Slashdot Mirror
Rasterman Says Desktop Linux is Dead
anguished writes "The future of Linux, its best hopes for blowing past everything else on an x86 machine, once was located in a little Austrailai website, with a window manager called Enlightenment, which we all hoped to be good enough to build and configure. In an interview with Linux and Main, the recently silent Rasterman talks about GNOME, KDE, E, and his view that the future of Linux requires new playing fields."
I posted this in another thread, but it got buried, so here goes...
For you and me, KDE and GNOME, along with any of the good standard distros makes GNU/Linux a great, pretty-easy-to-use choice.
But that's not good enough.
What I'd like to put together is Linux for Technophobes. The machine that Joe Schmoe, who has never used a computer, can walk in to Wal-mart, take home his new box, and be able to use it for email, web browsing, and word processing with zero assistance from anyone else.
He should open the box and find a simple (a la iMac) one-page sheet that shows him how to connect the mouse and keyboard.
A simple wizard sets up the net connection with him.
I'm picturing a very simple interface for the Basic mode. One big button that says Email and has a picture of a mailbox. Another for the web browser. Maybe a couple more apps, but not many.
And, if you click on the Advanced mode button in the corner, you get switched to KDE or GNOME.
Let me know what you think, and maybe we can put something like this together.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
What, again?
:)
How many times has Linux died this year? I've lost count
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Oh, thanks for that, I guess I'd better buy a copy of windows then.
Nobody is using Linux as a desktop system--it just doesn't have the intuitive point-n-click of a Mac or the games offerings of Windows. People are using Linux for the server-side. That's where the real power is. The one who controls the server controls the desktop, Microsoft has been saying that for years.
I've been saying for years that E was eye-candy and that development efforts were better focused on the shortcomings Linux has on high-end server machines such as quality NFS support, a standardized email package and high uptimes. Too bad it took Rasterman, boy genius, 5 years to figure it out as well.
Of course the desktop is dead.
If we want a desktop that works,that will compete, there are two things that have to happen.
We need a single distribution. That's right. We need totally focused efforts.
We need a single desktop. No more of this "I can choose 10 window managers." I'm not saying take away the choice, but we need to pick one system and say "THIS IS IT" and the community can code for THAT.
Until we have focused, unified efforts towards bringing out a rock solid desktop, it won't happen. There is too much choice for the consumer.
Those are all great solutions. -- But they're not simple enough for a very large market that has yet to embrace computers at all.
Rasterman's got a point. With the configurability of Linux, we should be able to outclass Apple in uber-simplicity. Semi-dedicated specialized boxes are what I'm talking about.
The kind of thing that I set up shop in Valley West Mall in Des Moines, where people can come in and buy an email/web surfing machine, that can also play a couple games and do word processing. But with little to no learning curve. For true technophobes, even the Mac OS is too complicated. We should target that crowd.
Sell dedicated DVR boxes that are a really just a Linux box with a custom gui and an easy interface to the 2 or 3 programs you need.
KDE, Gnome, et al are great, but too complicated for this market. And this market is huge and largely untapped.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
was raising the bar far higher than anyone ever before imagined.
Before e, wm's were not very interesting.
Why doesn't Sues and Mandrake make a 1 CD distro, with Openoffice, KDE, Cups, The gimp, mozilla, and the best version of wine etc and a few games, and maybe apache?
I like to have 10 different databases loads of servers and evrything anyone could ever want in a distro.
My Mum wouldn't use it and doesn't need it
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I find that it gets really old when people act like linux is competing with windows. Linux just 'is'. It doesn't have a big ass corporation behind it, and I'm GLAD it's that way.
Quit treating it like a commercial product, which has to make ingrounds on... on whatever the hell people think.
Get over it.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
I am serious about putting TechnophobeLinux together. Please reply if you are interested in helping.
Any suggestions for what software to use as a base also appreciated.
Cheers!
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
However, I find his defeatist attitude annoying. I think the reason for it is simple: he seems to be a pure technologist, and therefore upon observing that the technically superior OS loses on the desktop, he gives up hope, embracing the idea that making the coolest, whiz-bangest WM for the ultra-31337 geeks is the best course of action (and while at it, take pot shots at the KDE and GNOME dudes).
What we need is more people who know how to market Linux to software companies so that the damned applications will get developed. This is not a technical problem, it's a business problem: there are too few desktop Linux users, thus a relatively small business imperative for software companies to incur the overhead of porting applications. Furthermore, the fear of free clones of your application and the culture of imitation in the Free Software world scare companies aware from producing commercial products for Linux (note that I think this fear is unfounded: a sufficiently complex, powerful application takes an awful lot of effort to clone. Your work should stand on its own quality).
The reality is that we need to find more ways to entice companies to develop commercial, closed source software for Linux if we want it to succeed on the desktop, for the masses. Don't say it's already there, we all know it's not. And we need to remember that the solutions to business problems are usually not found by technical means.
Our only hope is that Palm will actually furthur develop BeOS and make a desktop that's as easy to use as a palm handheld. The problem with desktop linux is X... The Berlin project gives us hope but everyone is wasting their time developing desktop like applications for X which is a wasted effort. Most desktop users don't need X's connectivity and flexibility. They need a good fast graphics engine and X don't cut it anymore.
I searched for Austrailai and found only this. Such good spelling here.
handybundler
Linux is never going to die...its too global...how do you stop something that is used everywhere?
I have no doubt in Linux's performance as a Server, the desktop requires "designers" not programmers. If you don't have artists and other experts design a smooth and easy to use desktop, it's not going to take off, even if it's free.
Linux on the Server side will see more appliance like approach rather than self-installs. I don't know of any backoffice or mission critical system that would dare to use Linux.
1) where's the support? Do I call Linus Torvald?
2) Where's the apps?
3) what's the business models of some of these linux companies?
I can't see any reason for a company to go completely linux and compete in business today. You read about these news of foreign companies converting to linux because they don't want to pay M$, guess what! You still gotta pay the linux propellerheads that put the stuff in, that's your support and if they walk on you, there goes your business. See ya!
Linux on desktop is still a joke right now, if my girlfriend doesn't like it, it's a POS. How can Netscape sue M$, they complain M$ lock them out of Windows, so go to Linux, Netscape is worst on Linux than on Windows and it still sucks.
Linux maybe free, so is IE. I'll take my IE and do some porn surfing, see ya!
Could we PLEASE, PLEEEAASE FUCKING *READ* the goddman thing before posting it on the front fucking page???
It sounds like Taco was stuttering during a stroke or something.
Learn, to, FUCKING, spell.
GODDAMN!
Why can't linux coexist with Windows? (apart from Microsoft's tactics that will try to rid the world of linux) It seems there are lots of people who use it now. It may not have the same market share as Windows on the desktop but does it have to get that to be successful? Is having it on a select group of computers, for people who don't want to have their hand held by MS not good enough? (This isn't a rhetorical question, I don't know, enter your ideas please)
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
At the start of each new school year, Microsoft hits our campus hard. They hang big banners, set up booths in the student center, and get the managers to make the on-campus computer store employees wear Microsoft t-shirts.
The BYU Unix Users Group gives its own response. This year, we're going to have a booth in the student center too. We're inviting students to bring their machines, and a group of volunteers will install Linux on their machines on the spot, for free.
We're making up flyers that read, ``Thrusday and Friday only! Get a FREE COPY of OpenOffice Suite version 1.0 (must have student ID or employee ID). Save HUNDREDS of dollars on your computer software this year!''
We're not just going to be pushing Linux, but Free Software in general. For those who are queasy about jumping full-force into Linux, we will offer to install Mozilla and OpenOffice on their Windows partitions, so they have some familiar ground to refer to when they boot into Linux.
The biggest debate in the group at the moment is which distributions to recommend to the newbies who bring their computers to the booth. I argue that since we're installing it for them, those who live on-campus and are on the university's network should use Debian because of the ease of maintenance. Others claim that Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE are more user friendly in general, and so they should be advocated instead.
In any case, we're doing what we can to let starving students know that they don't have to shell out hundreds of dollars to feed an addiction to proprietary software, when perfectly usable and functional Open Source alternatives exist for them. KDE+Mozilla+OpenOffice+Evolution is a powerful combination that makes Linux very much a viable desktop operating system.
Plus, anyone who switches over has the best support team around: the campus Unix Users Group! A perusal of our mailing list shows that we don't sleep at night until your problem is solved. :-)
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
Why isn't there any software to look in proc and compaire your hardware agains a database on the internet and get the drivers/kernel patches for your system.
BTW I'm browsing with konquror, not sure why but it was a bad idea, konquror doesn't make a good browser.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Last night, I just turned off Windows 98 at home.
It's replaced with the newest Red Hat. My two teen-agers love it (with the sole reservation that they can't run Final Fantasy any more). Our local parochial school is switching to Linux in its computer teaching lab. At work, we're a Fenster-frei environment: we route telephone calls, all done under BSD and SCO.
So Linux on the desktop is dead, eh? Guess a lot of people like me just missed the obituary.
[this
Oh boy, here are some thoughts.
1. MS had the Linux "Myths page", eventually even they didn't believe it and have changed their campaign.
2. Not so long ago "experts" were saying that Linux would never enter the mainstream.
3. More recently other experts suggest that Linux is an operating system "for web servers only"
4. Other experts say that Linux will only ever run on low end hardware and never get into the "Lucrative high end server" market. (IBM big Iron, DEC/Compaq/HP Alpha anyone?)
Will Linux succeed on the desktop? That depends on your definition, but considering what the "experts" have predicted over the years, I'd have to say that my money is on success. Experts, industrial leaders and their opinions don't mean much to me, simply because they are so often wrong about Linux.
Why do we call them "experts" again?
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Linux on the desktop is both dead and alive. Linux is never going to have the market share that MS has. But, for the first time ever since I began toying with Linux back in '96, I have every one of my computers including my laptop running full time Linux setups with every piece of software that I need to be productive (OpenOffice 1.0, Evolution, Galleon/Mozilla, and some other scientific software). The user interface is now mature and elegant and is far superior to any that MS has conjured (particularly through customizability). Even my technophobic girlfriend doesn't mind using it, as long as she can boot into windows to run the occasional game that doesn't work in linux and even the Sims is working now!
Rasterman sounds pretty bitter. Enlightenment never really made it. I guess his ego is bruised. If Enlightenment was the only viable future for the Linux desktop, then he'd be right.
Why not some other Operating System? Time for a blatent plug How about Syllable, an AtheOS fork? We're looking for lots of developers!
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Maybe not just one CD full of binary, but, suse *personnal* edition is just 3 CDs.
If you consider that sources are provided, that's just 1,5 CDs (very roughly).
And, if you choose default office install (= linux desktop), you just need one single CD (IIRC)
#include "coucou.h"
* 40% seem open to hearing about Linux - they just want something easy to use, cheap, etc
* 20% are skeptical at first then very impressed when they see it ("If I set up a new business I'd definately use Linux")
* 30% would use it if it had the games they wanted
* 10% adamantly support Microsoft without knowing anything about it - perhaps just for the fun of opposing me
So in my experience, Linux has a very bright future for the desktop, at least for those people I encounter daily.
But I think the desktop is dead anyway. Rasterman says that embedded is the future - the level ground. This is true, but there is another path.
Do you think 10 years from now we are going to be using desktops too? I doubt it very much. Minority report perhaps gives us a snippet of the future. Computer "desktops" will go 3D. Maybe we will control our computer with virtual reality gloves and speak commands, or perhaps even use our mind for some simple tasks.
The future of computers will hopefully be power covered by simplicity. The way we think and use computers will change over time. We won't think "I need to use the computer to check e-mail". E-mail will become a daily part of life. Perhaps your house will say to you "You have 3 new messages". And then you respond "bring them up", and in front of you is projected an image of the e-mail, which could possibly be video rather than text. This kind of interface has no desktop. It is a simple and human way of interacting with computers. Desktops are cludgy things that expose people to some of the power of a comptuer that they don't need to see. What we need is a solution that has the simplest possible interface (like the e-mail scenario I gave) but has the potential for the user to hack it at it's base level (open source philosophy). That way the simplicity makes computers a powerful part of everyday life, but also gives the power to those who want/need to fiddle with the settings.
I think the desktop is dead. It's like having 4 remotes with 20 buttons each. In a house you hide your electricy cables, and you hide your water pipes. With computers however we expose people to desktops - which I believe are a patchwork solution. Eventually there will be no "computer" that people fight to use. There will be no monitor or keyboard. The interface will be more natural and human, integrated into the house or building.
Basically, desktops are getting close to their highest potential. The next phase will be something different, something that won't be solved by a new Windows release or by KDE 6.2 - it will require a shift in thought about how computers work, which will start off ugly at first and then progress into something beautiful looking. But as long as we have the desktop, our way of thinking will be constrained to 2 dimensions, which doesn't allow for the vast potential of computers in the near future.
(3dwm plug)
A lot of people run Linux. A lot MORE have "tried" it, and then say to themselves "then what"?
;-)
Linux just doesn't have any good, free software, and that's what's needed to run a desktop.
At my last company, when I complained about Office attachments on the email and intraweb (against agreed-upon policy), the IT guy just gives me an Office CD and winks. When I state I run Linux at home, I get the "it's not my fault is it" (with the look of "you know, if it hurts when you slam the door on your head don't do it" look).
Linux will not even BEGIN to be appealing until people can "take their work home" (Office warez CD). As cool as CodeWeavers Crossover is - I've used it - it isn't "free" with the OS.
That's not a slam - I encourage commercial software on Linux, but the office-worker-at-home and the AOL user -- the majority of Windows users -- just want everything for free. They don't believe in Free Software or the GPL, and they don't believe installing MS Project on every computer is really stealing.
Eleet coder wanna-bees is another group -- slightly more technical than Mom -- that Linux won't win over. These people download the ISO's as soon as their released, burn em, but only try every 3rd release and then on a spare computer. Since Linux won't run his pirated games (or at least not full speed), Linux sucks. Besides, you can't run MS Visual Basic on Linux, which is an industry standard. Everyone knows you gotta program Linux in Assembly, or sometimes C.
