuitive way to impement it than I would have. I'm okay with this, and so are the majority of users.
"The Microsoft approach limits a user to available software. With Linux, a user can grow."
This makes no sense. There are development tools aplenty for both Windows and Linux. If your company uses Windows, chances are high that someone, somewhere, has an MSDN subscription and has the suite of Microsoft's visual development tools that they would be willing to let you borrow. Of course, you can also use third-party development tools (some of which are free) for both OSes.
This article should never have made it to ZDNet. Sometimes I wonder whether ZDNet scans article submissions for "Linux" and just posts those, knowing it will generate heated debate. Ths article is really flamebait -- it says nothing new, and it makes both sides come up in arms. Too bad. *sigh*
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Unfortunately, I would, begrudgingly, disagree with this articles optimistic view of Linux on the desktop.
Don't misunderstand me, Linux has my complete faith. It's that I have no faith in the people making the company purchasing decisions that is the problem and that is where the Desktop war is won and lost. Too often this decision is being made by a SysAdmin that only learned NT in school (so guess what he'll be recommending for purchase).
As a devout Mac user, I can tell you that the power of FUD on top of a general fear of change, has kept Apple's market share were it is. You can see the power of these fears is STILL reflected in every Slashdot article about Apple (eg. one button mouse/too expensive/going out of business). I don't think that building better apps will solve the problem. The fact that the Mac has the important business applications (read MS office) does little to sway it's acceptance into the business desktop world.
As for the home user, most people I talk to use what they have at work either because it's what they know or because they can steal the software.
I would love to be wrong about this but in the mean time, it pleases me that there are people out there (and businesses too) that see through the crap and make Linux work for them as a Desktop. These are the people you want both to work for and working for you.
Last time I tried Shockwave doesn't work on Linux. Flash does but not Shockwave. I like playing online games when I'm bored but not have Shockwave on Linux really sucks.
Linux will fail on the desktop.
Linux will succeed on the desktop.
CowboyNeal on the desktop.
pronoblem
even the friendliest distros still have a point the user will reach, within a few weeks (or even days) of installing it, where they will need to perform some task made painfully easy by any other modern operating system, but beyond the grasp of 90% of the computer-using population.
i have to admit, even with an abundance of experience on *nix platforms, i've had to refer to howto's more than once since i started using redhat - that is, to get this OS as functional as a mac or a windows environment is for me out-of-the-box. my latest build for my primary development machine is redhat 7.2, kde 2.2.2.
i don't think the average person will have the chutzpah to take on a task that would require them to edit a .conf file, track down & install dependencies for RPMs, or troubleshoot why their soundcard doesn't work.
i think where most of the problems occur are:
these are where i've seen the most difficult challenges - mounting the SMB shares i need to work off of, being able to print to non-lpd network printers (still working on that one) and syncing my palmpilot to any remotely useful calendar (altho i don't think i'll ever get to sync it with my company's shared netscape calendar without a whole lotta patience & twiddling).
this leaves me with times when even i have to reboot into windows - it's just a fact of life. luckily, my time spent in windows is relegated to less than 10% of my day anymore. but linux won't be pervasive as a mainstream desktop operating system until it gets that last 10%, and gets it without having to ever see a command-line.
www.pixelectric.com
To me its a welcome change. You can't expect
anything better than garbage from ZDNet, so it
better be in favour of linux than against it.
It does list at the end what things are needed for
Linux like all the other "positive" articles, but
at least it doesn't say that until then nothing
will happen. At least it says Linux will win
anyway.
Now for the conspiracy theory.
Is ZDNet really pissed off having to shell out $$$
for MS Software upgrades. They have been talking
about this too much lately.
Well I kind of like the idea that they are going
to pay more than they are getting as AD revenue
from MS.
... gain on the desktop then every Linux user that has children should teach all there children to use Linux and only Linux, Micro$oft should not enter these children's lives while they are at home. Your children should have there own Linux box and if they break it they should be taught that they should try to fix it first before they come to you for help, that breaking it is part of the learning experience and that it is ok to break it. When your children ask you for help with there Linux box you should not hold there hand and do the task at hand for them you should set by there side and guild them only when they are severally lost. If every Linux user did this I believe that we could get Linux into the 'Mainstream' because our children would be the ones running the networks of tomorrow, writing the programs of tomorrow, and running the companies of tomorrow and Linux is what they would be familiar with not M$. One of the other things that we would have to do is convince our local public schools that they should teach Linux in the classroom, I know my local public schools do in a limited fashion already, and my local Community College does to.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." Linus Torvalds
Isn't anyone but me getting very sick and tired of this subject? Whether or not you are totally into linux or couldn't care less, I don't possibly see what yet another "Linux will roxx your world" article will do for us.
Please use your energy better by doing something to this goal everyone is shouting about. Start a business, make software, write documention, whatever. That can make a difference, claiming that Bill is the new satan won't make anyone a favor.
When I think about it, this looks more and more like a religious cult (like christianity et al) where "the one true road" is all that matters. Come on people, stop and think, get your priorities straight!
That said, I want to express how impressed I am with KDE. The finest piece of free software that I have ever seen. They have their priorities straight, they know what they want, and they know how to make a product. Impressive!
He called RMS an open source advocate. He's in trouble...
I think Enlightenment is the coolest desktop I've ever used and I've tried 'em all on every possible platform you could imagine. I'm glad that the number of Linux desktop users is increasing, but I sure do hope Enlightenment will be as advanced & configurable as it has been. KDE is good for newbies and should be developed towards newbies, but let us geeks enjoy the Enlightenment.
It is called GNUStep, specifically Application Builder and Interface Builder (IIRC). I am not a programmer, but I could build my own simple apps in Rhapsody Beta 1, very easy.
Real coders would create the modules.
ASPs would love it.
Go help them out, folks!
Forget C#, use Objective C and AB
I could maybe grant you speed when using GNOME
(not with KDE), but the thing about stability is a
bull.
What do you do your windows for, do you never install
any hardware, software.
And what have you used Linux for. How many minutes
have been on it, how many years before.
XP rocks.
I work in the IT dept. of an insurance company. We are all MS apps here, and one of the reasons is that you can get the parts of Ofice to talk to each other and work together to the point where sometimes it doesn't matter which app is really running the show - the functionaliy is there wherever you are. I have developed an MSword app that runs a very complex back end procedure on a SQLserver database and then does some fancy printing with the results. I haven't seen the latest version of Star Office but I hope it or someone on Linux can provide an equivalent level of integration, tying together the datahandling capabilities of spreadsheets and databases with end-user functions like printing. Remember, the IT department has a lot of input in choosing these desktops and at this point the availability of integration like that is a real factor.
First of all, I'm a geek - not an uber geek, but a geek nontheless (Software developer). Now, tell me - why should I use Linux?
Okay, I can think of one reason - so that Bill Gates won't take over the world. I have never been an anti-Microsoft person like all of my CS peers in college, but I'm starting to think that maybe he wouldn't be the best world leader if his desire to rule the world is realized.
Aside from that though, is there anything that Linux can give me that is better than Windows XP? Can Linux stand on its own merits?
I really want to have a reason to install it and use it, but I've never been able to get my PC to dual-boot with Windows without a floppy. LILO couldn't handle the size of my hard drive last I checked (though I think that might've been remedied). Here's your chance - convert me!
The Red Pill
There goes Taco Raggin' on the mouse again. Can't you slap him around Kathleen?
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
The leading distros are improving in leaps and bounds for making Linux easy to install. There's still a few things that I think are lacking after the install but we are starting to see improvements in this area thanks to Ximian's Red Carpet and Red Hat's Up2Date.
I'd personally like to see a facility to make it easy to install something you might have missed during the original install. For example, Joe user installs Linux and when its all over and done with he wishes he could connect to a file share on his Windows box. He remembers seeing something about Windows connectivity during his install but doesn't know how to get back to that dialog or what the package was even called. His choice is to either reinstall or go to a newsgroup and ask for help, which leads me to my main point.
I think the linux community needs to lighten up when it comes to "newbies". Linux users should think of themselves as evangelists and when a new user asks a question not be so quick to flame them for not reading the HOWTO before coming to them with such a trivial question. If you go to your local church and ask an elder or a member of the clergy a question about somthing that has you confused do they jump up your ass for not reading the bible first for the answers? No, they are happy to see that you are interested and they try hard to help you. Why can't we be the same when someone approaches us with a question about Linux, no matter how trivial it may be? I'm not saying we should be there to answer all their questions, but in the process of answering their first questions we might want to show them where to find the answers so the next time they can help themselves. We just need to be more tactful when educating new users.
The distributions are doing a good job, the developers are doing a good job, now it is time for the users to do a good job. If Linux is to succeed on the desktop it is up to the users to give it a good image.
'Same speed C but faster'
Because, you see, that was a rethorical question.
Every month there is a new article telling us how Linux will prevail... Been going on since at least 1997.
Who actually cares anymore?
So religious, so Mac-like. Pssst, allow me to let you in on a secret. The rest of the world and most business do not revolve around computers like your world. They just want to get things done. Windows and Mac are great because they let you get your work done without delving into the geeky technical how-tos that Linux geeks love so much. If I can't right click and change my screen resolution with the mouse, forget it. If I have to find the gui or bring up a console to mount a drive, forget it. These are BASIC (yes, BASIC) features that are a given on Windows and Macs! Go ahead and reinvent the desktop if you want. Seems like the techno geek world is forever in this revolving reinvent everything because it feels cool to do mentality. The sane world will greet an alternative if it's ever ready. In the mean time, we have businesses (that only cares if the computer does its assigned job) to run, books to write, email to send. You guys are so funny. You find the same thing in institutionalized religion, in politics, and yes, in techno geekdom.
This is what I did. I setup a Windows box that acts as a document converter. Incomming emails are scanned for .doc's by procmail which sends off the word doc to the windows machine. A VB script takes that file, opens it in word, and causes word to save it as RTF. The rtf is sent back to procmail which adds it back as a second attachement. So now each email has both the original .doc file, and an rtf version (you want to keep the doc file for various reasons (sometimes you lose info.)
I also setup drop-box directories for employees to put old word docs and a vb script generates an RTF version.
You can do the same with other "common" proprietary file formats. We also have a few windows boxes setup that can be accessed via VNC to run various legacy / proprietary apps (I thought about writting a proxy that finds the next "free" machine automatically."
While this doesn't totally eliminate windows, it cuts it way down. The document converter alone eliminates 95% of the reason to use Windows.
For people with a larger need for Windows, VMWare can be useful.
The desktop is dead - the internet is the computer now. See what happens with .NET, XML-RPC, etc. The game has changed gentlemen, and I think Ximian is making the right moves.
First, I feel vindicated because of the flames I have recieved in the last few weeks concerning Linux on the Desktop. For all of you who flamed me all I have say is "See I'm not the only one who thinks so!"
Second, I wonder if it might not be profitable for one of the big OEM houses, such as Dell, IBM or HP, to pull with Linux, what Apple did with BSD. Which is to build a clean stripped version of Linux and then drop in a proprietary X Windows replacement. I won't go into why they wouldn't do this (Wrath of Microsoft) or shouldn't do it (profitablility, Wrath of FSF), but are there any good reasons to do it? Other questions to consider; Could they get NVidia or ATI to help them write video drivers? Could they get Mozilla or Star/Open Office ported? How hard would it be to develope or port things like a DvD player, MP3/CD player, Video player, DvD/CD burning software? Would they need to make it availble across thier entire line, or just one system type, where hardware could be tightly controled? Food for thought.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I believe that Linux does have a promising future as a common desktop operating system. The problem is that everyone uses MS products as a benchmark for usability and functionality. Is linux difficult to use? When comparing it to the defacto standard that MS has established over the years, indeed Linux is confusing and difficult to use.
As an experiment I recently gave my mother, who has _never_ used a computer, a new Dell system with Redhat 7.2 installed. I taught her how to use it and gave her a few books to help her along the way. Results, she is now a productive and happy user of Linux.
See, to her MS or Linux makes no difference. She would have to learn either but since she didnt have years of bias towards MS products both OS are completely interchangeable to her. She can surf the Internet, use word processing, and play music, and the price was right!
Linux has come a long way and is getting better everyday. Maybe LUGs should proactively promote and manage Linux machines in schools with kids who don't have the bias yet, and establish Linux as the defacto standard.
Just a thought.
