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 ;)
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
...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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
The problem is, those features that make the Linux desktop attractive to the geek is exactly those features that make it difficult for otherse to use. My mother doesn't want to hear about command lines, and permissions, and filesystems and the such. She just wants to log on to AOL.
Will the development of a desktop for the masses involve such massive changes to the basic concepts of Linux so as to make it unattractive to the the geek? And more importantly, will the geek willingly "dumb down" the distribution for the desktop. I will have to say no. Linux exists as it is today because we have designed it for our own use, not for Aunt Tillie.
So then it falls on the commerical companies to develop a Linux distribution for the average person. Lindows is the first attempt at this, but even they have been hampered by the unique semantics of a POSIX system (permissions!).
I have resigned myself to the fact that Linux will never reach widespread popularity on the desktop. However, I do know that the platform of tommorrow will *not* be the desktop - it will be the palmtop, PDA, or set top box. The world is obviously moving to a more embedded and more distributed environment. Luckily, thats where Linux shines.
Don't waste your time getting Linux on the desktop. Instead, spend your time getting rid of the desktop itself.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
The problem is, those features that make the Linux desktop attractive to the geek is exactly those features that make it difficult for otherse to use. My mother doesn't want to hear about command lines, and permissions, and filesystems and the such. She just wants to log on to AOL.
This itself is part of the problem. Everyone expects a very complex system to be EASY. Computers inherently are NOT easy!
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.
I don't think however that you need to dumb-down the distro. Linux should do this, IMHO:
On install, after you pick the install type (Workstation, Server, etc.), pick the install type (basic or advanced). If you pick Basic, it makes everything as easy as humanly possible; no status displays on bootup, just a nice graphic with a loading bar. If want to see if eth0 came up correctly, you should do an advanced install. And of course, you can change that in X itself too. If you pick basic, it doesn't even put a shell on the main KDE bar, nest it down somewhere. Put the Office Apps on the desktop, Web Browsers, Media Players, and thats IT. If you're a geek, Advanced install or Advanced mode let you do everything you currently can under Linux.
Geeks are happy, regular users are happy, and Linux looks good to everyone.