For Linux to become more appealing to the masses, it doesn't need a lot of polish -- it's "good enough" right now. What's needed is for Microsoft needs to get tougher on licensing, which they won't do UNTIL they are SURE they have locked out the threats (by extending the Internet, apparently)
Won't happen. When this guy goes on the newsgroups, email lists, or other web forums for help on linux, All he will hear are cries of 'RTFM' and worse.
That's why TechnophobeLinux should be marketed with hardware by a company. That way, the company can only bundle a few, relatively easy to support apps, with a ultra-simple gui.
That way, the company will be able to do support for most of the problems a newbie would encounter.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
If you could run MacOS on top of linux, I bet you'd get a lot of people using both. I know I would.
Why don't you do it. Almost every Linux person goes around saying the same thing, but few tries to do anything about it.
... bla, bla, bla. They'd freak out. It is not so simple designing a system that ordinary people find simple.
The simple desktop distro excist, for the people already in the Linux community.
For ordinary people the problem does not lie in the software you put in, but the software your users can put in. Try make people understand rpm or - haha - apt. It's near impossible. (Simple solutions can be made through scripts (with guis) and databases with software info.) People don't like to see, should I solve dependency
By the way, when you make this distro remember to include wine. Or try explaining that they can't download that and that program because it is a windows binary. (Should be explained like this: bla, bla, bla, bla, not, bla, bla, bla, windows, bla, bla, bla.)
Look a monkey!
I got my friend (who doesn't know what a PCI card is) to try Linux. If Linux desktop had really failed, I doubt he would be making his new PC a 100% Linux system (which he is).
Luke-Jr
It had three levels of interface. The first was very simple, a few big icons for the most basic apps, everything fullscreen. Intermediate level had a full screen file browser open to it's equilvalent to "My Documents" where there were templates for each app. Then you had the full motif-inspired interface, basiclly all the interface ideas of win95 long before win95.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Do you HAVE to post this in every /. article? Or at least use have a link instead of a page (or more) of text...
Luke-Jr
Apple has you beat by a mile. It's been dying twice a year since the mid-80's.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Desktop Linux is far from dead. It's NOT dead.
Just that it's not heading in the right direction.
Lots of things have been said about the ease of use thingy, but that's just scratching the surface.
What's important, looking at the larger picture, is that Linux is filled with programmers wearing beany caps.
Translation : Linux programs are wonderful, but it's just NOT the world needs.
Look at Windows. Lots of clumpsy and over bloated programs, but at least, they do what the world wants, and buys !
We have put too much emphasis on SOURCE CODE, because we wear beany caps - that is, we are the people who almost always CHANGE THE PROGRAM BEHAVIOR OURSELVES, that's why we demand the source code to the program.
But the world outside of us is that people do NOT want or need or know how to change the program's behavior, all they want is that the program does what they want - whatever they want.
That's why we have NORTON UTILITIES for Windows, and there's none of Linux.
That's why we have so much MUSIC, MP3, STREAMING, VIDEO, MULTIMEDIA utilities for Windows
On the other hand, what do we have here ?
KDE, GNOME, ENLIGHTENMENT, yeah, big deal !
The users need MORE THAN WINDOWING ENVIRONMENTS, they need UTILITIES that do stuffs for them !
That's what we fall short on.
That's what we need to double and tripple our efforts on.
Not that we do not have the knowhow to do it, nor that we don't have the programmer-aid to do it.
We have Kylix from Borland (FREE !) and how many of us are using Kylix to develop USEFUL UTILITIES for the users ?
Do something about this problem and we will see the Desktop Linux comes alive.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Linux is dead.... when did you loose touch ?
When did the free software development model become inferior to the proprietry one ?
Simple answer is that it hasnt, nothing has changed, software darwinism.
Free software will obsolete all mainstream proprietry software, an exception being software that has a short lifespan.
I mean ive already read comments about how this guy is just a troll, and how he proclaims the death of linux, when he in fact does no such thing. The only area that he mentions Linux being dead is on the Desktop, and his points about users wanting apps over stability made sense.
It's three cd and about 2000 apps with source code.
lets take the 100 or so that mum would use, and stick them on 1 easy to install CD.
'Persomnal' should really be called 'geek' since that appears to be the target market, there usually anything but personnal.
There's a big differnace between office and home users, most offices have or can affort technical support staff, and operators are usually banned from installing stuff on there workstations, my Mum needs a helping hand.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
But not much more. He said what we all know, commercial apps are not so plentiful under linux and many users are scared off.
However, to say there is no future on anything but embedded and headless servers is extremely stupid. Maybe not for the common user, but among professional users who *do* care about the stability of the underlying OS and who *know* where to go to get the apps, linux is great. And not just computer professionals, I know people from various science disciplines using it as well, and also friends of mine run linux even if non-techinical, because they can ask me for help and I can usually give it quickly. The desktop is alive and well, but not for Joe Schmoe, but among professionals it is gaining considerable share... The move to an NT based kernel has appeased some, but not all Windows users sick of the underlying instability. MacOSX has a great thing going, but the price is too high. I'm sure MacOSX could stamp out linux desktops, as they offer all that does and more as far as desktop use is concerned, but the price is too high and they couldn't care less about winning anything but the Windows market...
Frankly, I think his stance is more influenced by the decline of enlightenment's popularity (and his resultant decline in fame) and potentially some business interest in his coding with regards to embedded applications. I would dare say there are just as many disadvantages in the embedded arena for linux as the desktop, since systems like QNX are much more adapted to the environment than linux...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Reminds me of GEOS. It had three levels of interface. The first was very simple, a few big icons for the most basic apps, everything fullscreen. Intermediate level had a full screen file browser open to it's equilvalent to "My Documents" where there were templates for each app. Then you had the full motif-inspired interface, basiclly all the interface ideas of win95 long before win95.
Yes! That's basically what I'm envisioning.
Make the easy stuff brain-dead simple.
Make it intuitive to move on to the next level when you're ready.
Make the intermediate stuff simple.
Make the hard stuff possible.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
It's a resource issue,
I'm currently involved in other open-source projects,
I have a full time job.
I do part time consultancy.
And I can't afford to distribute a distribution aimed at 'Home' users.
But i do have time to post comments and suggeations and the odd bug report etc.. on open forums and mailing lists
Personnaly I'm switching to gentoo, it seems to have a much better package manager.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I would just like to say Thanks to Rasterman, I have been following E's development for a while and if there _is_ any hope for a linux desktop, he is it. Probablly one of the best coders and contributors to linux ever.
I think the biggest obstacle for more widespread adoption of Linux right now is the kernel. Unlike userland, where you have thousands of independently developed programs available on the same machine, the kernel is one big, monolithic chunk. While drivers could in principle be developed and distributed separately, in practice, few are. Most Linux installs that I do involve recompiling the kernel. Whether it's merely packaging or architecture, something isn't working there.
What, again?
Exactly what I thought. People are so busy planning grand futures for Linux, and so disappointed when the software evolution fails to take us there, that they forget to enjoy the present.
Linux will have a future. Just take my word for it. The journey, however, is more important than the destination.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
It was an accident, I'm using mozilla at the moment.
Desktop Linux (and BSD, excepting MaxOS X) is really only appropriate at large installations where the environment is completely controlled and administered by professionals. While it's fine for a power user to install on their home computer, it really isn't appropriate for mom and pop. For that matter, neither is Windows. This means that desktop Linux is most likely to be found supporting scientific applications, Software development houses, Health care support, corporate desktops, data entry and call centers, and cash registers. It may become a viable home desktop system in the third world, should countries like China, Korea, Peru, etc decide to invest the money necessary to create localized infrastructure to support a wide scale Linux deployment for it's citizens similar to the old teletext systems used in Europe.
To proclaim that desktop linux is dead is foolish though. I've seen some very large scale desktop Linux deployments Boston area genomics companies, universities, and software houses. These are often commercial Unix to Linux migrations, so I'm not arguing that it's hitting the Windows desktop market hard. But if you know your stuff there's definitely work to be had in this market. As long as I'm paid well for this stuff, I'd hardly call it dead! --M
Has it? Has the battle ended already? Do we have a closing date in this battle?
Or you just feel tired and rest behind the lane, yell at the runners "We lost! Face it! Do you hear me? We lost, dudes!"
I think the main issue that's preventing most people from switching is that it isn't worth it. Linux, on the desktop, is not that much better than Windows XP on the desktop. Its not noticibly more stable, its not noticibly faster, but there are noticible downsides (application support and ease-of-use) to using it. I've been running Linux on a desktop machine for years now, and have recently settled in pretty well with KDE 3.0 and Gentoo. I use it not because it really gains me any technical merit I don't get in Windows XP, but because I hate Microsoft, the windows-style command line interface, and that blasted tooltip that keeps popping up in the corner of my screen in XP. Still, whenever I boot back into XP (to run Photoshop or the occasional game) I have to admit that Linux really isn't technically superior anymore, at least not in ways that a desktop user would notice. XP is reasonably fast, reasonably stable, and reasonably easy to use. For those less rabid then me, then, its an easy choice. They can endure the pain of switching to Linux, for a dubious set of benifets, or they can stay with Windows. This has been the situation forever. Why did MacOS never manage to take back its market share from Windows? Its been superior (from an average desktop user's point of view) for a very long time. Simply because people didn't percieve enough benifet from doing it. Windows was *good enough* compared to what MacOS was at the time. Now, if the timing had been different, had a Linux 2.4/KDE 3.0-style desktop been available around the introduction of Windows 95, would Linux have taken off? Hell ya. People would have seen a significant benifet in moving to Linux. Thus, if Linux ever wants to beat Microsoft on the desktop, it can't settle for being a "better Windows." It has to be *more*. Not just different, but a generation ahead technically. Now, this is what Microsoft does best. When they're not designing stuff like Palladium, MS engineers come up with genuinely cool stuff. A lot of it may be ripped of from other sources, and the first implementations may be less than perfect, but overall, they keep advancing the desktop. If Linux wants to be the next Windows, it has to beat Microsoft at its own game. It has to think up the next generation of user inteface and implement it before Microsoft can.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
part of Linux's Desktop is what i like about it!!!
i can take KDE-2.1.1 and install it in a Slackware8.1 or Redhat7.3 and it works great, or change XFree86 for X
try taking WinNT4.x's desktoip GUI and half the rest of the guts of the OS and put it in XP or rebuild the kernel in NT, there is so much you can do with Linux that could never be done with windows not in a million years unless microsoft makes their OS more modularized & backwards compatible, but since microsoft's business model is to milk the customers for as much cash as possible as their first priority that the idea of getting a better operating system from microsoft will never happen, sounds like the theory of microsoft's treadmill of expensive upgrades really is true...
When they say the desktop is dead, they mean that Linux X11 applications have a way to go before users find they are rock solid and work flawlessly, people nowadays expect everything on demand, a house, a wife, decent X applications.
I'm personally disappointed that Rasterman does'nt continue because he likes doing it, but because he wants to be in the middle of things. Perhaps Rasterman should become the business spokesperson for Linux.
I also wish people would'nt take the viewpoint of Linux having or being in a battle with Windows. It does'nt work like that, Linux is an alternative, you either choose it or you don't. It's not designed to be a Windows competitor, that's what magazine article writers would have you believe because a good confrontation makes a good story.
>Windows has won. Face it. The market is not >driven by a technically superior kernel, or an >OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day
ok, I take a strongly traditionalist viewpoint of this, Linux should not be in any market, when they say market, the market people talk about mostly relates to click and see systems, OS X, Windows, BeOS etc, Linux like UNIX does'nt conform to "that market".
>LaM: Where do you think the future ought to lie >for desktop Linux?
>R: There is none
It's upto you Rasterman to do something about it, if you disagree and me and you too reading this.
I must say, i've lost a lot of respect for Rasterman as a Linux representative. He seems to be stuck in the present of what is out there now, but not what will be there in 5 years. No one knew Linux would be this useful and yet it is 5 years ago. For someone who is a genius coder, i'm a little disappointed that he does'nt have social foresight.
Every time a subject like this comes up on Slashdot, I try to promote a project that we think has the solution for Linux on the desktop. It's not about have a single distribution, it's about having a single standard that people can get comfortable with using.
Simpleface.org is a collaborative website (a wiki) created to work on the the "Simpleface Usability Guidelines for Open Source Software." In a nutshell, what we're trying to do is create a set of Graphical User Interface Design Patterns which will encapsulate the best practices of current GUI design and roll them into a guideline unbiased towards technical implementation to be used by OSS projects. Those OSS projects that comply with the guidelines get to use the Simpleface logo to promote their software as usable.
The focus of the effort, which only started a couple months ago, is education of the OSS community in usability, UI design and Human-computer interaction (HCI). Once there is a standard way to use OSS software, many of the problems with Linux on the desktop will go away.
If you have a chance, check out the site and add your two cents...
-Russ
Me
Linux is dead on the desktop.
Translation: Englightenment is dead as a Linux window manager so I hope it will be a bittersweet victory for the successful coders.
BSD is a better license than GPL because it let's people steal your code.
Translation: Would somebody please steal my code? Please? Half my life was wasted on E and now nobody wants to use it.
I offered to mould e to be the GNOME wm, but at the time Miguel was convinced you could do a desktop without a wm.
Translation: Miguel knew what a spoiled, freaky, pain in the ass I am so he pretended not to need what I had to offer.
E is there to poke and prod and do something new. KDE and GNOME are there to appeal to the masses.
Translation: KDE and GNOME appeal to the masses. The ingrateful bastards!
Most of the things your talking about came, saw the light of a few TV programmes and went, just like internet video phones.
They seem nice, but there more of a gimic than anything else, I talk to my computer all the time and I'm glad it can't understand!
2D Desktops generally provide the best interface to the information normally displayed on a computer and there the easyest for most people to understand., humans are geered up to think in 2d space there are a hell of a lot of people who cant think in 3d, 4d or 1d space, or do mental folding etc...
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
First, XFree was a pain in the ass to get set up. I haven't tried it since 4.x, but 3.x sucked because all the setup programs wanted to compute "optimum" modelines for your monitor and display card, which inevitably never worked for me. This instead of what I wanted: resolution and refresh, from the list of VESA standard modes. Oh, but I can just edit this annoying config file, commenting out a bunch of lines for modes I don't want. If it's a pain in the ass for me, it's impossible for mom 'n' pop. Before I gave up two years ago, I think only TurboLinux 4.x had a config program with resolution/refresh selection.