That is so full of crap it's not even funny. Microsoft Office is currently the defacto standard because they've strong-armed corporate stiffs into using their product. They shift their API every few months so that competitors can't make their competing products stable.
Whenever Microsoft changes versions, a flood of corporate numbskulls switch to the latest-greatest version. This encourages their employees to upgrade, otherwise they are "not compatible". Then all their friends start getting uncompatible attachments. I have heard "I have this document that I can't read but I have Microsoft Word." more times than I care to count in my past 6 years as a help-desk tech.
Imitation is a very small part of why people use MS Office. Microsoft's dirty tricks is far more culpable.
--Yekrats
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
it's the sound of ten zillion intel owners saying: "who cares how cool and functional OS X is -- I can not run it on my PC." The viability of Linux in both the server room and the desktop is markatable because for the most part it is hardware agnostic.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
As it stands now, it is incredibly easy to copy and install any Microsoft application on the desktop, with or without licensing. Products Keys are traded and generated without compunction, and are bandied about in web-sites, on the Usenet, between friends, stolen from work and so forth and so on. Further, the BSA estimates that 1 on 4 OS installations on new machines are pirated. So it is easy to copy and install any Microsoft application for free, up to and including Windows XP. Quite many home users have no software other than the included OS and apps installed by the vendor that are legal. Think: how many folks go and buy full-blown Office licenses for their homes? I'll wager my Linux server that it is far less than 50%.
That's what is competing against Linux on the desktop: freely available no cost Microsoft OS's and applications.
That makes the killer app for Linux desktop success as simple as pie: real licensing from Microsoft that requires real product activation. When it happens, Linux is suddenly very viable as a competitor -- people will be REQUIRED for their versions of Windows XP-Pro-Gold-2004 and Microsoft Word 2004, etc. et al.
The people behind Linux on the desktop don't understand what the masses need and want. The Linux desktop looks the part but doesn't have the consistency and intuitiveness of Mac or Windows desktops. It may never have, the openness to do things your way of Linux is also its downfall. There is no interface standard for Linux like Mac and Windows. The masses NEED/REQIRE consistency. Everything has to have a place and be there. GUI app's caught on because learn one Mac app you now know the basics of all Mac app's. The apps are as important as the desktop they are inseparable.
Just a bit of info about Lycoris: It's Desktop/LX distribution used to be Redmond Linux. In January, the company became Lycoris and the website took on a more Apple/iMac-ish look to appeal to new users. Redmond Linux started out with the intention of cutting a distro down to the simplest and most useful components for the new user, and Desktop/LX is actually the first update to the Redmond Linux package. Support for GUI MP3 ripping is "coming soon".
I haven't used it, but I might purchase a copy (I still use Windows) once a version comes out with a 2.6.x core.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
As far as performance goes, Gnome/GTK/Corba/X is downright snappy on my aging Athlon 700. I have to turn down the graphics in Tribes 2 but it's plenty fast for Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
... Konqueror left me for some bug.
I sit on a Mandrake 8.1/Win2k dual box. I must say you don't have the faintest idea of what your are saying...
I changed from Windows to Linux on the desktop for a number of reasons, Windows instability NOT being one of them. My personal reasons are mainly the need for flexibility, the joys of having free access to most code I use. Beyond that I have a host of professional reasons for using Linux.
But the Windows side of my box is extremely stable. I has hundreds of applications, from legacy DOS little programs to Office 2K. I have everything I have on Linux, including a running Web server, MySql, Zope, PHP, Java etc.
As an annedoct, the only program that managed to bring Windows 2000 to a hard halt was StarOffice 6.0 beta.
On very simple reason: consistency. You MUST HAVE CONSISTENCY in order to make your interface "granny-safe". The average user is not a software developer with way too much time on his hands to fool around with and learn every single different weird way each app does Thing X, or twiddle endlessly with window manager file settings.
Open source and community development is a wonderful thing; I'm all for it. But it has one terrible downside: getting developers to all work (for free no less) in the same direction is like herding cats.
As a result, Linux is pandemonium. A world of choices and options and little settings you can hack in. That's great. But for interface design, it is ONE OF THE WORST THINGS YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE.
Maybe the Linux community has their helicopter beanies screwed on to tight. I dunno. But it is a fundamental law of interface design that it should be CONSISTENT. And not just every app using the same widgets: interfaces are about application interoperatability.
Here's where KDE and GNOME just fall flat on their faces. Even basic operations like cut and paste have inconsistent procedures and inconsistent results across multiple applications. And important ones, too! (take Emacs vs. Netscape, say). Drag and drop is nearly nonexistent, due to every library having its own drag-and-drop API, or none at all. There is no consistent interface for select-and-yank other than raw ASCII text (heavens). There is no consistent launching procedure. There is no consistent application installation procedure. There is no consistent location for files.
And as for widgets, now we have some real fun. I count no less than eight major widget sets in common use in X, each of which has its own unique operation rules. Font management is poor, bizarre, and inconsistent across different apps. Nearly every library has its own totally different way of handling internationalization.
And then we get to the jillions of "options" thanks to long-time X users mired in ancient ways of doing things. Apps must still offer focus-follows-mouse, despite YEARS of studies showing to be a hideous interface procedure. The #1 interoperability feature is still select-and-yank, a hack worked into early versions of X back when all it was doing is supporting multiple terminal windows. There's only one selection buffer, so every app has to come up with a way of maintaining selection even when you select something else in another window -- and they all do it differently. Hundreds of window managers and themes make support and management a nightmare. Demand by All Those Developer Users has prevented X from dumping lots of its old stupidities (like its graphics model) in favor of, you know, models that aren't twenty years old.
I find it ASTONISHINGLY TELLING that Linux users trying to fix the interface consistency nightmare THEMSELVES cannot work together. Hence we have no less than two major, incompatable (!) camps each dedicated to interface improvements: KDE and GNOME. That alone tells me X will never succeed on the desktop.
Say what you want, the reason MacOS and WinXP have such good interfaces compared to Linux is simple: they have hegemons who dictate that This Is How Things Will Be. Since everyone follows those rules, their interfaces are consistent, directed, backwards- and forwards-compatible, and modern. Without a bully, the thousands of voices all go their own ways, and you wind up with an interface by committee.
Linux itself succeeded because it has a bully: Linus. And that's a good thing. X windows will fail exactly because there is no one to fill Linus's shoes on the desktop.
Drivers. Apps. Games.
I had to change my desktop theme because people refused to believe that I wasn't running OS X.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
He goes on to talk about the freedom of Linux, paraphrasing RMS:
Again the freedom of Linux is a good thing but how is it relevant to a desktop user? I don't know any desktop users who could make any use of this freedom even if they were so inclinded, which they are not. My experience is that most people don't even use the freedom to pursue better ways of doing things they have on their non-free software. It's just not something they're looking for.
The only way to cause a major shift in the desktop market is to present a huge advantage in doing so. In my humble opinion the way forward for Linux on the desktop is to pursue usability and interoperability with Windows. Success on these two fronts means business can be reasured that Linux will play nicely with the existing infrastructure (people and things). If that happens then it can be sold to businesses on the basis of much lower TCO - because that's Linux's killer app.
AppleTi PowerBook - $2299
Wireless trackball with 10 buttons and a scrollwheel - $124
Taco stopping his trolling on the topic of Apple mice - Priceless.
As someone comming from the KDE side of the fence, I would say we have a -LOT- to learn about red-carpet. Though it's not perfect, it's what an installer should be. Simple, direct and online.
My guess is a huge percentage of the post-install boxes are on the internet. I know the kde group believes that the responsibility is for the distro's to resolve those issues, but I disagree. I have a redhat 7.1 box that just doesn't need upgrading, because I have switched it over to Ximian Gnome desktop. Thats right, there is nothing really different about that older version of redhat than running on a ximian desktop on top of Mandrake 8.1. It's great, my box is always current and I don't need to play the bi-yearly distro knuckle-shuffle.
I get to choose the distro I am most comfortable with , and red-carpet keeps me up on the security updates, software updates , etc. It's just plain and simple nice.
I don't think I will be upgrading my home / primary workstation to Mandrake 8.2 because Ximian works fine. I am also tired of chasing down RPMS and playing the dep game.... Ximian has just got it right on that one, and it's all in the packaging and distribution.
IMHO KDE is superior in technical ways, but I am now using Gnome because of the superiour distribution and packaging and the warm feeling of knowing I am getting updates on a weekly basis.
The performance isn't the best but it has been common practice with "evaluation" distros to install Linux in a flat file that lives on the Windows filesystem. If worst comes to worst and the user doesn't like it, then the directory can be dragged to the trash and that is the end of that. The distro could include a prominent desktop link that explains in plain English the pros and pitfalls of a full dedicated partition install.
...and it failed pretty miserably.
There are three models for the 'everything works together' approach:
(a) Every program supports the same basic file formats, allowing Joe User to use the app he likes when writing a letter, editing a photo, etc, then open it in another app if he needs a special feature.
(b) Each company's programs work together smoothly, sharing functionality as needed. Adobe does this with Photoshop, Imageready, GoLive, Illustrator, and other apps. And they're getting better wit heach release. Microsoft Office is another example. It works because a given software developer can pursue its own vision for a particular split in functionality, a particular UI model, and so on. In additino, they reap all of the benefits from enhanced interoperability, and have a great incentive to keep at it.
(c) Every function a user could need is available as a lego-like app that interacts with other leg-like apps to create a 'custom tool.' This requires absolute standardization of file formats, APIs, UI standards, and more. In addition, it alters the paradigm that usres are comfortable with and complicates ramp-up.
In addition, it would result in one of two shifts in the software market: Lower margins for software companies, who would be forced to sell tinker-toy modules at much lower costs, instead of larger solutions... or a much higher price for each end-user solution, since mixing and matching pieces is generally more expensive than buying a single product.
Oh. That's right... all software will cost zero dollars. It'll just be so difficult to use that a $200 support contract will seem natural...
--the verb
A few months ago (I am finishing off high school now) my general studies teacher decided we should all do a presentation on a social issue. I chose Civil Liberties but that's irrevelevant. The thing that made by presentation different was that I chose Swish, basically a Flash creation tool. It's damn easy to use, and I got to play with all their neat text effects. The result? A presentation that absolutely blew the pants off of the standard "slide-in-the-bulletpoint" presentations made by my friends. Why don't more companies do this, when it clearly has such a lot of impact? Herd mentality I guess: people thing presentation, they think PowerPoint.
One thing should be noted though for people who are going to try this - I spent so long playing will all the fun effects my presentation was rather light on content :) I'll be more careful about that next time. Also, my presentation needed a graphics accelerator, tee hee.
If Linux really wanted to do something better than MS Office, it should start thinking differently. It wouldn't be hard to create an SVG based presentation app that looked amazing, esp now KDE and Gnome have SVG support built in. It's stuff like this that will ensure a Linux victory on the desktop is not a hollow one.
thanks -mike
Whenever Linux is going to get some lib standards, instead of putting 10000 new libraries out they should concentrate on one lib per each function, 3d , network etc etc.. until then you can hang out with pasta X
'nuff said.
This is the stupist post I saw lately, why does it have a 5?
If you you install karchiver you can right click and untar/unzip whatever.
If you click on a tar.gz in konqueror, konq just acts like the archive is a folder.
If you click on an rpm the program gets installed (after giving your root passwd, ok).
So your dad would surely pass the test.
I don't say it is ready for the home user, but it is at least ready for the advanced and for the beginning home user.
Better compatibility with existing MS products. I'd like to be able to login to an existing MS domain (w2k or NT) map drives via login script...etc.
I'd also like to login to Novell servers....map drives etc.
I'd also like the ability to slowly replace my NT/2000 servers with linux machines...that means being able to add a linux server to a windows domain and replicate active directory-and/or-NT user lists.
I don't want to maintain seperate Unix and Windows user lists.
I'd like to see a comprehensive directory service for Linux that is compatible with windows.
All this would make it easy for me to gradually replace windows in my organization.
C'mon OS community....you can do this!
-ted
I can't play alotta games on linux.
(No I am not gonna run an emulator)
Since Microsoft lost the win 95 code windows has been awful stable IMHO. Why would I struggle with linux on my workstation?
I like traffic lights
Once again the naysayers flock to the scene of the battle, claiming that if "my mom/dad can't do it then Linux isn't ready for the desktop." Two points:
- if your mom or dad can't do it you must have stupidly given them the wrong distribution. Toss out Slackware and give them a set of SuSe 7.3 CDs instead.
