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 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
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!
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!
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!
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.
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.
so you didnt give him a real distro then? I'm confused as to why did you give your dad a non newbie linux box?
my mom.. I email her a file... she copies it to her KDE desktop and double clicks on it. it asks for the administrator password and it is done.
I walked her through that once, and now she does it on her own...
What kind of alpha-ware are you making your dad install that isn't available as a rpm or easy to install binary package? I've eve seen a couple of apps now bail on rpm and use the Loki installer now...
please get him off of slackware, an advanced linux distro and give a newbie the braindead distro... redhat. it works great and is easy.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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!
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.
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.
Windows:
Linux:
As you can see, the Windows method is much more user friendly, and takes much less time. Linux will never succeed as long as it is so difficult to install programs.
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
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.