Then there's getting the desktop environments running themselves. I didn't get very far on them, but in my experience, if you didn't pick the window manager favored by the distro, the others simply weren't configured to do anything useful. The only way to get menus to contain anything useful seemed to be by editing config files, and by this time I wasn't in any mood to search for more damn config files to edit.
So I decided to stay with Slackware as a lean server-only OS on my cheap x86 boxen, and wait for OS X, which at the time was just around the corner. I've had it running on a laptop since pre-release, and this week it's put new life into a creaky old Power Computing clone box. And I've got it running on the iMac my mom got a few months back. It just works, without a bunch of tweaking, partly because Macs have nowhere near the hardware nightmare that exists in the x86 world. And it's full of that unix-y goodness which let me kill a frozen AOL client on her machine remotely.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
People who just want a computer as an appliance (as opposd to an all purpose tool), are more comfortable when there is ONE way to do things that they can learn and won't change with the next update.
Try doing support for a non-geek user who's OS just got changed. Every little interface difference is a point of confusion, because they only know the steps that they must perform instead of the concepts behind them (that allow us to move from system to system and still have a clue).It's the difference between rote and conceptual knolwedge.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
How can it be dying and growing at the same time ?
New apps are being written, old one improved, sure others are being abandoned, but thats darwinism.
You'd have to be blind to think the linxu desktop isnt improving.
Frankly someone with his background should know what hes talking about, he clearly doesnt.
A lot of slashdot posters blindly agree with anything someone important says.... think with your own brain people.
That he describes has been shrinking rapidly. Has he been sniffing ether? He repeats "It has no future" three times in a mantra-like fashion. That seems a pretty ignorant anti-tech stance. Every technology can be refined, he just sidesteps the question, probably because he's confused.
...Linux is the new Punk Rock.
huh?
I had a copy of Corel linux, it was ok but way before it's time, there just wasn't the desktop out there (two years ago?) to support a desktop distribution.
I only run linux at home, and i still pine for Open in Textpad , browse in ACDSee and add to myfiles.zip
This all worked 6 years ago on Windows! linux still doesn't have anything close to OLE extensibility.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why would you want to emulate a Mac? If you want Unix just get a real Mac.
Seriously, the only reasons to do such a thing would be because a) you just bought a real expensive Dell and can't afford an iBook, or b) political ("free as in speech baby!") reasons.
The only sensible choices would be to either get the Mac or to help the Linux platform grow into something better than it currently is.
And frankly I sort of agree with the assessment of the Rasterman. I don't, however, think Linux on the desktop is dead so much as it hasn't come alive yet. I believe there is a chance it could but there are obstacles. And those obstacles aren't technological primarily.
I think the chief obstacle is that it's made by geeks for geeks. And instead of admitting that the rest of the world doesn't operate like they do and adjusting their distro accordingly, they spew silly rhetoric like "GUIs are like diapers, everyone outgrows them eventually." I do read a lot of comments here suggesting that Linux already is just as usable and friendly and consumer-ready as Windows or Mac OS. This is ridiculous on it's face and if you can't admit it then there is hardly even a starting point for further discussion.
One option is to give up like Rasterman. Another would be to try making that "consumerized" distro that everyone who doesn't know how to "apt-get" would be able to use. I predict, however, that when and if that distro gets made it will be universally hated by the current Linux community.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Read the subject. I'm not gonna repeat myself.
I don't think Linux is competing against Windows or anything. It doesn't have to. It doesn't need to. Even though competitions do bring better products. Even though somehow you think it has to, that will not be the job of Linux to compete, it will be GNOME or KDE.
:)
People use whatever they want to use and they need to use. As long as something is doing what it is supposed to do and user can make use of it, it wins.
I actually know some people who use Windows and they think *computers* are just like that. From time to time, it will not work, blue screen, has to reboot. Big deal.
Same theory. Some people live in the Matrix and they enjoy it even they know it. Others however might prefer to free their minds.
Windows blinds you from the truth, the truth that your computer should do more than just giving you blue screen.
If you have the source, you have the whole world...
I agree. In my home country (Paraguay) whole corporations are switching to GNU/Linux servers and workstations. People are using Linux at home and at work. The trend will continue. Why? Because no one likes having his home/workplace inspected by some mobster from the BSA armed with search warrants and extorting thousands of dollars from you because you happen to be a "pirate". Don't even mention the costs that you incur because of the overhead implied in the license auditing and management.
I guess that many First World people simply don't realize the global implications of a Free Software OS and how truly liberating a GNU/Linux desktop has been and is being right now. From India to Nigeria to Boliva, Free Software is gaining momentum steadily. Awake to that fact, please.
By the way, if Linux is supposedly dead on the desktop, then why Bill Gates had to make serious donations and brib^H^H^H^H lobbying to China and lately Peru? It was not because of the servers, dude. Food for thought.
-- Look to the Rose that blows about us--"Lo, Laughing," she says, "into the World I blow..."
Would Mandrake, Suse should partner with a HPQ to create a desktop computer with linux bundled with it ? maybe that would work. if more end users use it then more software companies would create more user friendly apps. Software companies don't want to create for linux b/c there aren't enough users. then again maybe IBM should have spent more money developing end user apps. More LUG's and similiar groups should be advocating and helping companies /users convert to linux.
COMMAND LINE INTERFACE:
there is absolutely no need for a 'desktop' in Linux. EVERYTHING can be done at the CLI, for the BASIC user. e-mail: pine, elm; word processing: pico, vi, vim, emacs, jove; web browsing: links, lynx.
And if you need pretty pictures to do your web browsing, someone could code a browser much like the early DOS apps that would just pop up in a different graphics mode and voila, pretty pictures.
Then again I am only playing advocate to a little demon called the CLI because I hate the Devil that is called GUI.
--Huck
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
Austrailai? What do you mean exactly?
I've just asked Google, and it can't answer my question. Nor can E2.
Did you mean "Australian"? I'm guessing so. Now, you're forced to preview a story before submitting, and on a standard QWERTY keyboard the 'n' and the 'i' are far apart. So, simply, where the hell did you pull "Austrailiai' from?
And its not worth much, but here goes. I've found, from searching and testing, and trying, that most of the linux desktop/window managers have one thing in common. They tend to focus on eyecandy without as much effort on the useability. I tend to pride myself on the fact that most applications I can sit down and tinker with for 5 minutes and have all figured out. It took me longer than that to figure out how to maximise a window in E the first time. Of course, once I know HOW to do it, its not a problem, but Linux will never make the desktop if the average user has as much trouble as I did. The desktop should not be the most difficult application to figure out. Yes, I know RTMF, and yes, all those helpful popup help windows were there to guide me.
Indeed quite a few window managers are as easy to figure out as Windows, primarily because they look just like it. For better or worse it seems to be a rather intuitive interface. Either that, or everyone's gotten so used to it over the years that its become second nature.
Effort with the intent to spur the Linux desktop should be placed in developing an interface more intuitive than the standard. One that any joe user with half a brain can sit down at for the first time and figure out with a minimum of frustration. At the same time, keep it configurable enough to not be completely ignored by the more advanced crowd.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I found Kylix to be unstable. Just like every other winelib port. Other than that, you have a good point.
Ever heard of James Braddock? Linux could be the next James Braddock, but it won't happen if the community leaders don't have the same attitude James Braddock did.
Are you going to site any of these expert predictions from a fews years ago, or simply insult things that do not exist?
Please, provide URLs.
"with the sole reservation that they can't run Final Fantasy any more"
:)
Let them have reservations no more! Just plop down a couple bucks for the Playstation version and download epsxe. FF7,8 and 9 all run like a dream on my Gentoo box (Tactics runs very well with some weird map oddities, but doesn't bother me). Need to play the SNES versions? They run picture perfect on ZSNES or SNES9x which both have excellent Linux ports and it's trivial to find the roms for FF2 - 6. NES emulators for Linux can get you the first one. After all, the PC versions of FF are just ports.
It's not dead. It's dying.
Linux dead on the desktop
Let me see... BSD has been dying for as long as I can remember, Gnome has been dying since QT 1.0, Apple computers has been dying out of business for 25 years, the floppy drive is dying out soon too, non-RISC processors are dying, disco is dying, (you get the point)
Programmer man-hours are a limited resource, whether you work for Microsoft or Linux. Linux has a larger talent pool, but that effort is divided into dozens of differnet desktop enviroments, all of which, IMHO, are inferior to windows (and I haven't seen whole lot of improvement here, either). Konq is a terrible way of browsing the file system, not to mention slow. You can't even copy/cut/paste reliably between applications. So forget about coding for them. Linux is wonderful for programming and remote access, speed and reliability, but when it comes to the UI, it stinks.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It's quit tempting to look on Windows as the Nazis, or the Mongol Horde -- a force that must be crushed if civilization is to be saved. If this is your working analogy, then there is only total victory or inglorious death.
However, much as we might like it, the world is not populated by dragons and operating systems are not the tools of St. George.
Linux is not dead. Not now, nor is that a likely event any time in the near future. It's equally unlikely that Linux will soon drive Windows into the sea.
Windows will continue to be dominant on the consumer desktop for the immediate future. Windows has the applications, the games, and the thousands of developers grinding out the product. Could they do better work on Linux? Possibly, but it's not going to happen. Not with a relatively tiny marketplace further divided by flavors of installation and interface.
Linux will continue to drive servers and as the desktop of enthusiasts. It's a niche operating system, now, and likely forever.
For those that gnash their teeth over the evil empire, fear not! All empires crumble with time. But when something comes to push back the dark forces of Mordor, it will almost certainly NOT be Linux. It will be something clean and new, something that has a Vision (upper case "V") of computer interaction that goes past the creaky, cranky interfaces we have now and gives us a new way to relate to our machines. When it happens, Windows will go into the C/PM bin before Bill Gates can debug his digital living room.
And Linux will still be there, clanking along, doing it's job.
There is some space between death and triumph. Kind of like Switzerland.
because I really liked my Linux desktops. Yeah, I mean here I was with my 3 Linux desktops working perfectly, running Debian sid, with all the latest software and almost entirely Windows compatible.
The only thing I've found that I want to do in Linux that I can in Windows is Neverwinter Nights. Bioware will fix this eventually, or so they claim. (They'd better! *glowers*)
But apparently Linux has no place on my machine. Whoops. My bad. Those folks working on apps like gnumeric, OpenOffice? They should just give up. Linux has no place on the desktop, it'll never win. Might as well give up. Great attitude Renderman, really. Just because you haven't decided what to do with e17 for the past 3 years doesn't mean desktop Linux is dead. I'm happily using e16 with no gnome crap, as a matter of fact.
Let's face it folks, Renderman is wrong. Yes, he's a good developer. This doesn't make him always right, and in this case he's certainly not. In fact, I'd say the majority of the people who actually use Linux on the desktop on a regular basis can see that it's just started rolling. We've got a lot of 1.0-quality software now, and a lot of support coming in the future as even game developers start to realize that there is a market for their stuff in Linux, however small and insignificant that that can wait what will probably end up being 6 months after the Windows version (Hi Bioware!). And to say that Windows has won, especially with all the antitrust stuff against Microsoft and larger companies trying to move away from that proprietary software, I just don't understand where he's coming from.
Random and weird software I've written.
At home, I've been using Linux for an all-purpose server for years (various versions of Slackware, for those of you that care). Mail, web, firewalling, NAT, etc. Works like a charm. In fact, it consistantly outperforms the faster Win2k server sitting right next to it. Great stuff. I've had the same luck with BSD, and there are many many places where Linux on the server side is the right way to go.
That being said, desktop Linux is completely awful.
Now, don't get me wrong, X, Gnome, KDE, etc are all excellent strides in the right direction. All the various office apps, Evolution, the windows-like file managers, and every other little applet that helps make the Linux GUI experience what it is are generally very good pieces of software. However, it is hardly ready for prime time.
For example, just for kicks I put a fresh hard drive in my trusty IBM Thinkpad A2Om (ok, not so trusty, but whatever). I grabbed the latest network install boot image of Mandrake Linux (which I have found has one of the better default GUI setups around) and went at it. A few hours later, I had a bootable machine. So far, so good. It detected everything I needed it to, was running at 1024x768, etc.
Things went downhill from there. I tried to set up mail, both through KMail and Evolution. Neither of them were too keen on getting hooked up to my IMAP server. I experienced several crashes, and when I moved the laptop into a different network, Gnome didn't like that it couldn't resolve my hostname (even though I was running DHCP). Also, even with 128mb of RAM and a 512mb swap file, things ran slightly slowly.
Anyhow, none of these things are serious problems that I couldn't have worked around, but all of them were annoying. Now, compare this to popping in a Win2k or XP disk and having a completely operational, optimized for the user experience, interface. Sure, it isn't going to work out of the box all the time, but it will sure do it more than Linux will.
Now, before you start in with your reasons why I could have done this or that or the other differently, don't. None of it matters. No matter what you say, what I did above will be the one and only test a "regular" user does. If it looks at all to them to be inferior to Windows in the first few minutes of use, it is all over. Sad? Maybe. True, hell yes.
Recently, I do some projects on MS platform using MS SQL Server, VB, Access, etc. I think there is still a long way to go for Linux on desktop, especially for commerical users. For example, we have many good open source databases already, but MS SQL Server does provide more graphical tools for administrators, like DTS, MS Agent. On programing side, the VB+Visual Studio+COM/ActiveX+ADO+ODBC is still the best solution for corporate IT client/server development. Access is good tool for both user/developer.
If Linux does not have equivalent stuff, it is hard for companies to install linux on their staff desktops(unless everything turns to web based. (: ).
I agree with you! CLI is the best thing! You can even watch movies on CLI by using MPlayer. There are 2 things, however, that are missing in CLI apps: 1) LYNX and Links are absolutely GREAT, but they should have the ability to display images and they should respond to mouseclicks. If I click on a link using my console mouse, Lynx and Links do nothing. 2) ASCII-text acrobat (*.pdf) reader! If we could get these, your CLI experience would be perfect.
Linux is doing fine thank you.
Oh sure, it is a bit slow selling on desktops but that will change as more and more consumers find out that Microsoft can more than double the cost of every PC you need.