- if your mom and dad can't master something as simple as SuSe it really doesn't matter that much. Soon they'll no longer be making decisions more important than "do I need to buy a new package of Depends?", as the next generation seizes the market place from their stale Boomer fingers.
Kids, I've found out, have no more difficulties using Linux than they do Windows - in fact, they generally prefer Linux because they can do more with it. These kids, who grew up with computers and have an intuitive grasp of the machines that older generations lack, will soon be the primary labor pool for every non-geriatric corporation in America.
So if Mom or Dad can't handle anything but Windows, let them have their Windows. In a few years they'll cycle out of the job market and then what they think or don't think about computers won't matter in the slightest.
The opinions that *really* count aren't those of the old and soon-to-be-warehoused; the opinions that matter most are those who're teenagers right now. And those kids, when it comes to computers, aren't clueless idiots like their parents before them.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
As for photoshop/gimp, don't even start.
You also conveniently forgot about drivers. How many graphic cards have 3D hardware acceleration under Linux? What about Winmodems?
That's what I have been saying for years. Most of the Window$ freaks that I talk to and try to say that Linux is a viable alternative not only because of open source vs. closed source, but because of price -- usually have not paid any more for their Windows software than I have my Linux software. (Back when I used Windows, I paid for everything -- and the cost just was way to much to keep up with $100 OS, $200 Office, $50-$250 for each piece of software and each "upgrade"...errr...bugfix....So that was an easy justification to take a few less features and save much money going with Linux.)
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Is that all that's needed? Well then hell--let's do it before lunch on Monday, and then we can spend the afternoon inventing perpetual motion, achieving world peace, and eliminating all disease and pollution from the planet.
Seriously, the Linux community has misunderstood the desktop situation for a very long time. Instead of approaching it as, "we have a really cool set of software, so why won't stupid Winblows lusers convert?", they should be asking, "what can we do to give people enough incentive to convert from something they've used for years?"
The title of the article and the contents seem to be unrelated. The title says, "Linux will prevail," then goes on to says:
"Unfortunately, many computer users are unaware of the extent to which they are "jerked around" by companies that sell a license restricting the freedom to use their software."
Well, it would seem that Linux doesn't stand much of a chance if people continue to remain unaware of that issue. He's not suggesting here that they are becoming more aware or ways that they can be made more aware, he's simply stating a set back to the cause. So hardly a proof that Linux will prevail. Next he says:
"Recent announcements by Sun Microsystems, regarding its expanded support for the open-source community and its decision to provide its own Linux distribution, are welcome news. "
Excellent! So all of the Solaris desktop users may move to Linux. I'm sure we welcome all 3 of them to our happy community. Next he goes on to list hurdles that Linux needs to overcome but doesn't provide any evidence that they ARE being overcome which is somewhat important if he's trying to proove his title. So then he moves on to say:
"No one would buy a car with a welded-shut hood, yet we continue to buy software that way. The Microsoft approach limits a user to available software. With Linux, a user can grow. If a tool is missing or awkward, someone can get under the hood and fix the problem. "
The funny thing is that increasingly, especially amongst the more expensive cars, it is becoming impossible to do any real work on them yourself. Sure, you can change the oil and other fluids but beyond that many cars are impossible for the average person to do work on. Finally, he says:
"
Two paths are before us. One leads to increasing proprietary control, protectionist measures and legal threats, while the other leads to open source, freedom and accelerated innovation. I, of course, choose the latter because it is "win-win." Vital innovation, new markets and vastly improved customer service win the vote readily over the purveyors of proprietary hoarding. "
To summarize, he seems to be concluding that Linux will prevail despite some hurdles because it would be really good if it did and really bad if it didn't. Wow, that's all the evidence I needed, kudos to linux, your victory is well in hand!
This is really a poorly written article and is little more than another puff piece about how Linux is the right choice, and windows is the wrong choice. It shows no new insights on the chances of Linux surviving and only points out the same issues to be dealt with that only about a billion other articles have pointed out.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
These are my true thoughts--this is not a troll.
I've used windows for most of my life. Once, when I was feeling particularly geeky, I borrowed a retail Mandrake install from a friend. So, what happened? Was my world transformed? Was I liberated from the clutches of a corporate monopoly? Sure, for about 2 days, then it started crashing, I realized that I didn't have sound, and I had to reboot whenever I wanted to get anything done.
Fast forward to now: I just recently installed linux again on a spare HDD. I'm fairly ignorant about boot loading in general, but Red Hat helpfully installed LILO on the *other* hard drive, so it could have complete and utter control of how the computer booted up. After a week, I finally found out how to change it to boot XP by default instead of Linux. I only use linux b/c it has a free f90 compiler.
Moving on, I decide to install a new hard drive (80 gig 7200, w00t!), have to take out the old, slow, Linux one, and lo and behold, not even my original copy of XP will boot up. Long story... shorter, it was a terrible mess, and I had to reinstall XP, lose my settings, my mail files.
Now to the on topic part: my time in Linux has been filled with trouble. Nautilus, which came installed, has no file associations with anything. The commandline zip functions aren't entirely self-obvious (I'm an experienced computer user, so don't give me that RTFM junk. I shouldn't have to re-read it 5 times. I remember the days of pkunzip). Mozilla was incredibly slow to open, compared to IE. It's a joke. I thought about installing one of the other flavors, but didn't get far. Why? The useability is so much worse than windows. It seems like linux has evolved to be *run* by a system administrator, and *used* by workers.
But that doesn't cut it. I've got to be able to install stuff easily, find what I need, change config's easy (ie. a sane config panel), etc. I don't have the free time to spend hours finding out how to do a simple task. Sure it's neat (debatable), sure, it's geeky, but I've got much better things to do. I still haven't installed a new distro yet, because I've been restoring XP. I'll eventually have to, though. Linux has a while to go before it takes over the desktop, and developers for it will probably have to drop their attitude problem somewhere along the line.
I suspect that if Apple would release a 5 button mouse, and you'd still whine about the number of buttons on the mouse.
Guys - Aren't you forgetting one thing? If Linux conquers the desktop, that conclusively prooves that Microsofts arguments during the court case that anyone with a computer can in fact compete with them (heck, they don't even need to be incorporated!) were absolutely true, which in turn would proove that all the bitching about MS on /. was pre- and immature! We can't let this happen! Let's go back to a pure commandline interface!
Trackpads suck for many people, but I'm glad it works well for you. As to the 'plug a mouse in', that doesn't work. A laptop should be a self contained unit, so you can hold it in your lap you know? Unless you use a laptop as a desktop, the extra mouse answer doesn't work.
That's so true!!!
Of course, it's a bad article, written only for getting slashdot attention.
But it has a good point: We don't need an Office clone, we need a better office system (not a application, not a suite, but a system).
-Kz-
Maybe I'm just having exceptionally poor experiences - but why is it I see so many people claiming they set up a Linux box with KDE and it works so well? I've been using Linux for years, on multiple systems, and several different distros - and still, I feel almost lucky if I can use KDE for a complete session without having at least one ugly glitch or problem.
.WAV sound files to start playing with a "click" or "pop" for example, or just the way X handles color palettes when you aren't in high-color mode), the environment still feels "rough around the edges" to most people.
Most often, I run into lingering processes when I leave X. (I know I'm not the only one, because I just read a complaint on the LTSP project mailing list where a sysadmin complained that he can't serve up KDE to his users on their production LTSP server anymore. He says the processes that get stuck and don't die when users exit/log-out keep piling up over time until they eventually make the server unstable.)
My other common headache is with the browsers. Whether I choose Netscape, Galleon, Mozilla or Konqueror, it doesn't seem to really matter. Eventually, any of them is guaranteed to blow up or freeze up something. I realize this isn't directly KDE's fault, but can't it at least offer a little more ability to kill a problem app without wreaking havoc on the rest of my session?
When you combine all of this with what I'd simply describe as "look and feel" issues (tendencies for
The framebuffer is just waiting for you to develop for it. Can't you hear it calling out to you? Maybe you should help a project like GTKFB, or maybe it might be intersting to port QT to the framebuffer. I'd love to see either mature. I'd pontificate a bit about what I don't like about X and even how eliminating X wouldn't eliminate DCOP at least (haven't done much with CORBA), but I use Ion as a window manager (it's rather cool to log in in under a second), and I have a midterm in ten minutes.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Do you want to shell out for EVERYBODY to get the next version of Word shortly after the first (early adopter) person does? Don't forget, .doc incompatibilities come between versions, too. Sure, you can set the new Word to save by default in the old .doc, but that's essentially the same as setting it for .rtf, isn't it?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
... my mother can use it. If my mother can use it, then I'll begin to believe it. I think people who say "Linux is fine for the desktop" simply don't understand the computer literacy of the general public.
Adam
Here are a few ideas on how Linux could work to become the future desktop.
1) Only one distribution or at the least a core set of apps and libs all distributions must have.
2) A standardized file structure
3) Complete documentation with lots of examples
4) Most software available in a compiled binary for the core distribution
This would make it so the average person could install software easily and still let them venture out when they are ready. If the goal for Linux is to rule the desktop, it needs to become friendly to the computing novice. This should be possible without putting Linux into a straitjacket of standards that the computing expert doesn't want.
"In a nutshell, the Linux community must develop both a quality GUI system for configuring hardware and a standardized system for installing and removing software." So basically redhat needs to focus on making kde its own full distro and give you the "option" of rebooting into rh-linux mode (pun on ms-dos mode - get it) and assume you are always root?
Ave Molech Setting
depending on the distro, installing linux is often easier and less painless than on windows - here are some examples that would make a newbie throw his machine out with windows:
moving the ethernet card from the top bay to the bottom makes windows want to try and reinstall it! browsing to windows or windows\system trick doesn't work, it insists on the drivers yet again, and after a reboot, guess what?? no go, because there are now two similar adapters in the network control panel (this is 98SE, btw), each with differing tcp/ip properties. Easily fixed for me, hours of frustration for the avarage user.
When the "windows" magic breaks, there is no easy config file to alter, as is the case with linux, it's a matter of uninstalling, rebooting, reinstalling - fail, uninstall DEEPER, like tcp/ip itselt vs just the adapter, reinstall etc. This is a cycle of shit, excuse my english.
Or how about when a program installs and near the end of the install, asks you if you want to reboot to finish - windows crashes during the reboot and guess what??? the app is half installed and requires registry pecking to fix. If windows were a person, that person would have cancer yet be asked to run marathons - too undependable even for it's own operation.
Or here's another one - unplug an external mouse from a laptop with limited resources, reboot expecting to use the keyboard mouse. Windows rearranges irq's, and spits out messages about PCI bridges and the like - all stuff that would make the avarage secretary scream - and finds the keyboard mouse (did it forget it, lol???), but asks for the drivers. The solution here is simply to keep hitting next with nothing selected. But the masses would surely call their IT department on this, probably after trying for an hour to find the drivers...oh, and an normaly, this has to happen twice - assuming windows can manage to shut the machine down properly - upon reboot it does the same thing.
I guess the point is that in reality, i really don't think that windows is any closer to being as easy to operate as a tv or vcr than linux is, and, let me honestly say, if something does go fubar, it's much easier to have the user change a config file and change without rebooting, than the endless change, reboot, try again cycle, let alone mess with that God damn registry...
My 2 cents of truth from the frontlines of support,
I don't believe people are _that_ afraid to try an OSS office suite. Maybe a little intimidated, but not truely scared.
I think the real resistance, the real fear, will show up when you try to get people to give up Quicken or MS Money in favor of some OSS replacement.
IMHO, people will be much more worried about looseing their banking info, check book ballances, account numbers, payment histories, and other financial information... By comparision to worrying about formating of a frigging .doc vs. a .rtf, which do YOU think they will worry about more?
...should have been a better title for the article.
The article focused upon Office as much as it did with Linux, with good reason, as they carry equal weight in the context of usefulness in the business world.
From the article:
Microsoft Office is currently the de facto standard for office programs, because competitors have done more to imitate it than to develop an improved solution.
This is bunk. Pure bunk. Regardless of what people, including myself, think of MS, the Office suite is an extremely useful tool, and is very well integrated.
That is why Office is sitting atop the productivity pig-pile.
