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
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 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.
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.
"But other than that, What is being offered? "
The opportunity to not be tied to endless EULAs, support contracts, pricey upgrades. To create an environment how *you* want it, not how someone else thinks you want it.
I'd rather be incompatible between versions *for free* thank you.
(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
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
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.
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.
Ok, well, what's the difference between using a multiple button selection device on a laptop and using modifier keys to do the same thing? You're still essentially pressing keys to mimic a multi-button mouse. My left pinky finger has become quite adept at modifying mouse commands on my iBook. I don't miss my one button or multi-button mouse at all while using my laptop.
Pooty tweet
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I thought everyone knew... The killer app is here!
...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!
What do people need?
Porn. Get the various streaming media formats supported on Linux. Get the various video formats supported. Get the various "features" of broken web-browsers supported in Linux browsers. Once all the features of porn sites are easily accessible using Linux, then success will come.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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.
(Heh, my parents have a picture of their grandkid as the wallpaper.)
The home market isn't all that relevant. It's the enterprise desktop that's the real prize, because it has a much shorter sell-cycle, because you get lock-down without a lock-down by moving to a *nix desktop, and because it's only necessary to train to specific work-related tasks, not how to install driver X or game Y or cutesy-apps Z.
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
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!
Get the various streaming media formats supported on Linux. Get the various video formats supported. Get the various "features" of broken web-browsers supported in Linux browsers. Once all the features of porn sites are easily accessible using Linux, then success will come.
If what you say is true, then these guys are visionaries.
Quote: "The goal of the Pornzilla project is to make Mozilla into a great porn browser."
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 wonders of Open Source...
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
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'
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.
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.
KDE 2.2.1, open a Konqueror window, Window->Show Terminal. Been there for a while, since KDE 2.0.1 I think. (Unless you meant something different by "integration", which you probably did, since that's a really slippery word and you should've defined it better.) Never used it much since I always have a konsole open anyway.
I've never seen the ability to launch a command line shell set to the directory you're currently viewing in the file manager.
Shoot, that's in there too: Open a Konqueror window and choose Tools->Open Terminal (Ctrl-T). Been there since KDE 1.1.2 IIRC, and probably since before then. KDE 1.1.2 came out sometime in 1999.
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?
That is the default behavior for the command lines you launch with the "show terminal/Ctrl-T" command in Konqeror, and probably has been there since 2.0.1. You can turn it off by clicking on the "link" icon below the terminal window scrollbar.
Everything you mentioned is available, it either seems so obvious or so "why would anyone want that?" that no one bothers to mention it. Oh yeah, it would also confuse the newbies. HTH anyway.
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
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 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
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?
Even WITH a reason you're not going to see people switching. I swear, my mother thought it was a violation of her warrantee to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98. I had to remind her that she had a one year warrantee and that the computer was about 3 years old at that point. "Oh yeah." Says she. "But why do I need to change?"
/dev/hdc6. Forgettaboutit.
I'm a geek, I like to think I'm a good geek, but I can't even bring myself to think about recommending Linux to someone who doesn't know what they're doing, or at least have someone who does living with them. It's hard enough to explain that when scandisk pops up they're supposed to leave it alone and let it do what it wants and just say "ok" to everything. But try explaining to them how to e2fsck
I've seen a quote floating around on here. Something along the lines of Unix being user-friendly but selective about who it makes friends with. I think it's going to be that way with Linux for a little more time.
-Sara
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
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.
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
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
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.
Plus, it's cheap. Try the demo and then buy it.
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
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?
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.
So Linux is ready for the desktop of the vast majority of users, who never go beyond word processing, spreadsheets, and email. The fact that it doesn't have what you think is necessary is irrelevant. Claiming that it isn't ready for the desktop just because it isn't ready for your desktop is an exercise in ego.
Ah, but lots of people want to do video editing, manage their photo albums without configuring DV camera drivers and other simple tasks that, yes, can be accomplished using LInux if you are a fairly adept user. However, there are millions upon millions of people who never want to have to compile a kernel, deal with drivers or use a terminal.
Again, I think KDE and Gnome are pretty decent desktop environments and are only getting better. However, until the UI behaves as consistently or stably as Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, or shudder, Windows it's just not going to take off. The core of what's needed is there. It's just that pretty much most Linux development is targeted at creating a user experience based around the desires of programmers and networking people.
Yes, Linux is a desktop OS, but it's main strengths are still in the back end arena where the lack of an inconsistent UI is not that much of an issue.
I use Linux at home. Mostly for teaching myself new things, but when I need to get honest work done, I switch over to my trusty PowerMac and fire up applications that I know are going to behave and perform in a very consistent and predictable way. KDE and Gnome are still just a little too rough at this point for the average user, which, yes, includes those millions and millions of parents out there who are going to be spending their disposable income so that their children can have computers. Hopefully, some of the kids will be adventurous and try installing Linux or OS X or NetBSD or BeOS (if they can find it).
Linux is NOT going to take over the desktop but I sincerely hope it has a long and fruitful run serving people faithfully.
Pooty tweet
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