The Microsoft office suite is $400 or so a seat. And, they are getting nasty about blocking the install on home, laptop and second or third systems by the same person. For $76, StarOffice suggests 5 personal installs. And, if $76 is too stiff, use OpenOffice.
Once the white box boys figure out that they can deliver all PCs with a free copy of OpenOffice and simply charge $15 or so to have it preinstalled, the casual market for the Microsoft Suite could dry up completely. And, the same may be true with large organizations such as corporations, governments, etc. Why spend $300-600 more per PC when you can go with linux, OpenOffice or StarOffice and double the number of new machines you buy?
Money is money.
And, right now money favors linux hands down.
Plus, that does not take into account the progress that Xandros, Lindows and others are making to expand the number of viable desktop systems under the linux banner.
The absence of QuickBooks, TurboTax and a few other key applications is a problem right now. GNUCash is fine. And, other software does substitute for much of what people think they need Microsoft for. But, it takes time for that information to filter out. But, it will filter out. Those who sell PCs (not the big OEMs) will be taking the lead packaging complete systems including software for a whole lot less than the Microsoft burden. Then customers can decide if the extra money is really worth it. It is not if you can make the choice.
And, if you write custom applications anyway, Java or Delphi/Kylix is right there to give you the same powerful GUI based RAD development systems you expect on Microsoft stuff.
The more machines you need the bigger the price benefit helps linux.
And, if you think that consumer PC buyers really want to pay twice the price for a system just because it has some Microsoft software on it that they rarely use, you are crasy. The typical consumer simply is unaware of what they can buy and use. That will change.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
As far as I can tell, Raster wrote a tricked out monstrosity that had no clear direction and was rightly abandoned by Gnome and pretty much everyone else (which is not to say that parts of it weren't brilliant bits of coding). Now that he's failed in that arena, he's declaring it dead. Gnome has had its growing pains, but its a pretty good desktop. I've used it everyday since v1 (and cursed it more than a few times, but probably much less than I would have windows).
I think Rasterman has a credibility problem. When he left redhat there were many rumours that part of the reason was that enlightenment's code was not maintainable, scalable, and flexible enough to go in the desktop direction redhat wanted.
Now jump forward to the present, with XF86 4.2, Gnome 2.0, Galeon, Mozilla 1.0, Evolution 1.0, Abiword 1.0, OggVorbis 1.0, KDE 3.0, hell, even nautilus is improved. The reality is that RedHat's (and other distos') desktop environment *is* significantly better than it was then.
The only thing that hasn't gone anywhere is rasterman's enlightnenment. Now, I used enlightenment back in the day, and I give it a lot of respect for being the first eye-candy for linux that attracted casual desktop users, but the world has moved on.
It looks like Linux on the desktop is everywhere but dead, and rasterman is a hypocrite for saying differently.
This is not a troll (I hope). But--- could someone explain why linux must *win the desktop*? Since all the code is OSS we know it will not die (on the desktop or anywhere for that matter). Since there are many, many programmers out there who like changing/improving the apps we know they will only get better. So given time GNU/Linux will eventually find its true marketshare (non-zero). Linux is the alternative and there is ALWAYS a need for an alternative. It aint going nowhere.
My $0.02
Michael
"Why do we call them "experts" again?"
Because "expert" is shorter than "someone who likes the sound of their own voice".
I couldn't agree more with the parent poster. It's not "Linux on the Desktop" that's dead, but the DESKTOP itself that's dead (or dying).
Normal people don't want to use computers, in general. They want to do tasks that they consider worthwhile. They want to communicate with others asynchronously. CURRENTLY, this is done through email, and CURRENTLY it requires a computer. Who says email NEEDS to require a computer? What if your email could be read to you automatically when you walked into your apartment? Most people would see this as a usability improvement over:
1. Sit down
2. Turn computer on
3. Wait
4. Double-click
5. Wait while phone dials
6. Click
7. Click
8. Scroll
9. Click
10. Click
11. Stand up
People don't want to use computers. They want to get things done. They want to create letters and presentations. Currently this requires a computer , a printer, and a lot of typing. Does it have to be this way? No! A lot of research has gone into voice recognition and computer vision. In the future we'll just describe a document or presentation in basic terms, using a natural interface like voice or gestures, and a device will spit out what was requested.
I predict computing's next "killer app" will be something that allows people to get rid of their computers.
As a power user on OS X I don't feel constricted by this. I still run X and various Unix tools thanks to fink and I find the UI to be straightforward and easy to use. In other words, the simplicity helps me get on with stuff rather than wasting hours reading through FAQs or HOWTOs just trying to figure how to share a folder or whatnot.
The same cannot be said for a Linux desktop. I'm constantly wasting my time trying to find some stupid option in the zillion control panels KDE/GNOME puts up for me, or swearing at the stupid help system that doesn't integrate distro help with KDE/GNOME help with manpage help etc., or scratching my head trying to figure out to get my scanner to be recognized, or grinding my teeth because the distro fills its multiple menus of apps with cryptic apps with names starting with g or k.
It doesn't have to be that way. Unless Linux becomes usable for everyone, not just experts it will never get on the deskop. Besides, the more users there are, the more jobs there are for admins and developers to meet demand. I would have thought it's in everyone's interest to see it succeed.
For Linux to lose to Windows it would have to have been eroding % wise. By all accounts Linux is gaining!
Just because you are losing does not mean you have lost.
OpenOffice.org the suite
Mozilla the browser
KDE 3 and Gnome 2
At all of this has come within the year (there are other notable milestones for Linux projects I just can't think of some of them)
Everything is going in favor of linux. Red Hat is becoming profitable, IBM is selling Linux servers, and other buisness are more open to Linux than ever before.
Desktop linux will become a reality (some will argue that it already has), the only question is when will it(on a large scale)?
Hell you can get a Linux computer at Walmart or Compustore.com (see below or sig) for cheap!
$325 Linux system -monitor
--Joey
There's this great thing that's been happening in Western culture over the last century, which consists in bringing visual intelligence to parity in media with verbal. But there's also this childish notion many tend towards in our culture (in most cultures) that if we valued A over B before, and now we learn that B has special value which had been overlooked in favor of A, then the revaluing of B should also demote A. Thus for instance there are many examples from "feminism" and "culture theory" of the equation of the written word with "linear" thinking and even "patriarchial" ideology, with some notion that this A should be overthrown by B. Well, we don't need the antithesis to triumph, we need the synthesis.
Visually, despite all the new visual media from photography forward, we're still a pretty stupid culture. Most of our smarts are still in texts, from books to the ASCII files that make up most all the code and configuration of *NIX systems. And the main use of computers in business is in preparing, exchanging, storing and searching texts. It's going to be this way for a long time, because text is a place where human beings have established a foundation of collective brilliance that goes far beyond the world's best video collection. It's not going to be replaced by a Matrix-like collective video game anytime soon. And the moves in that direction will likely be rendered by text-based *NIX systems.
Linux is just about there for handling text. AbiWord and OpenOffice will, within the year, have parity with anything else, and price advantage. XFree is anti-aliased. The major thing missing is the equivalent of Quark or PageMaker, and maybe a font front-end that's as simple as Adobe, so that Linux becomes backward compatible with print production.
Computer games aren't anything most offices want to see their employees playing anyhow. What they care about is systems that allow workers to transparently produce and interact with texts. And that's what most independent knowledge workers care about too - even most programmers. Code is text, "higher level" tools that let you draw connections between objects in visual space will continue to suck for all but the most brain-dead programming.
And the only part of the workforce that doesn't need to be literate any more is the unemployed.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
"That's why we have so much MUSIC, MP3, STREAMING, VIDEO, MULTIMEDIA utilities for Windows ... many of them are buggy like hell, but at least they ARE available.
On the other hand, what do we have here ?"
XMMS, oggenc, cdparanoia, cdrip, xcdroast, Xine, MPlayer, Ogle?
And your point is?
To futher adress your point, KDE is coming along nicely, with pretty apps that are very useable. And fuck norton utilities, we have the ultimate power tool, namely the shell. Kylix is very nice, btw. I'd like to indicate that it _is_ widely used, ask borland.
<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.l ong<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we< b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>. lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like <b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b >.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.lon g<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b> .like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.li nes<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b >.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>. we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long< b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.l ike<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.line s<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>. long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we <b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b> .lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.lik e<b>.long<b>.lines<b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.lines< b>.we<b>.like<b>.long<b>.line s
If Adobe launched only Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, macromedia pushed Flash mx and Director, linux would find itself swamped in people wanting to shed the claustrophobic greed-soaked straight-jacket of ms-os'es. Okay, the gimp is an outstanding piece of free sofware, but compared to Photoshop it blows chunks bigtime. Not to say i haven't seen stunning art created with gimp..
-By attempting the impossible we can achieve the absurd..
The reason MAC fails to pull in users like windows is because of their own stupidity not beause people dont see a benefit to it. If people can not run it on thier CURRENT systems you can forget it. Apple must port to x86 if they want to really make a difference in the market. They appearantly dont. I know I would switch to OS-X in a heartbeat and get others to if it were ported to x86 hardware.
perhaps the place to start is with a set of requirements. what are the basics a computer should be... text processing, image processing, sound processing, communication, browsing, and asset management... through all of the discussion, there is no set of base requirements, or a process for advancing to more complicated hardware. (hell, why do we upgrade our own computers... mo is better!) zeroconf would be helpful here, as well as tightly integrated hardware. simputer II perhaps.
The thing about companies like microsoft, is that they have this evaluation thing with their software. They get a bunch of joe blow users to check it out and see if they can pick it up really quick. Then they make adjustments to the UI according to the way these people pick this crap up or bitch about it. They also hire people that make the design decisions from a joe user standpoint. If the linux community really wants linux to thrive as a desktop OS (it would be nice due to the support form other vendors that it would bring, but I could really care less at this point) we will need to implement something similar. Get some joe idiots (joe is a good first name for this example :) to sit down and point out the things that they don't like and either fix it, or create a new desktop that is for the true computer idiot. we need feedback from even the lowest of morons because windows can easily be used by one of them. Unless you are her.
...he must be on crack!
Hey, I was thinking that perhaps an AOL machine would succeed. What is an AOL Machine? Well such machine would be sold at K-Mart, er Walmart, with a full-blown AOL browser (based on Mozilla?) and OpenOffice in a (KDE?) Linux-based system. The intended customer is Gramma or Grampa who all they really want the computer for is to type letters and do "AOL" type stuff. AOL could also sell services like tax preparation services via their AOL interface. Not EVERYONE knows what Windows is, anyway. This would be based on a current package management system and kept up to date by AOL. Maybe they could send you quarterly upgrade CD's.
yes, no, maybe?
They are selling both Mandrake and LindowsOS PCs.
Duron 900, 128M, 20G, Mandrake for $391.
Walmart
Suncoast Linux - Sarasota, FL
At my university, the "comprehensive student activity fee", which covers such items as student government, clubs, sporting events, and parking (although my theory is that the parking clause is only there to preent commuters from waiving the rather large fee) also covers soethign called the Microsoft Campus Agreement. This ALLOWS students to pick up a "free" copy of an OS (XP,2k,ME,or98 at last check) and the Office Suite. Personally, I'm a little annoyed that I'm paying for something whether I use it or not, but the campus police get mad when I leave my car on the sidewalk.
How many other Schools out there have this arrangement?
HEAR HEAR
:]
I agree TOTALLY with the post
We need a UTILITIES program that will let people clean up their system, and keep track of what damage they have done!
This is imperativek to capture the computer wannabees like myself, and heads of IT departments
After finally migrating over to Linux this year (I've used computers for 20 years) this is the ONE thing Linux is still missing - a utility for DAMAGE CONTROL
Without it, non-hippy-Linux guru's are at a disadvantage (maybe that's why they haven't written one year, eh?)
Party on..
Maybe ENLIGHTENMENT is dead because they are STILL TAKING FOREVER to release a new version, and their old one is about as good as BLACKBOX ON CAFFEINE. SO YES E as a desktop is DEAD because nobody cares whart RASTERMAN is doing and we want a slim AMIGA LIKE desktop but AROS will be DONE by the time E is NEAR FINISHED.
R: Simple answer: no :)
I currently use E 0.16 solely, with gnome libs installed to run gnome apps. Rasterman makes it sound like I can't upgrade to the Gnome 2 libs and be able to still run E. Am I wrong here?
Linux at home
Rasterman continues to develop e. You can compile and run e wherever, on a desktop, handheld, knock yourself out. He's done nothing more than size up where Linux is at a market sector. And at the moment he is right. Where he is wrong is in assuming the market will not change.
He is also correct in saying the apps are the thing. Apps need to become easier to install for a normal computer user, and need to be better integrated with each other. Apps also need to talk to the Windows and Mac world. Flame all you want, but Miguel de Icaza is on of the few Linux people who are looking at the consumer and attempting to give them what they want in Linux.
Rasterman: Desktop Linux is Dead
10 years later...
Desktop Linux: Rasterman is Dead
Linux is strongest as a server.
It's easier to enter that market and to build a reputation. That part of Linux is working very well for the community. With all the news about various companies using Linux for processing vastly significant amounts of data for vastly significant purposes, in some aspects, Linux is leaving all others in the dust.
It's Linux's reputation that will eventually bring it to the desktop, however. It's not the eye-candy of elightenment. It's not all the cool object-oriented inner-workings of GNOME. The reputation of Linux's reliability, availability and affordability that will eventually pull it onto desktops of home and corporate users.
First and foremost, if a more agressive push to the desktop is to happen any time soon, is to more completely and accurately emulate the Windows look and feel. It doesn't matter that it's "inferior." The "inferior" argument hasn't held since day-1. It needs to be familiar to the people who want to use it. If they expect "Network Neighborhood" then give'm Network Neighborhood.
It is not yet time to strengthen the weaknesses at the expense of existing stengths. Linux has a lot of strong points that are not being put to full use.
The demand for the desktop will come in time but there should be no major push for it. If there were to be a huge push for it, it would mean a radical series of changes such as a more well-defined "LSB" and strict adherance to it. We would need to come up with a "Linux Standard Desktop" definition that GNOME and KDE and any other players should target themselves to. Graphics and multimedia standards will have to be rigidly defined and adhered to.
These changes would have to happen very quickly and abruptly. It would cause a great deal of stress and confusion across the board. I say let it happen gradually and take the pressure off the desktop developers. There is no rush... not yet anyway. (Maybe after Win2k is pulled from the shelves.)