I will not argue that Office is becoming overly feature-laden (bloated), it certainly is.
The reason why companies make Office clones is because Office is what people are accustomed to.
If I were to build a radio, I certainly wouldn't make it look like anything other than a radio.
For God's sake, it is a Productivity Tool . Therefore, it has to provide maximum utility with minimal obscurity/interference.
especially when i could read:
BSD still dying..
Welcome to the future...
didi
Lots of jokes around here get offtopic or 0, if not -1... this guy posts a serious "information hiding" issue and gets funny?
Hello? Is there someone over there?
Not that anyone will get to read this but....
I interned for a company called Masks.org (it is on the web so you can view it) and turned my voulanteer position into one that pays, albeit not at intustry levels but I am having fun so who cares. My job has been to transfer them from Mac OS systems into Linux, my first task was the NAT box (which he promptly put back for some reason that I don't understand). Later I exchanged his WebStar server on a 400M G4 for an Apache on 4 P233s, it has NEVER crashed wereas the Webstar server crashed on an hourly basis....
But that has nothing to do with the desktop...My other job was to help him transition the desktop systems...he now runs just about everything on Linux and loves it. He still uses Mac for his website development because he has some sort of fancy thing working there. He installed them all on his own, set up NFS and Appletalk as well as LPR with some minor help from me. There are now only 2 other systems left that run MacOS and they are for people that just can't deal with something that looks at all different...it was funny when we tried.
At any rate, those that say Linux is not ready for the desktop are simply kidding themselves. Either they never tried or something. I think most of the people who badmouth linux have never even seen it, so I don't really pay attention to them anymore. Even mildly computer literate people can install Linux and get it working...I have seen it happen on numerous occasions.
NR
What do you do your windows for, do you never install
any hardware, software.
Most everything "desktopish".
Web browsing, gaming, graphics, music, MIDI, etc.
I install lots of software, and have devices ranging from radio and phone programmers, to video capture, to a MIDI keyboard.
Haven't had a BSOD yet, and everything works rather nicely.
How many minutes
have been on it, how many years before
Started using freenix around 1995, with FreeBSD[1],
mostly for fun and because it was radically different from what I knew at the time.
Started using linux in '98, mostly because it had better hardware support than BSD at the time.
Used linux almost exclusively (kept Win98 for Quake) from '98 to late '99.
Put up with apps (can you say "Netscape"?) crashing, and bringing down X.
Put up with crappy video drivers bringing down my system.
Put up with the inconsistency and overall poor GUI design.
Put up with it because it was still far, far better than Win 9x or NT.
Then Win2k came out, and I started using it (and liking(!) it) at work.
So, I've logged several hundred hours of serious usage, over the span of 6 or so years.
I know linux.
And what have you used Linux for.
Aside from the desktop usage above, I've built countless servers[1], doing everything from HTTP to Quake.
I currently have OpenBSD[1] and Windows on my laptop, Windows on my "workstation" and FreeBSD[1] on my FTP/Samba server.
I'll reiterate my last 50 flamebait comments:
Linux doesn't suck. X does.
Unfortunately, X, with all it's "baggage"[2], is the only choice for linux GUIs.
So, until there's a decent X replacement, that fixes the stuff that annoys me, or until I buy a new Mac[3], I'll have Win on my desktops, and freenix on my servers.
There's my resume, you asked.
C-X C-S
[1] BSD, yes, but IMO, the experience still applies.
[2] As in the kind your girlfriend has, not the kind you bring onto an airplane.
[3] I cannot describe how much I love OSX.
HOW do you change your screen res in KDE?
I work at a state university on the internet helpline and in computer repair. I deal daily with students, staff, and alumni. Whenever something goes wrong with the computer, or the user wants to try something new with it, they are mortally afraid of "breaking it". I'm not sure if this stems from a general unfamiliarity with the computer, and hence fear, or if it's based on past experience with unexpected results. That's the catch; to be able to get users to try a less breakable system, they have to not have the preconception that poking their computer the wrong way makes it break.
Use a lighter thing like Icewm.
Bluetooth enabled Outlook replacement for
my Ericsson T68 mobile phone.
And no, I can,t code.
Please tell me that there allready is a solution!?
What this guy fails to understand is that end users do not care about code. The ability to change and edit the code may be a boon to developers, but for end users it is a moot point. They do not understand the code, using Linux will be as 'closed' to them as Windows. So what your left with is to compete on feature and usablility not OS religion.
Think of your computer being like your car. Sure, there are some drivers who want to take it a step further. They might tweak their engines, swap out components, etc. all in order to make their cars the best they can be. However, most people are happy with their car the way it is. When you buy a car, everything is there for you. Most drivers don't want or need to know about the innerworkings of a car, let alone what to do when something fails.
We can apply this to OS's by comparing the OS to your transmission. I know ABSOLUTELY nothing about cars. That's why the transmission in my car is fine with me. If something goes wrong, I take it to the shop. If it completely dies on me, I buy a new car. I don't have the expertise - nor do I want to learn how - to rebuild my transmission. The average computer user doesn't want to worry about their OS. It's just supposed to be there and work. Installing a new OS is like rebuilding a transmission, and the average end user doesn't want to do it.
That is why Linux cannot succeed on the desktop until several events happen. 1) Linux must be installed at the OEM level. Computer have to come with it preinstalled. 2) The GUI has to be completely object oriented, easy to use, and easy to configure. News flash: XFree86 is NONE OF THE ABOVE. Look at how Apple took BSD to the masses. They didn't try and build an interface for X Windows. They built one ON TOP of BSD. That's what Linux must do. We can't rely on X Windows because it has too many shortcomings. 3) Applications 4) Unique features and enhancements not found on any other platform. As it stands right now, very little is innovative within the Linux community. Sure, the way things are done might be innovative. But, it all boils down to the Linux community trying to duplicate the things that Microsoft and Apple have already done. If Linux is truly to succeed, there needs to be some reason for users to switch.
Have you made the code (procmail & VB script) available for this? It might help a LOT of other people...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Conversly, Linux can never earn desktop market share > 1% untill it supports all the file formates people want. Linux dose not need to be user friendly. It would be nice for it's install and hardware configuration to be a bit nicer, but it's not really essential. The key fact making Linux useless as a desktop is that you can not read audio/video files you DL. I'm not even talking about windows media format files. Linux dose not even come is a competent AVI reader.
so maybe its *not* for everyone, i mean how many :)
people besides your standard geek wants to really get the most out of a machine. Mr & Ms check my e-mail and send pics of the kids to the grandparents probably don't care when they only fire up the box maybe once a week, they don't need the 50+ day uptimes. I say to each there own.
As for me? "Of course I run NetBSD..." Use it at home, work, and on my laptop. Still can't find that damn toaster everyone claims is supported tho
When encryption is outlawed, ou++1!@(93j++js-d9298yIUH(*Y24JKB!~
Newer versions of Microsoft Word will both export and import an XML description of a word processing document. Can Kword or any other Linux program translate XML formats?
If not... IT SHOULD... !!!!
If you have multiple machines accessing your "few windows boxes" to run Office, then you must pay for a license of Office for each machine.
.doc. I don't know if t his would violate the license agreement or not. Regardless, could you post your code for others to see and use?
Office is not licensed per user, it is licensed per machine. A single workstation that has 20 people walking up to it and using Office needs only one license.
A desktop machine that has 20 people accessing it via VNC or any other means needs 20 licenses.
There is no Concurrent Licensing of Office.
You are in violation of your End User License Agreement.
Despite how reasonable, practicle, and "fair" you idea seems, it is illegal. Not for any technical or moral reasons, but because of a silly EULA.
All that said, I like your idea of a drop-box directory to convert
Thank you.
Well once Microsoft has changed its Desktop OSs to be little more than a platform for .NET and C# bytecode interpreting, then all Linux users need to do is have a good implementation of a C#/.NET bytecode interpreter, and just like Java, we should be able to run it.
But because Microsoft will force this down everyones throte, it may catch on more than Java has.
Microsoft Word implemented in Byte Code would be a big step towards Linux on the desktop.
I don't know, but from where I sit, after some necessary adjustments (eg, telling Nautilus it sucks as a "everything and the kitchen sink too" and should restrain itself to file management), both KDE and GNOME are doing almost fine. Most of my complaints refer to specific applications (Evolution taking forever to open a reply-to window, Red-Carpet grabbing all CPU time, Mozilla entering a "repaint window" that will return next Monday, thank you).
I think your main complaints are being adressed. The recent video drivers are good, I never had an X crash in this box. And I really like the GUI design of KDE and almost like the GNOME one.
thats the lamest excuse i've ever heard. your grandmother will probably die soon thus making this a moot point. a new younger generation of able minded youngsters can handle it. i see no reason why she can't now. more than likely this will change in the next revision and someone will build into linux an easier way to shutdown and restart.
The critics of Linux -- the ones who predict it will fail in various venues, including the desktop -- lack vision and the ability to forecast trends. The entire phenomenon reminds me of my various U.S. compatriots who keep pointing at AMD's domestic U.S. market numbers and talking about these as if they were representative. They aren't, of course: AMD is a big phenomenon in Germany and Japan both, and they really matter.
But back to Linux. What's going on here?
In the United States, and large segments of the First World, the operating systems market is locked up by the major tier one vendors. Linux is a player here, and it's admirable that it's been able to get as much penetration as it has, given the power of the competing commercial interests. But this misses the bigger picture.
There is a rest of the world. In that rest of the world -- the Third World -- major tier one vendor operating systems are too expensive any price. So what happens? The various third world, economically disadvantaged, or simply price-sensitive countries select for a readily available alternative. It becomes part of their infrastructure. They become vested in it.
Then what?
The world is not a static place. It's in motion. These various other countries are developing nations. Some of the third world countries will move out of the third world. China, currently price sensitive, currently has the second largest GNP of any nation on Earth. Soon, they'll be the world's dominant economic player.
As these various players move forward, they'll move Linux. It's inevitable.
Linux critics really lack vision. The world's not going where they think it's going. The U.S. and even the current first world are hardly the only players in the game.
C//
Actually, I believe that the Porsche Boxster has no access to the engine (other than the gas pedal :))...
If you want Linux to succeed on the desktop, then spend some time working on some projects to make it better, or maybe just use it. Don't waste your time trying to predict the future.
Very clever remarks and I think you're doing a service to the Linux community.
Nonetheless, I think one thing can change that scenario: early adopters. Geeks are the reference to the others about computers.
Linux people (zealots, if you want) influence technically sophisticated people and professionals, who then end up trying, using and then recommending Linux to closed-box people (i.e., users so lay that they just turn up the computer, having no idea of its innards).
Moreover, young techs learn Linux at their jobs (company servers) and bring it home for hobby/hacking.
Last week, my wife & mother saw Linux at a nearby mall's femalewear store -- probably point-of-sale machines.
If that is not death knell to a certain company, what could be?
Linux is like a web-footed girl with a heart of gold.
Windows is like a $5000 a night call girl.
You actually think that slashdot readers actually read the linked articles? You are a funny man indeed
File format used for the slideshow: Powerpoint...
I then imported the same RTF into Word 97 and it looked fine. I re-saved it as .doc and loaded it back into OpenOffice and it still looked fine.
She now sends all documents as .doc.
Bottom Line: If you need to transfer Russian text from Word to OpenOffice, .doc works and .rtf doesn't. Conclusion is that .doc is so ubiquitous that coders put more effort into .doc converters than RTF ones and that Word probably produces querky RTF in the first place.
..but as long as the option of running Linux on a desktop machine exists, how is it possible for Linux to "fail" on the desktop? Unless the developers of XFree86, every window manager developer in the world, and every graphics- and sound-card driver programmer all simultaneously quit contributing to the massive base of source code out there, it seems impossible. Unforutnately it also seems that most base Linux's success and failure as the percentage of desktop use it takes away from Windows..
I submitted this story twice only to get it rejected. Over at News.com there's an article about Walmart stepping out ahead and offering PC's WITHOUT an OS! This will not only drop the cost of the PC but will alert consumers that yes, they ARE paying for the OS and yes, it DOES matter that linux is free.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
The original, undoctored article is available at the LWP site.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Computer without OS +
large distribution (Wal-Mart) +
Free Linux CD's distributed everywhere (AOL-style)
=
One less monopoly on Earth.
I was really pulling for Linux for a while, but then OSX came out, and now I think that Apple is leading the charge of *nix on the desktop.
