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 ;)

Comments

Re:Build a tool ...

[MenTaLguY]

That's effectively the idea behind Berlin.

Re:Hmmmmm...

[jd142]

Well, Mandrake has done this for a couple of years now. The first version of the diskdrake tool, back in 98 or so wasn't as good as using partition magic first, but now it is better. It just finds your windows partition and automatically makes the right lilo entries. Also finds any other partitions and makes mount points for them as well.

It has correctly found my win95 (way back on my p75 in '96), win98, win2k and winxp partitions on various computers over the years.

I suspect RH, SUSE and others are equally adept, and probably have been for years, but I've never used them on a dual boot machine.

Re:Whose desktop are we talking about?

[anpe]

Unless you're an advanced user you don't need to unzip untar or whatever to install a program.

If you're not using a Slackware 0.1a, you will be able to find some admin apps to manage your packages in your GNOME or KDE menu ...

Compare comparable things : if you want to install something from the source under Windows, some actions a bit more complicated that next-next-next-finish are involved : your dad would have to launch MSVC++ and hapilly compile every new release of Word.

Re:Whose desktop are we talking about?

[Arethan]

I'm currently working on a solution to that problem.

There is really no reason why we can't have binary compatability between x86 distributions. What's really missing is a common packaging format. One that actually includes ALL nonstandard required libraries, and is self installing. (Meaning that it is a self installing executable that has no non-standard library requirements.)

The difficulty really comes in trying to determine what libraries are standard and which are not. I'm currently thinking of basing this on the Linux Standard Base. It seems to have a lot of weight with the large distro makers. (Hell, RedHat is a contributer!)

But you are absolutely right. Linux needs a "next, next, finish" installer. Trust me, it is on it's way. Just be patient. :)

Re:Whose desktop are we talking about?

[ethereal]

As Ed[1] would say, "Fud fud fud FUD FUDDY FUD-fud-FUD!"

This hasn't been an issue since, what, 1998 or 99? Download file (to desktop if you want). Double click on RPM file. kpackage fires up and installs it for you. You can even use apt on any non-braindead distribution and let the software elves install stuff overnight for you, just like Windows Update (well, maybe without the instability).

Console windows, gzip, tar, make, etc. aren't factors in the real end-user experience of Linux these days, and haven't been for years as long as you use your distribution's app packages. It would be nice if someone wouldn't bring up the whole damn "packages are hard" thing every time this article gets written, because I get tired of typing up this reply every time. In this aspect, Linux is as hard as you make it. Just because you like to do it the hard way, and that's the only way you know to explain it to dear old Dad, doesn't mean that that's the only way.

Now, if you want to get code from different distributions running on yours (SuSe->RedHat, for instance), or you want an app that's only distributed as source, then you do have to do more work. Just like if you wanted to take an app for Win 3.1 and run it on Win2k, or if you wanted to compile a Windows app from source. But there's documentation (often voluminous), and 90% of the time you can get by if you can just read and follow instructions that any 10-year-old could. Heck, building from source is almost as easy as installing that Mac OS X distributed computing app :)

[1] See you someday, somewhere space cowgirl!

Re:Universal File Formats

[ncc74656]

There needs to be some type of HTML standard for printed documents.

Repeat after me:

HTML is not a "page-design" language."
HTML is not a "page-design" language."
HTML is not a "page-design" language."

CSS, OTOH, does provide for specifying the positioning, style, etc. of printed documents as well as stuff viewed in a browser. In fact, with software that supports it, you could have one document with a completely different appearance on-screen and on-paper, each optimized for the characteristics of the medium. (You wouldn't need "click here for the print-optimized version of this page" links on a page.) It's anybody's guess, though, as to how well the printing-oriented features of CSS are implemented in current browsers.

Re:Universal File Formats

[sparkz]

I've been writing a utility recently which generates reports in RTF format. Unfortunately, RTF is a Microsoft format, and a document cannot be independently verified. It's basically a rehash of the internal Word format, so it's just about as messy as the internal Word format.

RTF was not developed as a language from the ground up, it's just a way of saving MS Word documents in a non-binary format.
If a language definition came along for RTF, that developers could know for sure that their application was generating valid RTF, it'd be a lot easier for everyone.

Invalid RTF can easily crash MS Word (just don't close a table, Word dies...) because it's such a hotchpotch format, even Word cannot test the file for validity before it crashes.

Whilst RTF is useful for interoperability, it's not that much better than MS Word format in some cases. An OpenDoc standard, which MS adhered to, would save everyone megabucks and megastress.

Re:Universal File Formats - one solution

[Erore]

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.

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 .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?

Thank you.

Re:Violating the EULA?

[Erore]

The point is, a user is accessing Office from a second machine. A third user from a third machine. A fourth, from a fourth machine. It doesn't matter that they can't all run it at the same time. Microsoft doesn't care.

I do not know what you are speaking of when you say "virtualize" the screen. The method of access is irrelevant. VNC on Windows to a Windows machine is exactly like running a single user session of Metaframe or Terminal Services. I only mentioned concurrent because the original poster might be thinking he is within his rights as a user because the copy of Office is only being used by one person at a time. That is not what the EULA for Office is about.

The EULA reads:

Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other computers over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sahred or used concurrently on different computers.

See, Microsoft doesn't care how you do it, what you are virtualizing, or whatever clever tricks you have created. The simple fact is that different machines are all running the same copy of Office.

For streaming media and video: Crossover

[HoserHead]

For streaming media and video right in your web browser, Crossover is your friend. Supports Quicktime, Macromedia (flash works, though not "officially" supported since a native flash plugin exists for Linux), and various other bits. Combine this with the native Real plugin and you've got some great surfing goodness. If they get Windows Media Player up and running, there will be no reason whatsoever to use Windows for any porn-surfing at all.

Plus, it's cheap. Try the demo and then buy it.

Re:Build a tool ...

[LetterJ]

PHP function to use the Word Spellcheck in the background.

function spellcheck($string){
$word = new COM("word.application") or die("The spellcheck function requires MS Word.");
$word->Visible = 0;
$word->Documents->Add();
$word->Selection->Type Text($string);
$word->ActiveDocument->CheckSpelli ng();
$word->Selection->WholeStory();
$corrected = $word->Selection->Text;
$word->ActiveDocument->Cl ose(false);
$word->Quit(false);
$word->Release();
$word = null;
return $corrected;
}