In the mean time, keep "Linux" in the public's eye and make them want it more and more by focusing on it's existing and growing strengths. Showing the public a weak, buggy and kludgey desktop will only sour public opinion regardless of how much work and pride it represents the developers. The "first impression" will stick regardless of what changes happen after the fact.
Linux on the desktop is not ready for prime-time. Let's not put it out there until it's ready. For now, let it remain the domain of the "L337" and let the public have Windows + Samba.
Ah, found the stinky thing in here...
Well, for some things, but not others. On the 3D front, most of the heavy-hitters are there now (SOFTIMAGE, Maya, etc). And Mac OS X is getting support too. That's where things might have changed. The now oft-heard argument where porting from Windows to Linux is costly for a company and buys little market, but where porting to OS X can share much of a port effort with Linux. Suddenly it changes to "port from Windows to Unix" instead and starts to look better.
With License program 6.0, Micrsoft has changed the balance. Now, there is enough pain that 1/6 to 1/3 (depending on the survey you read) have been seriously looking into "alternitave technology", i.e., Linux + OpenOffice, etc.
Linux has been good enough for awhile, people who have switched even a year ago didn't have that much relearning to do, it's just that inertia is hard to overcome. Desktop Linux would have to be a lot better to overcome that inertia. Now Microsoft has supplied the incentive to switch, and small and mid sized companies are. Once word of their success gets around, others will follow, eventually even the big companies will start to switch.
MS Windows hasn't won, it's just beginning to lose, and lose big.
I agree almost completely with what you're saying.
I have to temper it a bit, though, because I think for certain areas--scientific computing, development, maybe data processing, maybe administrative work--desktops will reign for a long time to come, simply because certain features are required (e.g., power, flexibility, etc.).
Where I see your vision coming true is for everything else. And I don't think it's that far away. Where this will come into place first is with entertainment consoles. Someone soon will develop a console computing platform that combines a number of functions at once, and presents it as a media console rather than a "computer". This sort of thing will combine your DVD, CD player, MP3 player, Tivo, gaming console, and maybe some other things as well. My prediction is that this thing will be a big deal in the next 10 years or so, as long as it's pitched as a media console, and not a computer per se.
That's why MS Xbox and their media computer concept scares the hell out of me. Their monopoly allows them so much leverage that they can pull just about anything they want and then dominate another area for years to come. I hope serious preemptive competition is introduced before that happens--either that, or MS is sued into submission or scares enough people with its DRM and "personal information management".
On a more optimistic note, I would hope that the media console concept might open up more standardization in the gaming world. Maybe with people putting their PS2 discs into the same machine as their DVDs, they might ask themselves why it is that they can play all DVDs (pretty much in the US anyway) on a number of different machines, but are stuck with buying hardware dependent on game availability or vice versa.
I really really really really don't want to see the proprietary standards mess that's fucked up desktop computing enter my home. I really don't.
He probably merely suffered from a case of write-ahead - he was thinking of the next word he was going tow rite beforeh eac tually finishedt he previous word. You really don't need to make such a big deal about it.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
It is a false statement to say linux is worthless because it will not run applications that users need.
Sure, many more are available for Microsoft.
But, if you fail to point out the customer you claim to be talking about, no one will know how wrong you are.
I have not used Microsoft for any meaningful work for years.
And, 80-90% of all computer users only need a browser, an office suite and a few other utilities. Those are available for linux.
When you make a general statement and expect everyone to think it applies to them you only disqualify yourself as a consultant.
Rule number one is: You ask the customer what applications they need. Then and only then can you conclude which products might serve those needs.
The general claim is categorically false.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
Why am i such a computer masochist? Why do i bother becoming involved with the unpopular, "better" computer systems? First it was Amiga, now Linux that I have to feel bad about when things don't go right. Ugh.
If you're still actually interested in doing this, can you provide an email address or similar contact details? I'd not mind helping, but I'm betwen slashdot-friendly email addresses...
Contact info: los20 @@@_@ NOSPAMcam.ac.ukdonteverspam
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
If he cares about the desktop then why spend so much time working on irrelevant things such as pretty wallpaper and transparent, non-rectangular windows?
I want a programming API for X & whatever WM that's at least as good and comprehensible as the Windows' API. Dealing with X/Xt/X11 and choosing Motif vs Qt vs some other half-assed API is a pain. I actually prefer building web-based interfaces to my stuff the situation is so bad.
(AC purely due to lazyness)
There, I said it. It is obvious. Why do you think Windows is actually used by Joe Public? Maybe because it is already installed on his PC when he buys it? Maybe because he's too much of a technophobe to even bother trying to upgrade or change the OS? Look, if Linux came preinstalled with every single PC that anyone purchased, what do you think they would be using? Linux! It's that simple! They would use it because they would be "stuck with it", too ignorant or lazy to switch to Windows. They'd even get used to X, for pete's sake. Had Linux come bundled with all PCs for the last decade, then the situation would be reversed:
"Ack! I'm a Windows user..." "LOL! WHINER! LOL! WINDOWS WEENIE! LOL!!!1211!1" "...and I can't find all the latest games for it, like Max Payne..." "LOL! STFU, WHINER! SWITCH TO LUNIX! LUNIX 4EVAR!"
CASE STUDY:
A few years ago, Netscape was gaining popularity amongst the Internet community. Then Microsoft found out that it COULD get away with bundling it preinstalled on Windows PCs. Since virtually all PCs come preinstalled with Windows, all PCs would be ready-to-run with Internet Explorer, with no trace of anything else.
Today Internet Explorer has a 92% share of the browser market.
Get the idea?
Today Linux has a 2% share of the OS market.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Come on... everyone is hurting.
I am personally not really worried about "dying linux". I had given up on Linux desktop in 2000 but I still from time to time pop in a Linux distro to replace a windows box and viceversa. I swap.
But it really never was a problem since the money at least for me is on the server-side. Since I am an Open Source professional (meaning I make a living at it with JBoss) server-side java with Linux is a winning proposition.
I am amused by the alarmist tones in these threads here. Come on! there is no fucking way Linux dissapears on the server side. You can put pee in a pool you can't take it out. It has what 20-30% market share? Linux has DEFEATED microsoft in its tracks on server, mostly thanks to java.
So instead of weeping at the obvious, that there is a desktop monopoly and no one really cares, you should rejoice at the strength, really the amazing success of Linux as a server platform and join the ongoing battle for the webOS>
The real mnf999 always posts as anonymous coward
You are right. I am just a lamer, and I would be happy to use linux if I didn't have to hack it around. I want plug&play SMALL linux with lots of games.
M$ has a heap of people just planning new features and saying w*s is so great. It costs money, needs management...
I was thinking that management work is very similar to programming, and if marketing and management work could be done somehow "opensource"? An open organisation, not just people or what even worse, a couple of distributions...
E.g. I know, I need a new feature, I post it to a website, and some time later it gets developed for linux. For free, of course.
Or: I don't know even, that I need a feature, when an opensource sales manager contacts me, saying: "It's so good for you, and it is free..."
What do you think? It is makes sense?
Linux is dead!! Long live Linux!!
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
Maybee if linux has installers that started up when you put in the CD and went through easly then it would be viable. and in that case they'd have to be on seperate CD's package manages have crap non-geek usability and weird gnu/linux names don't help.
does your mom know pine from elm and vi from emacs, does she care.
Whats the problem with only having one cd any way, I know it's nice to brag with you mates at school about how many CD's your OS comes on but I can't see my mum doing that either.
Norton Utilities is mainly made up of programs that either a) undelete things, b) fix problems with windows or c) optimise things.
All of these are features of the OS, not a utility pack! Modern Linux filing systems optimise themselves, and it doesn't state on their website what sort of probems Norton solves exactly with windows. Undelete? Isn't that what the recycle bin is for?
We have Kylix from Borland (FREE !) and how many of us are using Kylix to develop USEFUL UTILITIES for the users ?
None of us, because Kylix sucks. This is such a shame, because Delphi is excellent, a truly wonderful program that I've used to develop utilities before. Kylix is primarily meant for GUI apps though, and I think you'll find most Linux utilities are written as command line apps.
that makes sense also don't forget about abiword reaching 1.0
of course ibm and redhat are nto putting linux on the desktop only on servers so your a little misleading with your information
though i do think you are correct about linux at some point being a desktop os it just isnt for most people now
Seriously. And we've got a few apps that are in pretty good placing, Koffice, open office, mozilla they are all coming in to their own. I can understand Raster's sentiments, he's been in the trenches fighting it out for a long time, I think it's just now starting to get to the interesting point when some of that vision can realistically be put together. There is a huge difference between a desktop on a developers desk and a desktop you can give to the masses and a lot of that difference isn't going to always be technical stuff or flashy graphics and themes. He built a lot of the foundation, now we build on top of it. It takes time.
R: Linux on the desktop is dead
/.ers. But they are not the masses. The guy writing about Linux for Technophobes at least has a clue about the capability and the average user. The average user is as scared of computing as the average /.er is of dating, and any interaction with other humans not involving a keyboard.
LaM: Are KDE & Gnome the wm of the future?
R: Kind of but Linux on the desktop is dead. Microsoft won
LaM: Where do you see improvements for the Linux desktop?
R: Linux on the desktop is dead.
If I was R: I would have finally started screaming "it's dead, it's dead, get it through your fucking head."
Like it or not MS will use the 95 percent desktop base it has to pus Windows on the back end. Some of the neat things on the desktop won't be possible without there products in the server room. When companies have employees already trained on Windows, using Windows at home, they are going to leverage that.
Now please, give up on Linux on the desktop for the masses. It is already there for most
"never met a Microsoft zealot"
I use the GNU/linux/gnome/sawfish/teTeX/emacs combo all the time. Many people in my department also use linux to typeset documents. you NEED a desktop to view a ps file (well i guess with svgalib you can do it on a console, but i dont know anyone who does it that way). You NEED to be able to swtich between an emacs window and a gv/xdvi window with ease. Now maybe thats not the FUTURE of desktop linux, but that (coupled with price) is at least one of the reasons why many people find a linux desktop indispensable.
Here is my drawn out opinion on why he made this interview:
Early '90s
Raster decides to make yet another window manager called Enlightenment; the hook being that it will be a "pretty" wm with lots of graphical capacity.
1998ish
Enlightenment gets to be a fairly big project and gets picked up by Redhat somewhere around Redhat 5.0.
1999
Enlightenment is *the* default wm for GNOME for all of Redhat 6.x, getting it lots of exposure. However it does not make much progress in this year; finally making it to 0.16.0 by the end of the year. Also the great talk of Enlightenment 0.17 begins for it will be a truly revolutionary window manager. However the configuration for Enlightenment a terrible interface.
2000
Redhat releases Redhat 7.0 late in the year. Enlightenment is no longer the default window manager for GNOME. A much easier to configure wm, Sawfish, is used instead. Enlightenment is still included with Redhat, but is not even on the default list of window managers anymore. Enlightenment 0.17 still is not out.
2001
Enlightenment 0.17 still is not out.
Present
Enlightenment 0.17 still is not out. Few people even know what Enlightenment is anymore. I do not personally know anyone besides myself who still uses Enlightenment. Nearly all of my friends that have been "recent" Linux converts in the last two years use KDE. Enlightenment is still included with several Linux distributions, but it is not enabled by default so most people will not
even realize that it exists.
So poor Raster is really depressed about the years he has put into Enlightenment. It made it big for a while in 1999 but without improvements in
usability it was passed over for a "better" window manager. So now, no one wants to use his software and all he can do is wallow in self pity and moan
that Linux is dead on the desktop when it is just his own project that has
managed to die.
How and by whom Are PC's being used in the early 21st century as compared with 20 years ago? only 25 years ago, people who used micro-computers primarily did so as a hobby. Throughout the 80's, early adopters bought PCs and then tried to figure out what they were good for. Now it is more common for people to purchase a PC with a specific use in mind. They want access to the internet, or they want to do budgeting, or games, etc. Perhaps one multi-purpose metaphor (like the desktop metaphor) is no longer serving our needs. While Microsoft continues to push the status quo, perhaps it is time for Open Source developers to stop chasing Windows and start innovating new ways to present the digital environment.
I respectfully disagree wih Raster when he says there is no new ground to be broken in the world of desktop computing. To say so implies that the Desktop Metaphor created by Xerox PARC, as introduced by Apple and popularized by Microsoft is the best option for computer-human interfacing. I don't believe that this is necessarily so.
--
"I'm don't know exactly what an AS/400 is, but I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want one up my ass" --Lou
I do find this article a smidge disappointing, as I have run E all this time. E in fact helped bring me to Linux by not following the trend. I thought Rasterman was outside of a lot of this political desktop gibberish. Apparently anyone in embedded starts to think the desktop has croaked...
Servers are good, yes... just look at my home closet. Still, I hate the attitude that "the desktop is dead" or "Linux's desktop is dead". Im happy to be a Linux user which couldn't have made the jump had people not given up on the desktop. Should Enlightenment give up on me, I shall find another innovative project and continue about my merry Linux-on-the-desktop business.
The Linux desktop success does not depend on how many "Grandmas and Grandpas" adopt it! Linux on the desktop is succeeding, and increasingly so, because corporations are switching to it enmass. And, as the stockmarket continues to tank, they'll be avoiding the unnecessary expense of License 6 and hardware upgrades by increasing their use of Linux through out their entire corporate structure. OpenOffice has been the catalyst that triggered the decisions around the globe to make the switch.
The paradigm shift is NOW in high gear! IT departments that were once staunch MS shops now openly criticize Microsoft and its various schemes to make money off their backs and at the expense of their security and privacy, and have begun deploying Linux in more than just server rooms.
While Microsoft's illegal monopoly activities, along with their theft of software and demographic data, continue unchecked because of a compliant Bush DOJ, so does their corporate greed and arrogance. People have had enough. They've seen through the PR and FUD. They've connected the dots leading from abusive EULAs to loss of supposedly 'unalienable' rights, and they don't like it.
The only thing remaining for the people to see is that the accounting principles used by Enron and WorldCom CEOs were not invented by Enron but borrowed from Microsoft. The NASDAQ will show even bigger losses when Microsoft is forced to subtract programmer payrolls from their profits and not hide them as future stock options. The following URL contains a prophetic analysis, made in 1999, of today's stockmarket situation.