Flame away. I can take it. But as eccentric as he is, Steve Jobs (and Apple) has once again seen the future and saved us from it.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
It is sad to see so many people making excuses for Linux (note: any reference to Linux == desktop) and telling people what features they *really need* and what ones they don't. The unfortunate fact is that Windows (& Mac) are far superior to anything Linux has to offer.
t -you-could-get-it-to-work-without-too-many-problem s "solutions" to things that should *just work*.
Remember that most people do not care about the licensing issues other than free as in no money.
Now to get rid of the anti M$ feelings lets say Kde has all of Window's features etc, and Gnome has all of Linux's (remember were just talking desktop). Could any of you really step back and look at the two objectively and honestly say that Gnome was anywhere near Kde ? Even in the same ballpark? Are they even playing the same sport?
Linux has a loong way to go to be anything more than a niche desktop product. There are so many simple little things that it still can't do. For example, I was doing some work on a default Red Hat 7.2 install in KDE. I was browsing with Konqueror and went to copy a url that was in the text to paste it to another Konqueror window. Well it no workie. Now I know that if I run Mozilla it would have worked, but the problem is I shouldn't have to know that. It should *just work*. There are a lot of well-if-you-would-just-use-xprogram-or-run-yscrip
If Office XP ran on Linux *today*, Linux would gain some serious ground but it would still be quite a way behind. I truly wish that were not the case, but it is.
/pulls out a stick and some marshmallows.
I believe he's not.
I'll leave away the technicality that the EULA states that the program can be installed on one machine, and on a single machine it is installed, so that's fine.
The point you're missing and which seems rather important is that VNC does _NOT_ virtualize the screen under windows; it's not Metaframe (or Terminal Service like it's most commonly called these days). VNC server (on windows, on Unix it's another story) just "snapshots" the screen and sends it to the client, and "remotizes" mouse pointer and keyboard. So there's no concurrent usage, and your whole argument collapses, even if it were valid in the first place.
Nice! It never occurred to me to do this (though what I do with MS products is fairly mimimal).
Do you have a somewhat more specific HOWTO outlining this?
Thanks.
Linux wont succeed on the desktop while it still uses X.
As for KDE, it copies all the design flaws of Windows without any unique features of it's own.
What Linux needs is a desktop running on something like DirectFB and get a few 'revolutionary' designers to design a desktop, not evolutionaries.
This post should most likely be moderated at -1 Redundant.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Just had to take a jab at Apple there, huh? Suffocating under the weight of all the good Mac karma generated by starting apple.slashdot.org perhaps?
=)
Much of what he recommends in the article sounds like the old OpenDoc initiative.
For example, " Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool. Like an erector set, applications could be constructed for specific needs. And like hammers, saws, wrenches and screwdrivers in the physical realm, such tools are easier to utilize than large factories (or contemporary application programs)."
This couldn't be a better description of what OpenDoc was supposed to have accomplished. Unfortunately, OpenDoc is another (predominantly) IBM technology that they had zero idea what to do with.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
From time to time it appears people think they're one and the same, but for linux, they're not. I think Linux should focus on taking the business desktop, for several reasons. The problems with the home desktop are:
1. Free vs. free. Let's face it, that's the way it is for most home users. Either that or it's a sunk cost from when they purchased their machine, and people don't mind violating copyright. Unlike companies BSA is unlikely to pay a visit to them too.
2. Rapidly changing interface, particularly in the graphics area (DirectX, OpenGL). The interface for business application changes far less often.
3. More legacy applications. Companies generally have more legacy data, which can be converted. Recreating the API for running the apps is considerable more complex and buggy.
4. Faster application turn-over. Most business applications are continous developments, while games are released, then left for a sequel. By the time Linux game comes out everybody's waiting for the sequel, while people would be interested in Linux Officepack 2 even if Windows Officepack 3 is out.
5. Fewer competent users. Having a bunch of Linux admins who work full-time with Linux is better than a bunch of home users, even with many powerusers. Of course they are there to work and not do Linux development, but qualified people identifying, analysing and working around problems (one way or the other) still helps more than "I click and it doesn't work".
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
>> I've never seen the ability to launch a command line shell set to the directory you're currently viewing in the file manager
Textmode Midnight Commander does just this since long ago. Rox-Filer, too. XFtree does it, too. Just checked it. And others may do it, I'd bet. No problem, it seems.
>> If you could have a window that was half-command line, half-file manager, such that when you changed directories in one half, it would change directories in the other
Textmode Midnight Comander does this, I use it all the time. Very convenient, indeed.
It seems you don't use Linux. No offense meant.
" (Maybe If Apple released TiBook's with 3 mouse buttons I'd at least have an option ;) "
You say that as though you can stand to use a trackpad for longer than 10 minutes.
Two paths are before us. One leads to increasing proprietary control, protectionist measures and legal threats, while the other leads to open source, freedom and accelerated nnovation.
I, of course, choose the latter because it is "win-win."
.. and that choice implies a "noWin-win"
*groan*
(can you beleive it took me 6 months to find out how to reply to a story?)
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
It has a very nice powerpoint presentation. Is there an open source program for creating these. It is kinda ironic. I do realize the key word there is WILL and not HAS.
Note that the project has "Members" (apparently they're not trying to be funny here) as well as a "throbber" feature (whatever that is, I don't really want to know).
The "throbber" in web browsers refers to the little icon in the upper right corner that either spins a half-globe around a Windows logo or spins a set of tiles that alternate between 'm' and a red dino.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Windows lays fallow like
last years field.
come the harvest
we will all be
dancing on softy's grave
There is no doubt that windows will remain popular as long as indiviudals can avoid paying the Microsoft prices. That has been true for quite some time.
Of course, Microsoft wants to make that process more difficult if not impossible. Clearly product activation makes it inconvenient even for those who do pay.
The result is that the price of windows goes up, temporarily revenue for Microsoft goes up or stablizes but eventually revenue for Microsoft goes down. As it goes down, Microsoft will counter by further increasing the price. And, in turn that hasten the trend.
Eventually, Microsoft will either compete on price with linux or loose out completely. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Microsoft could end up in a position similar to Apple. A premium priced product maintaining a small percentage of the market.
Right now linux software can and most likely is advancing faster than windows stuff. In time, it will catch up. When it does, it is all over for Microsoft.
Key will be the adoption of linux on the desktop for major OEMs like IBM, Hp, Compaq, Dell, GateWay and others. It is one thing to sell PCs sans OS like Wal-Mart. It is another for an IBM to do for linux on the desktop what it has already done for linux on servers.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
You are asking the wrong question. The correct one is "What is the #1 consumer application?"
That application is a Web client, AOL client, or another ISP client. Most consumers just want connectivity. However, even to this day, AOL has not released a Linux-version of its AOL client.
If AOL and the other ISPs would agree to release a Linux-version of each of their clients, then Linux's future on the desktop is assured. Why can't anyone in the Linux community see this conclusion?
Come on. Not every potential Linux customer is a dork with a modem that dials into his research lab. Sheesh.
You dumb sack of shit. The users arn't using it, a script is. On one computer. Fuck, read the comment. He is not in violation of the EULA because these people are not running office on their computers. Learn to read.
He asked for it, right? Don't buy into reverse psychology.
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
I love feeding trolls.
.doc files to be converted to .rtf files.
Read his post and mine again. You will see I am talking about his use of VNC to display Office on different user machines.
I am not referring to his use of a script and email, nor his use of a folder to drop
You are the poster who needs to read more carefully.
How long have you been using X to do things?
As long as you have, it's been successful.
What are we measuring here, actual usability, the fact that people utilize Linux/X?
Or is this another hoser-competition, where moronic newbies think Linux is about killing Microsoft?
If the latter, then Linux will most certainly fail. Linux as it is today will never topple Microsoft. If it ever changes to a position where it can, it won't be Linux anymore - it'll be another money-grubbing entity whose sole concern is profit.
Linux 'will succeed' on the desktop.
Hah. When I did my first install, I started using X for everything but games (And to say games are a vital part of a PC desktop.. Again, hah. Personal computers aren't toys.). Both of my parents have picked up on how to do things in X (And I'm using Blackbox, not Copycat-D-E). I've had friends wondering why Windows doesn't do half of the things I can do with X.
'Will succeed'?
Mark this a troll, because the Linux desktop has been succesful for a good long while.
That doesn't seem correct. They aren't running office on their own box, or through VNC, they are sending files to a box that is, which then runs the batch script. Therefore it's only running on the one box. Where the files came from is irrelevant.
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
I don't know about you, but most people I know don't even know where their hood release is. The reason for this is that most people are not mechanics, and most modern cars don't require the driver to open the hood to find the car useful.
With obvious irony, Don makes a case against his own statements, by once again reminding us that linux is not designed for "users" but programmers (the mechanics in this analogy). Linux will continue to be vacant from the desktop if it's "value" pertains to things that only programmers or sysadmins can appriciate.
When someone can build a linux distro that has the hood welded shut, they might have a chance at the desktop market where users don't care about writing programs, security or anything besides getting their job done.
second society
I love Unix. For what I do it's an excellent tool. I'm just trying to say that Unix isn't going to have any kind of success on the desktop. Unless it does Windows, of course.
The Boy Scouts of America are after you?
second society
I think it is you who is the troll. While I do
not agree with the language of the anonymous coward I agree with in spirit.
Word does not *run on your computer* when you access another computer via VNC.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggg.
(Beats head repeatedly against desk)
HTML is not a "page-design" language."
CSS, OTOH, does provide for specifying the positioning, style, etc. of printed documents
CSS is part of HTML. From the W3C definition of CSS (in the abstract): "a simple style sheet mechanism that allows authors and readers to attach style (e.g. fonts, colors and spacing) to HTML documents."
Here's the CSS clarifier for printed media. With absolute positioning, HTML/CSS basically becomes nearly as powerful as Adobe's PageMaker (except publishing ability).
Recently, Mozilla's printing has improved to a level that actually makes this possible. All of my work processing is now done in a text editor with CSS and HTML. When I need to give a data copy to somebody, due to IE and NS4 still being used (they don't render CSS perfectly), I will print to Adobe's Acrobat PDFWriter in Mozilla and hand that person a PDF.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
As long as the app supports the X clipboard. Just highlight the relevant text and center-click where you want to paste it in.
Granted, this does not work for non-text data.
We all agree to help 2 other people to install it and get them going. They would in turn agree with us that they would find 2 other people and so forth.
This could work like a dodgy MLM with one difference: everyone would win!
Well, being familiar with Windows you might start by right clicking the desktop. "Configure Desktop" seems like the most likely option so you select that. "Desktop", "Appearance", "Number of Desktops", "Borders". Hmmm, no way to change screen resolution here.
Ok, lets try the KDE start menu. Hmmm, Control Center might have something. Lets take a look. Hmmm. "Look and Feel" maybe? Background colors, Themes, Icons, etc. but no screen resolution. Maybe I'll have better luck with the "System" menu. Boot Manage, Date and Time, Login Manager...nothing there. Hmmm, KDE System Control maybe. There is a device manager and it lists my video card but no way to change its settings. Hmmm, it must be somewhere else.
Hmmm, maybe the KDE Control Panel from the System menu on the Start menu might have it. Ok, I can play around with my isdn-config, set the date and time, change mouse settings, and even change my time zone. Hey, it looks like I can change my audio settings too, but unfortunately there is no way to change my screen resolution from here.
The answer to your question is, I don't know if you can change screen resolution from KDE.
The only thing funnier is that your "business" doesn't keep you busy enough to keep you out of places like slashdot...
Let me guess; religion, mac mention, basic in all caps....you're a failed dotcom marketing refugee with nothing to do but burn up minutes on free AOL cd's that you found at WalMart; am I right?
second society
Linux won. Windows users are constantly dealing with trojan spyware, viruses, increasing licensing costs, mysterious popup ads in the middle of a racing game, applications that think they own the whole system, etc.
Those are the complaints i'm hearing from friends who are casual home users. It's ironic that their reason for using windows is that it's alleged to be user friendly. I just shrug and think "glad it's not me".
If Linux ever achieves a 25% share of the desktop market, it too will probably be afflicted with some of windows' problems... So forget i said anything... keep using windows and wearing the bullseye on YOUR back.
Plus, it's cheap. Try the demo and then buy it.
I'm surprised that I've been reading through here and nothing has been said about Apple's old OpenDoc technology. They created it with the idea that each piece of software would be modular and you could create your own custom application from the modules you have installed.
Obviously, OpenDoc never really took off. It was pretty slow, even on the fastest machines at the time, and it used a lot of RAM. I thought the concept was good though. It would be cool if it could be tried again today, when speed probably wouldn't be an issue, and see what comes of it.
Apple still has their developer documentation on OpenDoc here.
Tag all posts with browser/OS info - embarrass them into using Linux. With all the traffic /. gets, it would be a major boost for open source.
I'd certanly get off my ass & fix the things that keep me booting W98, & submit more/better bug reports for the things I can't fix.
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
and can I get me some of that....
Must be REALLY good drugs. (You might want to check out a recent version of Linux... you do realize that they can mount windows partitions with ease. Why both copying them over?)
Agreeing with the other guy, and being fairly proficient with VB and macro viruses (I read and sometimes unobfuscate the code), I quickly got to work...
Working with Word 2000, they pretty much allow anything to be scripted, including MOST of the options. There's actually an Options object, which is accessable from the Application object. It consists of 160 some odd properties which can turn on a number of options, but I CANNOT change the default Save option. Oh yes, it's there in the Diaglog box, and I can change the default Open format to RTF from the Options object, but I CANNOT change the default Save option.
There are 20 some options dedicated alone to "Format As You Type", how often auto save kicks in, Grid Distance, Hebrew Mode, INS Key For Paste, RTF in Clipboard, etc.
But there is no option for changing the default save to RTF.
Seems to me Microsoft doesn't want an easy way to give IT administrators an easy way to change the default save option for hundreds of machines.
Steve
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
What's funny is that for a second I thought to myself, "you can't do cut and paste with just a mouse." I'm so used to using the keyboard commands, that it never even occurs to me to use the context menus.
Wow.
What I love best about the new macs are the new file view options. The new column view is killer - I love being able to see as much of the directory structure as I like.
Nnnnnoooooooo... that would be insane since Linux is a kernel, and a loosely knit bunch of distributions based around that kernel. For Linux to fail, open source would have to fail, and with it Xfree86, window managers, etc... The only way "Linux on the desktop" will fail is if all of humanity suddenly stops using computers either because of some Butlerian jihad or possibly a giant asteroid...
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Because it would be better than Windows, then. It would do everything Windows can, and much more. Plus, it's free.
just don't claim that it will be unsuccessful because it won't run windows apps.
Why shouldn't I claim that, if it's true?
"I like linux" and "Linux is/will be a success" are two very different propositions. Neither one implies anything about the other.
I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the original poster seemingly had a good idea, except that it won't work for companies that wish to be legal in the licensing of their software.
I understand that Word does not run on my computer when I access a second computer that has it via VNC. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter.
The EULA states that you must have a dedicated license for each machine that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or RUN FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
Can it run MS Office?
No, but...
Thanks, not interested.
Why does this get front page coverage? Look
at the source and make a critical judgement
on how biased this article is.
Read the EULA. It says RUN FROM the STORAGE DEVICE.
The app is stored on a VNC box. The app is run from a VNC box. The output is displayed on the VNC box; the Ethernet cable becomes merely a fancy keyboard and display cable. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to convince a judge of this analogy; otherwise, Microsoft could go after anybody who uses a wireless mouse or wireless display.
I wish this wasn't true, but it is.
Unless somebody has been taking to court, it's neither true nor false. USA copyright and contract law are like Schrödinger's cat in this respect: a contract is neither enforceable nor unenforceable until it a judge collapses its wave function with a strike of the gavel.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you can not configure windows, who do you ask for support ?
If you can not configure Linux, ho do you ask for support ?
Something to think about ! ASK for support from Linux companies; the above mentioned 'problems' are trivial to fix for an experienced Linux support crew.
it doesn't matter HOW you are doing this. The simple fact is that multiple machines are using a single copy of Office.
I don't have a license for IIS. (On my home machine, I run WinApache 1.3.22 when I want to share files.) However, I still use IIS via a network connection because I use Mozilla to connect to web servers that run IIS. Even if Microsoft makes an explicit distinction between IIS licensing and Office licensing, does it make me a criminal if I use a cordless mouse, a cordless keyboard, and a cordless display?
Trust me. I'm correct.
Can you give me the URL of a decision that establishes the enforceability of such a contract? Otherwise, we have a Schrödinger's cat situation where a contract exists in a state of superposed enforceability and unenforceability.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Anyone remember when the UNIX file listing utility "ls" was separated from the columnization utility "mc", so that you wrote "ls | mc" for a multi-column file listing? Now that was modular. And how long did that last?
The EULA states that you must have a dedicated license for each machine that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or RUN FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
If those are the exact words, how is the VNC box's hard disk not "the storage device" under the EULA?
Will I retire or break 10K?
"No one would buy a car with a welded-shut hood".
This quote perfectly illustrates a major difference between many linux users and most PC users. Assuming the oil and wiper resoviors where moved to the outside, how many average people would ever need to open the hood? If you have a problem with the car, you take it to the dealer or a mechanic.
The linux user of course, would want to get under the hood and tinker with everything. The average PC user just wants the car to get them where they need to go.
In a similar vein, how many people would buy a non user-servicable microwave? Everyone. Why? Because it cooks their mac n cheese in under 2 minutes, and in the end that's all that matters.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Man, the article hit a brick wall somewhere around the word "paradigm". :-)
We don't need a new paradigm, just a paperclip exterminator.
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Possibly the most useful comment I have ever seen, or ever will see, on Slashdot. Simple, clever, and functional. I can now stop reading this damned mess of a website because I have finally received some benefit.
If by VNC box, you mean the machine with Office installed, then that is exactly the point. That machine is the "storage device" and you are running Office on it. You then must then pay for a dedicated license for each machine you are connecting to that "storage device" the RUNS OFFICE FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
Run on, run from. Similar but different. Office runs on the storage device, end-user machines run it from the storage device.
If, by VNC you mean each end-user workstation, then if you want to call that a storage device, you still have multiple machines that are running it.
Actually, no. I write software, C++, Java, VB, SQL. Now looking at dotnet. Own an XP box, have RedHat Linux running in VMWare to play with Mono. Looking for a reason to buy a MAC because it's so elegant, but can't see any reason to because my development, word processing, and web browsing is pretty adequate on XP. I like to design and implement software/systems. Don't care what tech or platforms. Don't want to be bother with worrying about escape sequence in emacs, parameters in environment scripts, etc. When I program, I focus on the code, not the environment. When I word process, I focus on what I am writing, not the environment. That's why I laugh at your OS religion. If I have to do dev on VAX VMS tomorrow or Mac, or Linux, so be it. If those are what are best for the job, so be it. In my 10+ years experience, the most tech religious people were the least technically savvy and most ignorant of tech options and capability. They're the ones that say "it's from MS, it must suck. Linux or Unix is the best because..." They weren't around when the VMS guys were saying the same thing about Unix. They're usually enthusiasts who don't do programming or engineering for a living. They remind me of those silly dotcom marketers or web scripting kiddies of recent past. I have worked with many engineers who don't even have computers at homes. Yet these "technicians" and "hackers" live, eat, dring, sleep tech religion. Not sure why. It's pretty sad. So are you a script kiddie? Sounds like it.
Shut The Fuck Up About The Mouse!
I see this "the PC industry was built on games" line frequently, and with all due respect I think it's dubious at best. If you measure the personal computer revolution using applications as roadmarks.
The "Windows PC" is largely carrying on the CP/M heritage. Games only sell machines to hardcore enthusiasts. For the majority of computer buyers, a range of applications sell the machine and games are just icing on the cake. (Games arguably sell video cards for PCs.)
The Linux gaming world is likely to always be like the Mac gaming world. It's there, but people clearly aren't going to the platform to play games that they can also play on Windows. They're going to be going to the platform for something they need to do and that, objectively or subjectively, is better on that platform.
The enthusiasts will come to Linux already (they already are, and most of them are on Slashdot). To get regular users as Linux desktop users for its own sake, appeal to their sense of need with something that done more elegantly, effectively or more easily on Linux than it is on other platforms. That's why Linux is doing well on the server side--and it's a major component of all things Macintosh.
...doesn't hold water in my opinion. The "hood" really isn't welded shut in Windows. If that were true, then I wouldn't be able to upgrade Windows OS components, install new programs, write new software for Windows use, etc. Indeed, the only thing Microsoft doesn't give you that open source/free software does is the source code. To go back to the automotive analogy, if users drove "Linux cars", then those cars would ship with their design/manufacturing specifications for use by consumers.
The whole phenomenon of open intellectual property within an industry is, to my knowledge, unique to software. Automotive companies don't do it, chemical companies don't do it, etc.
I applaud the open source/free software movements for this uniqueness, but I don't think we should take it for granted, or even expect it by default. It's truly a unique thing.
Appreciate it.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
In installing files in linux. RPMs suck, Tars suck. Until Windows files install like mac IE you download it, and some script auto installs it,its just going to be too complicated.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This sounds like a good implementation.
.rtf, make it easy for there to be hundreds.
Help propagate it by writing a howto. Instead of one company with an automated way to convert existing and newly incoming documents to
The thing we have to do is stop reinventing the wheel over and over again. Every, how many ICQ programs do we need? How many browsers do we need?
We should have it setup so your programs can be plugged into other programs. You make a browser and i can plug your browser into my program, plug kwords word proccess for email, plug icq button and gaim button into it etc.
Windows has Components, Linux has bonobo which obviously isnt doing a good job, also we need some kinda built in repository for code.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I was close (damn close!) to ditching Windows completely from my home network - until I realized that I'd have to shitcan my HP ScanJet 2200c because there ain't no working Linux drivers for it (beyond some 100 dpi alpha attempts). Face it, there will always be stuff like that for the foreseeable future, so I'm going to have to run a Win2K partition on one machine. I can set this up, no prob., but the average user couldn't do it in a million years. For that user, Linux is simply not a serious option.
.
.
In the office, forget it. At work I get attachments coming in all day that are MS Word files, and people want them back with my comments. They are not going to tolerate the mess they would get if I read their file into, say OpenOffice.org, and than saved it out in OO.org's rather funky rendition of an MS "doc" file. My son could get away with that with his homework (he does, in fact), but a business correspondent would just puke.
So, unless you work for a company with a strong political reason to ban MS products from its premises, and customers who accept that, we're not getting away from MS Office any time soon.
For Linux to suceed on the office desktop, therefore, the MS Office "filter" support would have to be essentially flawless - so clients could not readily tell that I was using an alternative product (and would NEVER be inconvenienced by it). The latest releases are getting good, but we're not really there. At least the whole thing didn't change again in Office XP, but there is still considerable catching up to do.
At home, we will need broader driver support before users will be comfortable with a default installation of a slick Linux distro and forego windows on their machines completely. My scanner is just one example out of many.
One more thing. I use Mandrake and Debian (at two different locations). Mandrake is very slick, easy to install, intuitive, well set up, etc. HOWEVER, it is RPM based and breaks all to hell when you try to upgrade it. Not good.
Debian is a bear to set up, especially if you have closed hardware like NVIDIA and new stuff like AC97 sound. On the other hand, if you persist and consistently do things the "Debian Way" you can upgrade it all you want and things rarely break (they probably don't break at all if you stick with their "stable" distro, but that one's just too out of date for me). Apt-get install whatever is on (or is added to) their extensive "packages" page -- hooha!! If someone could only stay in the game with an easy to use distro based on Debian, that could be "it". (Then again, some of the semi-religious restrictions about what can go in Debian put up their own roadblocks -- for example, Java is not that well supported, as far as I've been able to get into it.)
Then there is DirectX-8. I haven't seen that on Linux (not counting emulation), just OpenGL, which isn't the same. Have I missed something? It's a major gaming issue.
So we are tantalizingly close, yet I am afraid so far. .
I guess I'll see how I like Win2K (I couldn't bring myself to accept the idea of XP and its Activation). (Yes, I just spent $140 on Windows 2000 so I could continue using a $69 scanner, but no doubt other things will come along that will justify the expenditure.) Right now I plan it to be the secondary partition on one box, but you never know. .