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html
"Microsoft is granting excessive amounts of stock options that are allowing the company to understate its costs. You might ask yourself, what would happen to Microsoft's stock price if the public suddenly realized that they lost $10 billion in 1999 rather than earning the reported $7.8 billion? If 80 percent of its stock value or roughly $400 billion is the result of a pyramid scheme, one might also ask what kind of effect this could have on the retirement system. It is also important to note that this is a relatively new situation that did not occur before 1995. Microsoft has always been a highly valued stock and that might have been justified prior to 1995.
This situation is not about stock valuation, product quality or whether or not Microsoft has monopoly power in its markets. Nor is it part of a pro or anti-Microsoft movement. This situation is instead a shining example of financial fraud and corruption enabled by bad government policy. If not quickly and aggressively addressed, we will all be losers as credibility in our financial markets is destroyed.
Bill Gates has quitely been unloading MS stock at the rate of $500 million per month for several months, begining just before the Enron debacle became public -- talk about your insiders trading! Other MS executivers are probably doing the same.
Truely, the end of Microsoft is near, and the stockmarket decline will certainly hasten it!
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
While his window manager, enlightenment, has been dead for awhile now (while he worked on e17), it does not mean linux on the desktop is dead. Just because the E team can't compete with the kde/gnome teams does not mean that desktop development must stop, it just means he can't handle it.
As long as lusers keep being able to use "pirated" proprietaryware, there's not much appeal for free software in the general population. It's so easy to get a pirated copy of windows XP, there's no need to go into the "trouble" of installing Linux. The main privacy scare in XP being the forced registration, with all the cracks available, it's not much of an issue.
;P
As a result, there isn't as much incentive to develop a coherent and usable desktop on Linux as there should be.
Now there's an easy way to get people to consider switching to Linux: if proprietary scumware licensing was really enforced, you'd have the choice between submitting to the "intellectual property" bullies, both financially and WRT to your usage rights, or switch to free software.
So start turning over your Linux-reluctant friends to the BSA, they will thank you later!
to know that Linux is dead. I'm sitting hear writing this using Mandrake 8.2 while listening to music from XMMS and the tears are just streaming down my cheeks.
It really makes it hard for me to program open source software using Borland's Kylix product!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
As a consultant you have to know what they need before you give your answer.
It is simply false to conclude before talking to customers that linux can not satisify their needs.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
A previous poster made a great point - Linux is FUN. Thats what drives many people. I use Linux all day every day - work, home, etc (except for the occasional boot in Windows for MS Money - its a great program IMHO) But fun doesn't cut it for the general desktop - so what does?
Well, lets see. OS X may not be 'Linux' but close enough - and I think its an awesome desktop that folks will love once they try it - downside, expensive hardware.
I've been a Gnome user for the longest time. It was cool, did what I needed - but required a bit too much tweaking it seemed. But I stuck with it - and even tried out the GNome 2 snapshots recently. Ugh - it was hard to tell what was different besides less stuff workin g- didn't seem to be a huge improvement on teh surface (yeah I know it was mostly under wraps changes) So I stepped away fro teh dark side and tried KDE 3 recently. All I can say is WOW. Amazing stuff. Things just work - out of the box. Its all there - the menus are great. Toss in the Liquid Theme and WOW. Tabbed Xterms - genius (which is why Mozilla is such a blast) A decent taskbar - lots of useful context menu options.
I doubt I'll go back. I expect Gnome will improve in the user interface department as 2.x progresses, but right now KDE 3 is it - hands down.
But I'm not one of the freaks who will only run a program starting with a K. Mozilla still rocks my world. KOnquerer is a really nice file manager - probably a little better than Nautilus (which I thought WAS vastly improved in 2.0) But Mozilla is a dream. OpenOffice - same thing. I use it over Koffice anyday. Not to say the blaance can't shift.
But this all drives home a point. Provide users a CHOICE. Not just with the OS - but on teh desktop. Out of the box installs should have both Gnome and KDE with IDENTICAL menu structures. Or close to it. This way folks can decide. A 'Browser' sub menu shoudl have Konq, Mozilla, Galeon, etc. Again - let the user decide. But they'll appreciate having CHOICE.
I think Linux IS ready for the desktop - 100% ready? No - but hell XP isn't even close to 75% ready. But with the economy tanking and IT departments looking hard at their budgets - Linux IS a viable and reasonable option.
I agree with a previous poster - hardware support is shaky sometimes. But Sound card, USB support, Video support, etc have made HUGE improvements. But printing HAS sucked.
Then I tried CUPs. You really should - Any 7.2 user can put in cups 1.15 and ghostscript 7.05. It takes a little doing, but it can be done. I had a harmless man page conflict with libpng-1.2 (vs the stock 1.0) - a force install overwrote one man page but saved the tons of dependencies fr9om KDE 3.0.0 After that - I tossed in all teh cups, ghostscript, gimp-print, and hijs rpms from RedHat. For those of you who don't knwo - CUPS allows you to use the stock WIndows/Mac PPD files from any print driver on Linux. It was a browser interface that makes setting up printers a breeze. It provides easy to use status info, etc. Again - perfect? No, but man what a huge improvement.
FInally - we have to get away from teh super complex control panel - even WIndows suffers fro9m it and XPs attempt to hide stuff hasn't worked well.
We all use browsers - so what shoudl we do? Webmin - hands down. Yes, it has roots fr9om Caldera - but get past it. Webmin is an awesome set of perl programs ot adminsiter just about every aspect of your system - granted, its not always intuative and some cntrol panels are betetr than others. But it provides an easy to navigate set of control panels and I'm sure we could do a better job than XP did in 'limiting' the initial set presented. - DO what apple did - provide user admin 'levels' for preferences - Easy, Intermediate, Advanced - but have them apply across the board - this would let power users thrive and still provide a desktop to TechnoPhobes.
But that said - is Linux going to supplant WIndows as the OS of choice for residential customers - doubtful. Not now. Linux needs to win in the schools (where it IS making inroads) and corporate desktops - and I think it CAN succeed there. A corporate IT manager has $$$ to worry about and Linux CAN make a huge difference. If OEMs ever get rid of the MS tax, it'll help even more (yay WalMart! :) )
Yeah, yeah, you say nobody is that crazy - but I challeneg that. I'm not talkin a 100% swap out - but you approach group by group. Example - I installed Mozilla on a number of machines where I work - these machines are use by administrative staff running WIndows. But I explained some of the highlights of Mozilla (browser and Mail) over IE and Lookout. Bang - they really like it! The Mail client is helping convince them. Yes, once in a while the browser can't render a page - but they are smart enough to know they can start IE - but Mozilla offers lots of nicer items - and they've been happy to say so: tabbed interface, faster (yes it is!), cool sidebar, faster, easy to use email client. Is it perfect - no - but they know that.
I installed Open Office one many of our boxes alongside MS Office. Told them it was there - is it getting used? Some - not tons, but some. Our power users will probably never leave Office, but casual users - they don't want it if they can view Office stuff and make minor changes.
So lets get past this *nix is dead crap. Linux and Open Source has Microsoft scared and rightly so - why? They recognize the potential threat. Not the immediate threat (OK maybe for servers), but the potential threat. Its got them shaking. They still believe they are the best int eh world and nothing can touch them - but there is no doubt LInux has them sittin gup and taking SERIOUS notice. The FUD makes it obvious.
Thats the key - Linux, BSD, and all teh associated open source software there has MASSIVE potential. Some stuff is obviously best in class already. But the whole package (and a desktop IS a whole package) has MAJOR potential. Its funny that Microsoft seems to be the one that knows that best.
We know better - if a few folks want to throw up their hands after fighting the fight for years - let them. We all get tired. But there are plenty of folk who will pick up the slack and continue to push open source because we believe its the best thing for us, society, and such.
So yes, sad to see a cheerleader go - but its hardly the end of the world. Heck - LInus could get frustrated - move to Redmond and Linux would still survive and thirve. It is too good not to!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
You can easily use Java or Delphi/Kylix to write cross Microsoft/Linux applications.
Then customers can decide if they want to pay the higher Microsoft prices.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
Now if E17 would just come out.. ;)
Gnome, KDE and everything else seem to just mimic MS Windows. Why? MS Windows is *not* *that* *intuitive*. Even E is guilty of this somewhat. (Though I challenge you to find a more beautiful desktop than E. Configured correctly, you will never do such.)
I've been saying it forever though, familiarity isn't a reason to change, and the average joe doesn't give one whit about Microsoft's evilness and such. I keep seeing idiots whining about how KDE/Gnome/Insert Yer Desktop Here will change the face of the world and be the savior of Linux, bringing everyone to the Penguin, and I can't help but laugh and tell them how moronic they are.
Even games won't help, unless they come out soley for Linux. (Again, rofl!) If they came out for Linux and MS systems, why would people switch? They've got MS, their games and other stuff runs, why the hell would the average joe bother with a new operating system?
I'm gonna have to agree that the future of Linux is most certainly not the desktop. Oh, it'll undoubtedly play a part, but not a large one.
Man, this sucks. Here all along I thought I was getting it done with my Slack/KDE boxes in the office (and at home), now I find out I have to buy Windoze for everything. Dammit. I really don't know how I'm going to break it to the employees on Monday... Linux doesn't work, and we have to go back to computers that crash, Virus Express for email, Internet Exploder for browsers... there's going to be some unhappy folks in the office. But the Rasterman has spoken, Linux on the desktop is dead, so we have to switch back.
Where do you get it free?
expert definition
ex = has been (think ex wife)
(s)pert = drip
He couldn't get decent performance out of enlightenment and now whines about the linux desktop.
History tells us that statements like "no one is going to need more than 512 kb ram" or "I can not see why any one wants a computer at home" etc etc
can be right for the moment but so very very wrong just a couple of years later.
For instance, the new MS license agreements makes many public administrations considering a switch to Linux for the desktop. So far mainly for cost reasones but in the future it might also be for features and programs only offered for Linux.
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Hey, I have an idea for a fun weekend (it should only take a weekend) -- let's all decide on The Correct API. If we have a little time left over we should be able to decide The Correct Operating System as well.
Guess what: we do have a standard API -- we just happen to have more than one of them. Every now and then someone will get the great idea to start up the new "standard" API. They try to abstract over all the existing APIs, apparently unaware that the very fact the existing APIs exist is so that they can abstract over previously existing APIs.
If people would stop trying so hard to create "the standard API", thus adding yet another to the mix, we might actually have a standard API by now. Repeat after me: port, don't abstract.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop" by Ilan Volow
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I as studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it. But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Geez
I've been thinking about it, and the more I do, the more I realize that Rasterman has a very valid point.
When he says that, as projects get bigger and involve more people, they tend to focus less on the actual project itself and more on politics and advocacy, he's absolutely right. I forget exactly who it was (Abraham Lincoln?) who said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, but that's certainly the case in the Linux community. I mean, how many political Jihads have been declared here - GNOME-vs.-KDE, emacs-vs.-vi, Red Hat-vs.-Debian, GPL-vs.-BSD, RMS-vs.-everything that isn't GNU... the list goes on. And even though some of these "wars" involve Linux only tangentially, such as emacs-vs.-vi (which is more of a general Unix thing), the status of Linux as the highest-profile Unix workalike on the market today that it becomes, at least in the public eye, the sole heir to all of this excess baggage.
In the Linux community, too often ideaology takes precedence over common sense. We sneer at Microsoft for its perverted definition of "innovation," which seems to solely consist of squashing and/or absorbing all its competition, yet when was the last time we produced any real "innovation" of our own? It's been a while. Most of the development effort of, for example, KDE and GNOME appears to be aimed in the emulate-the-Windows-experience direction. That's not innovation, that's retreading old tires at best, blatant copying at worst.
I'm not what you'd consider a programmer, but I've taken enough classes to at least have a rudimentary idea of what it's all about, and I do know that it's often easier not to have to "reinvent the wheel" for each new project. I also realize that the best way to make new users comfortable in Linux is to present them with a GUI similar to one they've already had experience with (ie: Windows or Macintosh), which is why so much effort is spent emulating those UIs. The inherent problem with this approach, however, is that the average user's perceptions are skewed somewhat by two factors: A) Being generally computer-illiterate, or at least unfamiliar with the concept of a home computer, and B) said computer likely came "out of the box" with Windows pre-installed, and since Joe Average is likely unfamiliar with how to run a PC beyond the QuickStart guides included in so many packages, he isn't aware that it will run anything other than Windows. This is why installing Linux is percieved as such a hassle by so many people... they've never had to do this with Windows. Give these same people a Windows CD and a fresh hard drive, and they'd be just as intimidated at the prospect.
Applications? Oh, the apps are there, no question. However, the problem is that, for various reasons, few of them really act as "killers" for their Windows equivalents. The GIMP, while an outstanding program, is still missing some features that many Photoshop professionals rely on, such as true PANTONE color matching. OpenOffice seems to be lacking in several ease-of-use features many would-be converts from MS Office are specifically looking for, and this invariably knocks them for the proverbial loop. Evolution is a superb mail/groupware application, yet people who have used both it and Outlook will usually claim that Outlook just "feels" more elegant. (Note that I'm referring to the full Outlook application here, not the God-awful Express version bundled with Windows.) No matter how good Mozilla, Galeon, and Konqueror get, they simply cannot keep up with the latest Web trends and technologies the way IE can. And there has yet to be one single, decent Free/Open vector-graphics package to compete favorably against the likes of Adobe Illustrator, or even CorelDRAW.
Too many distributions? That may be an issue as well. When you get right down to it, though, there are still only three "different" Linux distros - Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware - each with their own particluar package system (RPM, apt-get, and tarballs respectively). Everything else seems to build off one of these distros, or at least their respective packaging systems. This fact, however, is generally not well-known outside the community, and as a result all the end users see are almost a dozen entirely different OS packages, each claiming to be "Linux." Some standardization would have helped... again, though, this gets into an almost political/ideaological choice between distributions, and that sort of thing never makes new users feel comfortable.