Think about it for a minute. Why is Billy Boy so pissed off about Linux? Really? Because Linux survives with out ONE product by Microsoft! Can Apple say that? We Linux users can get by fine without ONE thing on our system made by Microsoft! The last thing we need is Office made by Microsoft! I want Open Office to do so well, that no one will WANT to work of the port of Office to Linux! As of right now, I wouldnt care if Ope Office crashed every 5 minutes, as long as it started to support all the Office quirks that people miss (like footnotes and what not). If Open Office was able to import an office doc w/o a hitch, even though it crashed, we will know we are on our way. Because after that, it's just fixing the bugs.I woud like to tell Open Office to not worry about adding other features just yet. Get the MS import feature working first 100%. SUre, Office XP 2004 will most likely break it, but then the team can work on THAT! Open Office shouldnt worry abotu improving office just yet. Abiword can do that. Most users won't care if an office package can make you coffee if it doesnt import cherished MS Office docs. The only thing I think Linux needs after that, is a good desktop publish tool. Not for me per se. But the $10 CD you can buy in Staples that can make cards for you is something my mother buys. If they can port those apps to Linux, so much the better! Common Adobe! Common Macromedia! Help us to help YOU!
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Sims wouldnt be the most popular game.
Linux would have thousands of gamers out of the millions of users (currently it doesnt judging from the failure of Loki and and the subscribers of transgaming) Theres only a few thousand Linux gamers.
Most Windows gamers play games like mech warrior, solitar, the sims and flight simulator.
These are casual users. 80 percent of computer users play games. Which means people buy computers to play games.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
At work, I'm the local geek, so I get asked all sorts of bizarre Windows questions (today, one was about flashing icons on his desktop. I can only guess he's running at 16 colors) and it strikes me that Windows isn't easy EITHER for neophytes. Just as people bitch and whine about Linux being difficult, being a newbie these days with all the crap that's thrown at ya from Redmond in its newest version of "simplicity" has to be daunting.
Sure, Linux can be difficult for someone used to a Windows universe, but that's no excuse for not using it as a desktop. I've left Windows about 4 years ago (or is it 5 now? ) and it strikes me that the questions I field about Windows are similar to the ones I used to _ask_ about Linux.
Fortunately for the people who ask me Windows questions, I'm not a rabid Linux groupie. So I do try to answer questions as truthfully as I can (heh heh) but I do mention from time to time, though, that Linux superior in many respects and say I'll volunteer to convert a system, but so far I've no takers...yet. I think the reason is that not enough people have *seen* a real Linux desktop (though the ones I've shown have been impressed).
I only see improvements and more acceptance of Linux in general in the future. As more people actually see Linux in action, and get a chance to compare it to offerings from Redmond, I think that performance and usability issues will be answered.
--
BMO
For most people, X isnt needed for the Desktop.
However X works. For a desktop OS, X isnt really the best setup, for a network system X is great.
My opinion would be build something superior to X, make it backward compatible with all of the important stuff, and you'll be all set.
However i dont see you or anyone else funding the Berlin project, i dont see any of you trying to donate, I dont see berlin trying to accept Donations transgaming style. Maybe if they accepted Donations like transgaming we all could pay 5 bucks a month to have berlin be upgraded.
QT is nice, GTK is nice, the problem isnt the power its the fact that its too hard to use. We need to bring it all together, maybe Mono will do this but if it doesnt, we need to make some kinda standard.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
However, only one wireless display and mouse can be used against that copy of Office.
So what if your cordless terminal breaks? Is it now a EULA violation to put in a replacement?
See, each of the displays, mice, keyboards, and VNC software are being run by a second, third, and fourth computer.
Now define "computer." Almost every piece of electronics sold nowadays has some embedded microprocessor.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The applications to play media will be what makes Linux on the desktop..
We can have 400 different GUI managers, yet without applications to play media files, or do multimedia events, people will look elsewhere..
If all users use the same cordless mouse-keyboard-display to connect straight to the Office computer, no middleware or VNC involved. Then you are fine.
It's possible for the cordless terminal to connect to the computer via VNC over 802.11.
If you buy separate sets of this hardware and they all access the Office computer directly, then you are fine.
If users have their own sets of this hardware, they are accessing their own desktops, which is using VNC to display the Office computer, you are not fine.
OK, I'm stupid. I just found the Terminal Server app licensing FAQ, which points out: "The general rule of thumb is 'one license for each terminal,' which is the same rule as per-computer licensing." Feel free to have your other account moderate my comments down if you feel it necessary.
Microsoft's licensing policy, along with its terms gives another reason to stop buying Microsoft products (do not take this as an endorsement of piracy) and to stop using Microsoft products.
However, I still wonder how Microsoft defines "continually reallocat[ing] licenses."
Will I retire or break 10K?
I was originally introduced to UNIX by my mother, we used to have a dialup FreeBSD shell account. We moved from AOL (this was because AOL wasn't only charging $20 a month yet, but was still charging hourly) to this FreeBSD account(I won't explain why we had to move this type of account, it goes beyond the scope of this post). Anyway, so my mother had very little computer experience prior to this, she only had AOL for a little while (like 2-3 months). And you know what? Without X, my mother learned lynx, ircII, and other stuff on her own, and she taught ME how to use those apps, of course, now I'm a sys admin and I've far surpassed her skills. Anyway, if my mother can learn UNIX *WITHOUT* any X with almost no computer experience prior to that, I don't think learning how to use KDE or GNOME, which BTW, are quite easy by almost any standards would be a problem. People who complain about how hard the linux desktop is, either really haven't used one recently, haven't used one at all, are already used to another OS, and/or do things the hard way (untarring instead of packages, dpkg instead of kpackage). I installed mandrake in addition to debian on my system, just to see if it was as easy as people said and it was easier, mandrake is ready for the desktop, I have no doubt about that, I wouldn't put mandrake on a server though (in _my_ opinion, mandrake isn't ready for the server yet).
Does linux have a kick ass browser? I think so, mozilla is awesome, and has only gotten better with each release. Is it better than IE? In spite of my contempt for MS, I think IE is a great browser, but with these recent releases of mozilla, I even use mozilla in windows over IE. Konquerer is nice too, and I use it often. Depends on the mood I'm in as to what browser I'll use, variety is the spice of life.
People say gimp is no photoshop, well, two close friends of mine, who are both graphics majors, both agree that corel photo paint, which is available for linux, is superior to photoshop, and photo paint IS available for linux, even if you disagree that corel's app is better, it must be at least comparable to sway at least two opinions to the side of corel. Linux is close, just need MS office formats better supported, more games (though the select of GOOD gamesi sn't bad, I just ordered wolfenstein for linux) and a few more graphics apps (macromedia's stuff would be nice).
Anyway, one last thing I'll touch on regarding linux on the desktop is this, I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say linux will prevail
on the desktop, but it is to say that open source eventually will, whether it's in the form of linux, openbeos, or XYZ remains to be seen.
So nay sayers, please back up your arguments with valid examples and valid experience, don't just jump to conclusions from a limited experience you had and/or someone else's limited experience that you heard about.
Just my 2 cents.
The point about the corporate desktop is exactly right. Larger corporations will have a small number of standard builds which are rolled out onto large numbers of desktops and laptops. My company makes money out of "desktop refreshes", where a large number of either new or existing machines are brought into the workshop, and a defined image is written onto the disks of 1000's of machines. With this sort of exercise, once the image is defined the users aren't expected to change their desktops - indeed, after this sort of mass rollout the desktops are usually locked down to a) prevent the users breaking them, and b) prevent the users from installing unlicensed software with all the potential corporate liability issues involved.
To date we haven't been asked to do any large GNU/Linux based desktop rollouts, but it would be eminently sensible if we were. And in the process of such a large rollout, the licence costs of all the software included in the defined builds for 1000's of desktops is obvious and evident. This is where GNU/Linux on the desktop will really take off.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
The free and open source communities have an opportunity to change the rules of the game -- to introduce a new paradigm -- by acting imaginatively and delivering new tools that address these basic "wants" in ways that avoid mimicing Microsoft and deliver a different, better way to do things.
...is the sound of a hundred thousand three-button-mouse-owning Mac users grinding their teeth.
You know, most of us have the decency to NOT make beowulf jokes. Taco, could you lay off the three-button thing in return? It's kind of old and stale.
This
Seems like the techno geek world is forever in this revolving reinvent everything because it feels cool to do mentality
why not? microsoft has done this quite well!
It was 7.1. I Lost a fat32 partioton to this back when I was first using linux.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Total=3.
:D
Uh oh. Looks like I challenged someone's preconcieved notions!
M-X the-truth-hurts
Consider Apple OSX: Apple does Unix *on hardware they support*. Consider Linux: No one, not even IBM, supports Linux on their hardware.
.. fuss fuss; display doesn't mirror properly ..fuss fuss; nic doesn't work right ..fuss fuss; DVD doesn't work right ..fuss ..fuss. It really never ends.
The success of Linux has nothing at all to do with the excellence of the technology. It has everything to do with support.
Think of all the fussing you do to get Linux running on your systems: sound drivers don't work
So getting a manufacturer to impedence match the hardware to the distro is the real battle here.
Confession: I just moved on to Mac OSX. Its Unix enough and the fuss factor is 1/10 of my Thinkpad. And I'd go back in a minute if IBM offered even 1/2 the support Apple does.
This was probably written two years ago, and only the version numbers had to be changed. The simple fact is, Linux will not dominate or even compete (in a marketing sense of the word) on the desktop for one reason: Most of the clueless idiots out there DIDN'T HAVE TO INSTALL WINDOWS! It came pre-installed, and when windows fucks up, they take it back to where they got it, and say cute things like "'puter's broke". When linux is pre-installed at comp usa, then it will compete.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Try TightVNC. They have it optimized for low bandwidth with different levels of compression. It may look a bit fuzzy but it's faster than regular VNC. It even has automatic tunneling thru SSH. It's already used in Mandrake. Dunno about other distros.
It will win big time desktop share because of:
... yup a **browser**.
.NET and over the web.
... since you can install the same desktop and a free OS at home and on your laptop well ... you get the picture.
... the main reason Linux will *WIN* on the desktop: *LACK OF APPLICATIONS*
- low cost (all the following features are free the cost extra on Windows)
- easy to use in "thin client" setups, VNC, terminals, etc. Admin all GUI desktops on one or two servers ("on" not "from")
- ease of preventing users from installing applications. Save data to partitions mounted "no-exec", wipe and restore $HOME on each login, etc.
- XFS, ext3, KDE, mozilla, VNC, X (yup X is going to be the killer app it was never allowed to be - yes it *will*). Mark my words and when you are shokced to discover at a future place of work that you have a legacy Windows desktop running *inside X* or that a suite of custom applications your employer purchases comes with a "remote viewer" (aka X).
- lack of applications (this is a *GOOD* thing) You don't want users downloading and installing the latest Windows vid player, virii or whatever else.
Office apps are dinosaurs soon to die. Who sits around writing long documents with MS-Word these days? Do companies mandate that everyone install their own copy of Excl because spreadsheets are better than Web apps or do you fill out your expense reports using
And even if those old fashioned type docs are used where do they end up? On the Web. The browser is the OS these days - even Microsoft wants everything to run on
Plus things like 100-200 day uptimes on servers with 400 users doing GUI logins from 96 X-terminals help to push the use of of Linux on the "desktop" (only, *where is* the desktop?).
Things like a Sun server with 64 CPUs a GiG of RAM surrounded by el cheapo Linux diskless workstations will become very normal in gov't a business
And once again
... it was one of the primary success factors for Windows 3.1
bite me monkeyboy!
First off, I've used SuSE 7.3 (got the CD's right here, actually), and RedHat 7.2. I can say that they are pretty, but that alone does not a desktop distro make.
First off, neither one installed without a hitch. I can't figure out why. I don't have a wierd hardware configuration, and my components are not faulty (it all works fine in WinXP). Yet both RedHat and SuSE choked on the install every single time I tried. Eventually I was able to get SuSE to install, but I'm still very much less than impressed. The disto is completely broken, and it appears to be destroying its filesystem. Ever since the 2.4.x kernel, I've had nothing but trouble with Linux, though the 2.2.x distros (RH 5.xx - 6.xx) worked wonderfully, even if they were ugly.
WinXP, on the other hand, installed quite gracefully, and its about as stable as one can expect of the Windows platform. I haven't seen a BSOD once, though heavy media use tends to pull down the machine (still).