Is Linux dead on the desktop? That depends on how you define the term. If you mean it to say "a Microsoft killer," as was defined at the start of the Linux boom, then it is not only dead, but has been for quite some time; the family just hasn't had the heart to pull the plug. If it means "a commercially-viable desktop operating system," then the penguin isn't exactly dead... but he is in the intensive-care unit, condition listed as critical. If, however, you define it as "a readily-usable environment for geeks and newbies alike, well suited for nearly all day-to-day tasks," then Linux is indeed alive and well - it just suffers from something of an image problem. But all this Beast needs is a Beauty (read: user) to see past the coarse, unhewn exterior - and, of course, Microsoft's FUD deflection tactics - to see the true strengh and beauty of the system.
That's my take on it, anyway. I'm sure this will generate some comments, both pro and con... feel free to do so.
you're full of shit
and who's we? bet ya you aint even a coder
Hey, look up! What's that black dot hovering 50 feet over your head?
They all suck.
Having C:\Windows and C:\Program Files is okay on a windows box; they're just points of no-entry, aka advanced stuff you never need to look at. Instead you have "My Documents" to put documents into, and "My Pictures" for pictures. As you get more advanced you could even install a new program. It goes, logically into Program Files, and you get a link automaticly in the start menu.
Now lets look at the linux version. There's /home/joeuser, which has nothing. You could add, say, documents, pictures to it. So now we have those two nice folders. Now Joe is feeling brave and starts learning about his computer. He finds in his home dir: .bash_history, .kde3, .mcop, .mozilla, .qt, .bashrc, .DCOPserver_localname_localname_0, .ICEauthority, .kderc, .mcoprc and .xftcache.
Okay, well, so be it - just ignore all of that. Now Joe wants to install NewCoolApp. He starts the installer that was written up for TechnophobeLinux, which kindly asks him to provide the administrator password for the installation. Said and done, and the installer spews files all over his disk. They go into /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/whatever, /usr/share/whatever, a bunch of man directories, some in /etc, and maybe some in /opt/whatever as well.
Honestly, how many people here have actually read the guidelines for filesystem layout? I know which stuff goes in /bin as opposed to /usr/bin (which is also mostly different on different distributions btw...), but Mr. User is most likely to have one partition for everything on his simple desktop system, and none of it matters. Say what you want about the stupidity of putting apps in C:\Program Files\Vendor\ProgramName but at least it's fairly obvious that the "program files" end up under "Program Files" (duh) and possibly C:\Win(NT|dows)\System, which kinda makes sense since they're system files.
Joe is going to have a lot of questions rather quickly. For instance, why isn't there user stuff in /usr? Who is /usr/share shared with? What's optional with /opt and why isn't the rest optional? And why is my home directory full of config files if config files go into /etc? And why are there at least two */bin dirs (containing not only binaries but other runnable files btw)?
Say what you want about the Windows registry, but at least it's not laying around in plain view in Joe's home directory. And separating /bin and /usr/bin makes perfect sense on a server handled by a skilled person who could actually do something if /usr would be unavailable anyway - Joe certainly wouldn't be able to poke around the system using /bin and /sbin tools to set things right.
If you're truly going for an easy-to-use idiot-friendly linux, you're going to have to take some tough decitions. Toss the old layout out the window, pick something like /apps, /config, /system, /documentation, or whatever - and spend a long time compiling stuff from scratch to make it work. I once had plans to do this but never reached anything usable (see LFS for a good beginning). You will probably be flamed until you glow red from people saying you're fragmenting the standard and what-not, but sorry guys, the current layout is for server-techs, not for Joe.
(Sorry about the rant)
If you feel like actually doing something like that, feel free to contact me.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
'cause damn, only l33t c0derz can use the h4x0r os leenucks
They complain about apps, and well, we have some great ones! KMail, Konqueror, KNode, Kate, Konsole, Noatun, Kopete, KSirc, GIMP, Grip, KDevelop, Quanta (once it's stable again), and a whole ton of other stuff I use on a daily basis that's just sort of behind the scenes.
It's sad to see one of the most innovative people in the window manager scene saying that he believes it's time to quit. With that attitude from the leaders, we'll never get to where we need to be. It's time to buck up little buddy, it's not nearly dead yet.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
I'll give credit to the idea that pre-installation means not having to futz around with disk partitioning, and this gives windows an advantage over linux.
However, all the linux installers that I have ever seen have had terrible interface designs. I keep seeing GUI widget layouts and terminology that are often ambiguous and do not effectively communicate to the user what choices there are, what choices will lead to what actions, and what consequences will result from making a choice. Or to translate from HCI-ese to something a linux geek can understand, the linux installers have terrible usability.
Now we can sweep these bad designs under the carpet and pretend there's no problem with usability by pre-installing. But unfortunately, the exact same usability problems we keep finding in all these installers we can also find in a myriad of other linux software, including configuration utilities and productivity suites.
Ultimately this type of software will be far more important in the non-technical user in getting valuable work done with linux.
Just becaues you've chopped off the tip of the iceberg that everyone first sees does not mean people won't still get wrecked on the other 99% of it.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Every time there's an article like this, there are lots of replies about Linux not being dead, and so on. Now open your mind for a minute, and try to understand what "dead" means in this case:
1. It is difficult to define exactly how Linux is superior to alternatives.
2. There is an obsession with boring stuff in the Linux community, such as window managers and emulators for old games, and not a lot what I could call spark. Lack of such spark is what characterized the later years of the Apple IIgs and other now-dead systems.
3. The endless advocacy and angst has grown tiresome and has greatly contributed to #2 above. Linux users used to love that Ghandi quote (paraphrased): first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. The point is that if you are doing something right and keep on doing something right, and don't worry about what other people are doing or think of you, then you can come out ahead. But Linux advocates have chosen to pick and endless fight with Microsoft, which has turned the tables. "Then they fight you," is now Linux fighting Windows.
In a lot of ways, #1 is the key. In the early 1990s Windows and the MacOS were degenerating, growing bloated and unreliable. UNIX was dying a slow death, as it had been doing since the mid 1980s. At the time it seems that going back to the reliability of UNIX was a good alternative, but it's not like we really wanted to go back to it. But some people were new to computers and didn't know much about OS history, and saw it as the new thing. And some key people, most notably Eric Raymond, saw the possiblity of the OS of their youth returning to glory, much as old Commodore 64 coders would rise again if the C64 was chosen as a standard cell phone and PDA platform.
This is not to say that UNIX doesn't have some good points, and that some great innovations like Perl are anything less than that. But this whole "let's all return to Big UNIX and it will put Microsoft out of business" era is coming to a close. In 2002, operating systems are much less important than they used to be. Quite possibly, as Chuck Moore has said, the concept of an operating system is an outdated one.
That's why we have NORTON UTILITIES for Windows, and there's none of Linux.
huh? What would be the point of this?? NORTON UTILITIES is just a package that makes up for the short comings of Windows. There are no short comings in linux therefore there is no point in running NORTON UTILITIES on Linux.
It's like saying, there are no virus protection software available for linux. The reason why is because there is no need for them!
Isn't it sufficient that everyone who *wants* to has an alternative desktop available?
One thing I fear about all those GNOME and KDE "usability studies" and hiding all the configuration features in the name of simplifying things is that it'll get caught halfway...
Geeks won't like it because it'll lose the flexibility etc. that draws such users... average joes won't like it because it'll look too "Windows wannabe"... its much easier to use the real thing instead... most ppl couldn't care less about "free choice" and stuff when it comes to software...
We've seen this pattern before. We've seen it with the Linux kernel itself, we've seen it with kernel side-projects, we've seen it with individual distributions, and we've seen it with all manner of open source software. I don't think it's unique to open source projects, but it seems very typical of their natural life cycle.
The project starts out as a toy. We have some sample code, a prototype, a proof of concept, or the like. Hey, everyone, it's a dancing dog! It doesn't do anything useful, but it sure is fun to watch.
Most projects die right there. But, in a tiny number of cases, people are sufficiently interested in the toy that they start playing with it, too. They fiddle around with the code, add a few features, fix a few bugs, show it to their geekier friends, and so on. Now, it's an interesting hobby.
Many projects die right there. But, in few cases, people find the toy sufficiently practical that they actually start using it. I mean, to be honest, the toy is still barely usable. It's bug-ridden, it's lacking important features, better products are available. But these people buck convention. They fiddle with the code a little more furiously. A few people actually redesign and rewrite big chunks of it. It looks like the "toy" warrants a couple dedicated mailing lists. People fix the most egregious usability problems and add features from the "most wanted" list. They also start in with childish advocacy in inappropriate forums, and they look like idiots, but they recruit other idiots, too, idiots who want to try out this toy. It's become an unnatural obsession or even a dangerous cult (though to the people closest to the project, it's still an interesting hobby).
A lot of projects die right there. But, in some cases, the project achieves a certain critical mass of interested developers and users. (The critical mass required differs from project to project, of course.) Now there are a few core developers that take the project very seriously indeed, lots of sophisticated users that are applying the project in the "real world" and contributing bug reports and patches. People are less likely to "pooh pooh" comparisons to competing projects, and missing features and poor performance in "fringe cases" are objects of legitimate discussion. The division between advocates and developers becomes a little clearer, mostly because the developers are less self-conscious about public perception of the project. The [open cheek, insert tongue] Holy Grail of Open Source, namely actual BUSINESS INTEREST, might be spontaneously and mysteriously generated. The project is a respectable undertaking (though to the people closest to the project, it's still an interesting hobby that for a few lucky ones pays the bills).
A good number of projects die right there, though their "death" is now a little more complex. Regardless, in many cases, the project has too much momentum to die (or at least the corpse is still animate). The project is seen as a serious competitor to other products, and it's moving in some dangerous circles. Advocacy becomes simultaneously more shrill and more subdued, depending on who's advocating. The project still has some serious shortcomings, and these bugs or misfeatures are---hardly surprisingly---concentrated in the areas that don't much interest the developers. The project's installation and configuration is too complex, the user interface is weak, there are small but vocal groups that want to take the project or parts of it in new directions of interest to them, someone suggests in all earnestness that the project be reimplemented in Java or C++. Influx and outflux of users and developers, which has been ramping up throughout this process reaches a fever pitch. Long-time advocates of X suddenly advocate Y or even not-X. People jump ship, or from ship to ship, or just decide to do something else for a while. There's a little too much screaming all round, but the developers keep developing. Though no one is paying any attention, somewhere along the line the project becomes really useful to lots of people (though to the people closest to the project, it's not clear anymore exactly what it is).
At this point, a few projects begin to collapse under their own weight, though their deaths are a long way off. But, in most cases... Or maybe not. No project has gotten this far, yet.
Linux is probably in the really useful to lots of people stage. "Linux on the desktop", as a concept, is probably buried in the interesting hobby stage, even though it's showing signs of starting into the really useful to lots of people stage. Mozilla was fast-tracked through the whole process, even though everyone seems to think it took an interminably long time. I used Mozilla from dangerous cult through really useful to lots of people, and I think one should compare Mozilla of a year ago to Mozilla today before concluding that Linux will never be a desktop contender. Or, people who are suddenly so willing to write off desktop Linux might want to ponder Linux kernel version smaller than 1.0.
I really don't see a home user market for Linux in the near term. But I'm already seeing a large market for competent people to administer huge deployments in corporate and university environments. I expect government to follow. Microsoft simply can't stop this until they fix the underlying issues behind why large scale Windows deployments are so expensive to administer. Microsoft has a serious problem on their hands here. Preloaded Windows in the home market won't go away primarily because users are reasonably happy with the third party software availability on that platform, and partly because they're used to it.
Microsoft's TCO marketing obfuscation aside, large corporate customers crunching a few numbers quickly come to the conclusion that desktop Linux saves them serious overhead costs. It's not about good software design beating crap, freedom to see and modify source code, or even about cutting licensing fees (though that's an added bonus). Linux has a serious TCO advantage over Windows, and the bigger the deployment the cheaper it gets. Until Microsoft resolves the underlying design problems in Windows from server to desktop, automated remote scripting, security and client lock down, they'll continue to lose their corporate and university customers to the likes of IBM pushing Linux.
Cheers,
--Maynard
I can't believe that there aren't any replies to this post?
Did he really hit the nail that hard?
I am beginning to feel that Linux never will have a chance on the desktop.
Linux is finally getting there. It is the LAST hope of the computer industry to avoid a perpetual Microsoft dominated future. If we value Freedom, Competition, and Innovation we CANNOT lose this battle. Get all your friends to realize this. If we are complacent we WILL lose. We have nice desktops. We have the applications (most of them anyway). We need more USERS.
Eradicate Windows Now!
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Based on this I must conclude that Linux support among local chop shop vendors is actually critical to their bottom line at this point, especially in cities and university towns. --M
The future is not known, though, so it must be evolved. Evolution requires variation, and multiple, competing projects are a good way to get that variation.
(Lack of variation is one of the reasons Microsoft is so stagnant. It's also a prime reason why they buy technology from others. It's not so much that they can't write code--their problem is that they can't generate variation, so they import it.)
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Am Microsoft's monopoly could collapse in 6 months
Funny I don't see either happening any time soon.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Right now most distros view Linux as a OS for one
PC, the one in front of the user, or the one hidden
away in the server room. This is probably the wrong
approach if we want Linux desktops
To get successful on the we need Linux distros
that makes it simple to install net booted disk less
workstations with centralized user and program
management. This kind of setups could easily be
ten times less expensive than the average windows
system to maintain.
So far there is the K12 LTSP modified redhat
distribution for schools. It's beyond me why
this isn't in the standard install in most Linux
distributions.
It sort of look like that Linux vendors don't
want to sell Linux for the corporate desktop,
but focus on the server rooms and amateur home users.
As long as we talk about office use, the applications
are already there. When managers realize how much
cheaper administration could be, they will have
a very close look at what Linux can do for them.
Regarding Linux on the home desktop I'm a bit more
pessimistic. The idea of Unix/Linux is that you have
a skilled sysadmin that makes life extremely simple for the user. At home every user is his own sysadmin.
The market of game and entertainment progarms is
also very small. I see very few benefits from using
Linux at home, unless you find pleasure in being
a sysadmin.
Linux on the corporate desktop though, is far from
dead. It have just not bin discovered yet
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
I think he does. It's what crapflooders do.