As far as Linux has come, I'm growing more disappointed with it. I never had a systemwide Linux crash until the 2.4 series. Whats the deal? I shouldn't have to retrograde for better performance/stability!
I, for one, am getting pretty irritated with Linux these days. Maybe its my hardware, maybe its not, all I know is that (gasp!) windows is more usable and stable as far as I can tell. A shame, but thats life.
My question is: How does OSX measure up in this regard? Is it terribly prone to systemwide crashes and other inconvieniences? I'm considering getting a TiBook, and wonder if its much of an improvement over the offerings of MS and Linus.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
a 13 year old kid to click "agree" when it comes time to agree to the eula. And don't read it. Then you are not bound by it, since a 13 year old is not qualified to represent you, nor are they bound by any EULA themselves.
MS is still trying to use a technical trick to force people to agree to a more restrictive license after they have already purchased a product. Use a technical trick to get out of it.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Indeed, that's the first step. The second step is to automatically transfer / map "My Documents", "Favorites", "Fonts", etc. I haven't yet seen a distribution that will willingly copy over files from Windows, but Windows XP will willingly copy files and settings from any other Windows computer via Ethernet.
/mnt/windows). In fact, almost any file system ever known to this planet can be mounted in Linux. (Try getting Microsoft to be this open.) Any files you want can simply be copied from there. Besides, there really is no need for such a "feature" that automatically copies files - it may actually pose more problems than it attempts to solve. But, if desired, it is still too damned easy to accomplish with Linux. As a matter of fact, I copy files between Linux and Windows partitions several times a day.
C'mon, man! That's just too damned easy with Linux. Most distributions will automatically mount your Windows partition (to something like
Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool.
Ummm, isn't that Visual Basic? Oh yeah, it is! You know, people can develop programs on a proprietary systems, even using a Microsoft product. I do, and so do some of my friends.
People can make programs to do a specific task to suit their needs, or they can just do their work in a program that does too much and get it done in half the time without having to worry about building a new program every time they need something done.
What is the problem with a program having too many features? Would you not rather have too many than not enough?
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Uhmm...
Don't confuse X windows with the desktop. X is far and above *anything* Aqua might be. X is designed for network-transparant use; Aqua is simply a desktop. Two totally different things.
Name one shortcoming of X. (Okay, I can name several-- but they are all similar to shortcomings in Aqua or the MS-Windows widget set.)
Applications: there are many shortcomings in the applications arena. Agreed.
Many tings are innovative in the Linux arena. The RTOS features finding their way into 2.5 are fairly innovative in a desktop OS, for instance. So is the whole Beauwolf clustering cconcept (WRT commodity operating systems). However, Desktop users just don't give a damn about either.
There are lots of reasons for users to switch; it will eventually happen. I suspect that within the next 5 years, we will see a dramatic drift from proprietary operating systems to Free operating systems. But not for any of the obvious reasons.
I think it'll be political.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I am the lazy & pragmatic type. Baaaa.
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
I hope Emacs (or whatever) will have a switch like `--can-run-as-root', so that it still runs as the normal user, but can temporarily switch to root when saving some system config files, after confirmation, but not requiring me to type the password. After all, I trust Emacs won't get things wrong just for such a sort time as root, and if it does get things wrong, accidentally erasing everything in my home directory as the normal user is worse anyway.
Hey, it would! I'd like to see the reults of that. Me, I'm using Konqueror, and in 99% of cases this is my standard browser, with Mozilla 0.9% of cases (when Konq doesn't handle it). IE only gets used when I've played a game under Windows and can't be bothered to switch back, or cannot access the site under Linux because the HTML isn't standard (damn, I hate that), or the site uses ActiveX or something.
I use the Windows 2000 Boot Loader and it works fine if I dual boot with Windows 2000 and RedHat 7.2 or Windows2000 and Windows 98SE. But once I try to use Win2k, Win98, and Linux it screws up. Everytime I boot in Win98 it says the 'Registry is damaged' and performs a long scan disk.
Now I just use the Win2k boot loader for Win2k and Win98, and I use a linux boot floppy for loading into Linux. Certainly one of the most annoying errors I get with Linux (and computers in general) are the ones nobody else gets. Of course, Linux is lucky to have strong user base who are involved in many chat rooms, message boards, and mailing lists that some guy in Taiwan may have the same problem as you did and found a way to fix it.
Maybe you should tell people in the Mandrake Community about the bug. Perhaps a messageboard?
I guess Linux Desktop is still immature.What we need a unified Desktop which includes the best features of KDE and Gnome.KDE looks gorgeous ,but its speed is worrying.Gnome is a kid needs maturity.As a windows developer ,I am rather confused like many other developers to write applications.Moreover it might be worthwhile to note Win32 API took off just because it has powerful library wrapper called MFC.
What we need in Linux is linux equivalent of MFC and ATL
There are two diffrent common methods of copy/paste in X.
:) http://freshmeat.net/projects/autocutsel/
the "PRIMARY SELECTION" and "CUT BUFFER 0"
The xcutsel program allows you to copy beween the
two. Theres also a neat little program autocutsel which can be used to keep the two "clipboards" in sync with each other, providing a copy/paste that works everywhere
"'It is unfortunate but if you look at other technologies, similar things have occurred. For example, look at the automobile. The complexity of them has gotten to the point that the average driver has little idea of the inner workings and they don't really want to know anyway. I realize this is a bad analogy but hoepfully it makes some sense."''
It's a bad analogy because my car has limited functions. Go from point A to B, carry stuff from said points. The computer by design can do so much more. We could greatly limit what one can do with a computer (limit it's functions), but then we would have two problems. One the computer wouldn't be quite as useful in our society. Two we would have to make a decision as to were the "limitations" need to be drawn. Everyone would be up in arms because their "function" wasn't included, and no one would be pleased someone else got the "function" they wanted. Basically it seems everyone wants the "problem solving" capability of the computer, but doesn't want to accept the cost of that "power".
"Getting Linux on the desktops of your average Joe (or Jane) is entirely different. "
Ah! The myth of the so called Joe/Jane. First no one here has ever came up with a profile of said individuals that didn't scream "ancedotal". Second much like Elvis & UFO's, one has never been spotted in the wild, but a lot of people will claim in public ("./") that they've seen one. So try this create a profile (much like the FBI) of these Joe/Jane's and let's see just how accurate you all really are. Here's the first bone. They will be male or female.
"Honestly, I think the automakers are the only ones who ever successfully pulled off this paradigm well; cars are extremely complex, but even the most dimwitted person can understand how to start the car, push down on the gas or brake pedal and turn the wheel."
Now try all that while moving forward in rush hour traffic. Not so simple is it? Any situation can be contrived enough to make it appear to be simple. But when smacking up against real life (a bit harder to simplify), the analogy breakes down, and sits beside the road with it's hood up.
I swear complexity must be a night terror for people by the way the run from it. Instead of rising to the challenge and facing it.
"The cost saving of using Linux is wiped out if you have to spend more to get a supported printer or if you have to spend an extra half hour figuring out how to change the resolution of your screen. Linux is still a little ways from that point so widespread desktop use is unlikely to happen any time soon."
But a funny thing happened on the way to the monopoly. A lot of hardware wasn't supported or supported very well. But when *we* look at *our* windows history those obstacles not only didn't stop the "widespread desktop use" that resulted.
The juggernaut seemed to pick up speed. What's not a "problem" for one is a ""problem"' for another. Gee I love double standards. Maybe we should adopt "dirty" tricks as that seems to be the only thing we don't have that would make us as successful as MS.
No, there needs to be an "expert user" in every box.
Both of you need to re-read your posts.
"If linux doesn't continuously become more user friendly than it will fail to recieve hardware support and new cool drivers like Nvidia's. And who will bother writing third party apps like sun's vm or Limewire, or commercial games?"
So, who wrote all the drivers and software that Linux has now? You seem to think that one needs one more than the other. It's nice to be respected and all, but let's not forget all the hard work that all those "unknowns" out their put fourth so that you can at least have an OS and software as well as the community (wannabe 31337 haXX0R) to complain about so bitterly. Try not to let your "graditude" get the better of you.
" That's because linux is meant to be administered. A skilled administrator sets it up...ONCE...and it just works. Users are happy. Something goes wrong, admin fixes problem."
Windows has that feature...it's called the geek next door. Funny thing though I never heard the word *never* used to describe windows chances of succeeding on the desktop even when all those little "facts" were exposed to the light. I guess it must be all the "objectiveness" floating about.
"We ran into some stupidity when installing Linux. When the computer goes into suspend mode and then wakes up, XFree86 would hang. In order to play games, he has to kill off aRTs daemon to get reasonable performance; and if he kills it off, he'll have no sound in KDE. When configured for DHCP and the laptop is disconnected from network, system start up would take a long time (older Windows also have this problem, but not 2000 and XP). There are a few more problems like these, and they really look silly to my friend who has been a long time Windows user."
So when windows problems rear their heads, how come Microsoft doesn't look silly? And more important how come people aren't "just say no" to windows when that happens. They certainly don't have that qualm as far as an alternate OS is concerned.
MPlayer is the very opposite of closed source - they ONLY distribute source. Why do people have it in for what is clearly the most full featured, fastest video file format player on Linux? (Not commenting on its DVD playback capabilities as I prefer to watch DVD on my TELEVISION like any normal person would.)
Your post is one of the most truest in the "Linux on the desktop" slashdot forums I have ever seen, and I agree with it completely. Here's my own personal experience with the prettyness silliness I think that the only way that desktops running under a linux kernel will succeed is if people like us who understand the need for desktops based on true HCI principles band together and create our own linux desktop environment. One day, that will happen.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Kitty Genovese
...and how exactly is aol's client supposed to work without drivers for winmodems?
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
X is not heavy, it's just the widget toolkits and apps that are heavy.
Have you ever tried twm/fvwm with xedit and that kind of programs?
Even a 486 can run them without problems!
It's GNOME/KDE and GTK+/QT that makes things heavy.
On my old Pentium 233 with 48 MB RAM, Notepad starts up in 1 second.
In Linux, my own Notepad-like GTK+-only program starts up in 2 or 3 seconds.
However, xedit, which do not use GTK+, starts up just as fast as Notepad.
This is the proof that it's not X, but the toolkit that's slow.
So X doesn't need to die. Just write extensions that makes better use of the hardware's features, make the toolkits faster and make them use the extensions.
They click the mouse with their index finger; and the next finger over is reserved for when people tell them they should be using Windows.
I was only suggesting that this would be done with the consent of the person who owns the computer. I am very sorry if I was missunderstood.
Nothing worse than slashdot users complaining about how much better XP/OSX is as a desktop. (typically from users who don't value free software.) Suggestions for improvement are much better.
The average office worker uses their computer as a glorified typewritter.
1. Beef up the fonts - including the anti-aliasing stuff
2. Improve OpenOffice Abiword etc - Word Processing is key.
3. Maybe a spreadsheet front end to mysql or something.
4. Improve some basic end user stuff - supermount
5. a Hypercard/FilemakerPro/visual basic style application for end users to develop applications. Something so that even kids can develop gui applications that are easily tied to databases and can be turned into web services.
6. IBM to start porting their desktop apps to linux(Smartsuite/Notes). I know, they aren't the best - but they would give large companies the vote of confidence they need to start rolling out linux on the desktop.
I actually think mysql could be a killer application for corporations trying to cut down on relational database licensing costs. For example, every accountant gets mysql to punch the numbers and do forecasts.
Well, there is a huge difference between 10-15 years ago and now. 10-15 years ago people knew computers were difficult, expected far less out of them, and in the very early days paid highly skilled people to maintain them and work with them to ensure components and software work together. Users have a very different outlook on computers now. Plus, Microsoft used anti-competitive methods to help them become dominant. Linux can't do that because no one in the Linux world has the power to push Dell or IMB around.
Your 'double standard' arguement is not valid here because the situations are dramatically different.
Read the Open Source Definition sometime, specifically criteria 2. Mplayer isn't Open Source, and has never been
You'll notice he said "the VNC Box's hard disk" not just "the VNC Box". The storage device is the hard disk INSIDE the VNC Box. It is run ON the CPU found INSIDE the VNC Box. A seperate application sends an image of the VNC Box's desktop (or maybe just a particular window) to another system, and interprets commands sent back to it, translating them into commands for Office. The Office application is only being run on or from the VNC Box. No part of Office ever reaches any other system accessing the VNC Box.