Here are some of the things that I think Linux on the desktop would need: Single desktop environment Consistent UI between apps Easy one place configuration Strict UI guidelines The end of the cloning of the windows UI features. Linux developers need to look to other platforms for UI inspiration. Windows has never been very well designed. A meaningful (to ordinary people) filesystem layout Other stuff I can't think of right now
This sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me. Anyone who works with Linux knows that the desktop is the "final frontier" for Linux -- and that we're moving there, but it's going to take a while.
I think Rasterman is simply angry that the Linux community has largely moved past his little window manager. There was a time when Enlightenment was thought of as "the window manager for GNOME" but it's no coincidence that GNOME usage took a sharp step up when both RedHat and Ximian decided to use Sawfish instead. And then of course there's KDE, which presents a gorgeous desktop without giving Englightenment a second thought.
After trying out Enlightenment, my thoughts were that it was really cool and spiffy -- until you actually tried to do something with your computer. Then it got in the way. Since most people actually want to run some applications, most people set E aside when they were done gawking at the cool graphics and wanted to get some work done.
And that's where Enlightenment stands today: a page in Linux desktop history where Rasterman pushed the limits and showed us what the Linux desktop was capable of being. It certainly inspired a lot of the graphics work that then went into KDE and GNOME standard desktops. But now, Raster's 15 minutes of fame are gone, and he's all pissy about it so he's declaring the Linux desktop dead. Yeah, that's real mature.
We're doing all the right things to get Linux on the mainstream desktop. We'll get there if we keep focused and ignore the sour grapes.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Says it all.
First they pick on Apple...Then they pick on Linux...
These losers need to go home.
StarTux
Anyway, why is this news? It's not news that this is being said, but it is news that Rasterman is saying it. This is the architect of Englightenment, which many consider to be one of the big 3 Unix/Linux desktops. This is not some zealot or marketing drone with a narrow view of the issues and/or a vested interest on one side or another. This is somebody with solid technical credentials, no axes to grind, and a solid contributor to the very technology he's discussing.
The interview was worth reading just to get the scoop on Enlightenment's history with GNOME. But it also persuaded me to give Enlightenment another look. There are two reasons for this: Rasterman's critique of what's going wrong with KDE and GNOME are all all too accurate; and Rasterman seems to have ambitions for his desktop that go beyond its current status as a hard-core hacker's toy.
Kylix doesn't suck. It is by far the easiest way to develop GUI programs for Linux. I do wish it didn't depend on a modified Qt and other big .so files, but it's not THAT big a deal. And I have a couple other complaints, like no rich text edit boxes or HTML formatting on controls.
But yes, people probably SHOULD be using Kylix to create more nice end user apps for Linux.
The UI stinks not because the Open Source community's programming talens are balkanized, but because that's not where Linux's goals were until very recently.
When I got into Linux five years ago, everyone was using FVWM because that's what they <i>liked</i> to use. A bit later, Gnome and KDE become well-known, and most the Linux users I know, including myself, said, "What the hell am I going to use <i>that</i> for?" Don't forget, we're largely a culture of console jockeys.
Think about time, too. MacOS 1.0 came out 21 years ago. Windows 1.0 came out 18 years ago.
What about Gnome and KDE? 3 years and 4 years, respectively. (Granted, I realize that 1.0 versions of many open source products seem to be more mature than the 1.0 versions of many commercial products.)
Looking at that timeline, and considering that a desktop GUI didn't even become a popular idea in the GNU/Linux community until recently, I'd say that regardless of how many programmer man-hours are involved in either product, both have come along much faster than Windows. (I'll keep my mouth shut about OS X)
I don't know enough about graphics toolkits to say if the GIMP, Mozilla and OpenOffice need KDE or GNOME apart from an X11 server to run or be useful but it would desktop Linux a lot more useful if simple things like copy/paste would work universally. On the other hand I don't see either the developers of KDE, seeing that they work so hard and quickly or the developers of GNOME giving up any time soon.
>That's why we have NORTON UTILITIES for Windows, and there's none of
>Linux.
>
There's no need for NORTON UTILITIES for Linux, dimwit. In fact there is no need nor market for the vast majority of Windows utilities or software under Unix/Linux. For example there is no need for Agent or any of the Windows newsreaders since we have Pan and other newsreaders for linux.
The users need MORE THAN WINDOWING ENVIRONMENTS, they need UTILITIES that do stuffs for them !
We have Kylix from Borland (FREE !) and how many of us are using Kylix to develop USEFUL UTILITIES for the users ?
Do something about this problem and we will see the Desktop Linux comes alive.
Great! Go download Kylix and start writing all of these USEFUL UTILITIES that are so lacking. That's how the game is played in Linux, you see. Almost every app that exists, exists because somebody saw a need for it, and coded it up.
I would say about zero exist because some self-declared pundit said "Hey! Here's what we need to do! So get cracking!
Once again, we see a post where "we" == "everyone but me"...
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Or you could do like every other student on the planet does, and copy Office. Should cost around 20 cents and take five minutes.
So, when the heck is E17 gonna be ready? Doesn't sound like Raster cares to ever get it done: "it's a nice test driver for evas".
Seriusly, Its got to stop! I dont want talking paperclips telling me how to open a file, but it seems like alot of users are screaaaming for a easier useable linux destop. I saw a SERIUS suggestion about a "I want to.." menu, in a realted slashdot story.
;)
I see where this is going, you want them to put a talking foot in my next gnome!! Well, I wont have it!
All crap aside, do we really want linux to become a YABOS(Yet Another Bubblegum Operating System)?
Now, I know that the main argument for ease of use is:
"If we build it they will come!"
Meaning that alot of people seem to think that if linux become more userfriendly, every office would install it. And therefore, all the office workers will use it at home. And, us linux geeks will finally get to play the newest games/cool macromedia application that does my work for me.
I agree with the fact that a larger userbase would lead to more commercial software(u know u want those games), I just dont agree with the way in getting the larger user base.
I find it extremely ironic, that the opensource development community. Seem to want to please the coraporation users, those are the primary advocates for ease of use u know. So, their poor worker cant blame ANY missed deadline problems with their computer.
Now, people will probertly scream "well what about my grandma who cant record a program on her VCR, she should be able to use linux to".
Yes, she should. And if she wanted to, she could probertly learn. The problem is, she dont want to. Jessus crist, who stupid do you think people can be. The reason she "cant get the VCR to record", is because its easier to act like a retard and have other people do it. If people say that they cant do something that trained monkeys could do, they are being lazy. Its that simple.
Remember the good old AMIGA? It was'nt really a userfriendly OS. And the only amigas that "snuck" into workplaces was boxes for graphics work, but still. But still, the box, dispite not being userfriendly, noor a commonly used officebox. It was for a very long time a dominant OS in the homemarked, simply because people USE their computers. And a amiga was usefull, in many ways. It showed how strong the hobbiest usergroups are, the AMIGA was used by hobby musicians and artists everywhere.
Thiese markeds are the one that needs pleasing on linux, we already have a really good hold in techtypes. Now we need the more creative ones, they bring numbers you know. And numbers means games.. eerh.. serius apps from whomever.
The saddest part is, programs like Cubase and Logic(Which are the two widest used professional music software out there) are'nt that complicated. Ofcourse, you need a lot a really smart people to make a peice of software like that. But, imagine that one of the two large desktop project had choosen to do this instead?
Then, by now the software would probertly be on par with cubase/logic. And would have created way more new users for Linux than eighter of the two desktop projects have done in the same time.
You see, people dont use computers for their desktops. They use it for the apps, and I assure you that if a guy could save the 1000Euro licence for cubase, they would just learn to use what ever desktop that available on the plaform of this free software.
Now, before ripping me apart because of my poor spelling/grammar. If you want me to take it seriusly, you need to write me on danish
Too bad. Guess I will have to get a Mac.... And just when Mozilla managed to get java sites working outside of M$ platforms :(
Good job justifying your inability to finish anything you start, Raster.
I mean, after all, why are we bothering to even develop GUI's at all because in a couple hundred years or so the whole idea of computing behind a screen, keyboard, and mouse will be obsolete!
yes unfornately Raster is correct, I predict in one of my slashdot posts that osx is the really future of the desktop. I agree
Probably the most dangerous idea in the world is one that in every fight everyone should immediately surrender to the opponent that looks stronger. It turns every activity into an exercise in looking mean.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Probably not many of you have been in one-on-one conversations with Rasterman. I have.
Back in the day, when FVWM'95 was the state-of-the-art, I got into contact with him because he was doing something new and cool.
I recommended that he not just create a WM, but a desktop environment. I was willing to help him do it. He obviously was good at making the widgets and all, but didn't have anything to help apps communicate with one another.
He was uninterested. The future, he figured, was in the WM.
It doesn't surprise me that since not too many are very interested in his WM (Sawfish and KWM are far more oft-used) -- that he thinks Linux desktop is dead and has no future.
He still doesn't get it.
But never mind. He's a techie. His genius doesn't lie in predicting the future of Linux, it lies in creating cool assembly-tweaked embedded whatsit solutions (as you can tell, where my genius *DOESN'T* lie). Let him be, but for god's sake, don't ask him the future of Linux.
You'll get the same drivel I got from him back in the 90's.
fifth sigma, inc.
Not on the desktop. Not on the PC. Not on anything that resembles what you call the desktop. Windows has won. Face it. The market is not driven by a technically superior kernel, or an OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day. Users don't (mostly) care. They just reboot and get on with it. They want apps. If the apps they want and like aren't there, it's a lose-lose. Windows has the apps. Linux does not.
.. email, p2p, chat, web browsing, dtp / word processing, finance, games, and, if in a business environment, a custom database of some sort. Open Source software available today fulfills ALL these needs and most every other.
OK, so Rast. got tired of doing E. Not surprising. It lost the cutting edge years ago. But that doesn't mean Linux on the desktop is "dead" and it's a pity to hear him talk so flippantly.
First off, Rasterman makes it sound like Linux and related free software is all interfaces and no applications. Nothing could be more blantantly untrue. Either this poor man has sold out to M$ FUD or he's been buried in xterms too long. Yes, there are weak spots like video editing and high-end graphics, but these are the exception, not the norm! Look around at what most people use computers for!
Secondly, people most definitely DO care about how often their computer crashes. I got a service call just the other day from a guy whose Windows install had become a tangled, corrupted mess. "It keeps crashing now and then and my printer sometimes won't work.. it gives me all these weird error messages." You go into ANY household with kids in US suburbia and you'll find a trashed out Windows machine loaded with spyware, viruses, ugly background / colorscheme, half broken apps, etc. Anyhow, he specifically ASKED me about Linux because he'd heard somewhere it was much better. That and he said he really didn't want to waste $150 on going to WinXP, especially since the nice computer he bought has never really worked that well from day one.
A week ago, some folks with a small business contacted me about switching to Linux because they too are totally fed up with overpriced, buggy proprietary software. Score another consulting job that'll let me keep developing free software with the rest of my time.
I have, in the last couple months, come across 5 churches and non-profit groups that are sick of the problems they have with Windows (all version), not to mention the exorbitant cost. All of them are looking at Linux, but don't know where to start or who to turn to.
Attention geeks: People are desperate for an alternative to Microsoft. Anyone who can't see this has had their 'head in the sand' the last 2 years. Folks, you NEED to get out and socialize and make connections with your local community.
Belongs to me now...as E is dead...I , Lord of the Sith, have taken over....
My servants Random LOve , and Migual have done there service. Bow before me, I rule you Thanks...
The Dark Lord
WALMART is selling Linux boxes now.
IBM says they've almost recouped the $1B they put into Linux development.
Rasterman really should have read the set of Forbes articles here showing billion-dollar companies switching to Linux to save money including on the desktop.
Linux isn't dead anywhere. Perhaps Rasterman's personal projects didn't work out, but not everything does.
Linux needs some improvements in installation, upgrade, user interface, and more available applications. If you want these problems fixed, write code or support those who do.
Apple has been pronounced dead more than once. They're sitting on $1B in cash and have the first user-friendly unix in existence. We can learn from these people. The first lesson is that "it ain't over 'til it's over".
Tech Public Policy stuff
Rastaman's Still a Script Kiddie!!!!!!hahahahaha
No stock options, 60-70k a year and no vacation and or sick leav leads to bad code
For real men look no carther than http://www.macos.com http://www.freebsd.org, http://www.www.openbsd.org
your welcome
FreeBSD for the impatient.
People are finally being realistic about what linux can or cannot do. Linux cannot take over the world, just like Java cannot take over the world. All that talk about taking over the world is pure hype and unrealistic too. Same for ever being as good as BSD. Linux will never be as good as FreeBSD, which will be around long after the linux hype and died and all the investors leave the linux companies, which has already started to happen. The writing in on the wall folks. Linux has been a distraction to the progress of computing. It's done nothing new except re-implement what's already been done in Unix and BSD. And many times, like in the vm code, it does it wrong. What a waste of human effort. We need to get the word out that linux is not that great and we need to rally behind an industrial strength open source operating system like FreeBSD.
One word: Mono.
I have a lot of respect for the work that Rasterman has done for the Linux desktop over the years. I'm an avid Enlightenment user. I also see his point that users just don't have the wealth of programs available to them for Linux as is available for Windows. Unfortunately, Rasterman forgot about the business world.
As Microsoft sends out love letters asking their customers to audit themselves, many big companies are viewing Linux as a way to keep costs down, not just server side, but client side as well. At a savings of $200 per desktop, it doesn't take an economics degree to see Linux is a smart choice for the desktop. Software needs? Most business need database access and office productivity software. Web browsers using forms on PHP, ASP, JSP, etc provide the access to a database, and OpenOffice provides everything else. No license fees, no copyright hasles, and minor learning curves. Imagine the time and money IT departments will save just by minimizing the software inventory they will have keep.
I think we've debated the Linux vs Microsoft and which is better to death. I'm just here to say that Linux is an acceptable OS on the corporate destop, Linux is exponentially growing on the desktop in the business sector, and companies will save themselves the stress of a software license audit.
Rasterman is right, the average person at home will continue to use Microsoft products. We don't have a printshop for Linux, or a virtual barbie dress up program. That's cool. Windows works just fine for the home user who doesn't mind a restart a couple of times a day. But Linux is slowly becoming the corporate savior for their licensing griefs.
He speaks the truth. He doesnt say that we should stop developing other window managers or other toolkits or anything else, but that to capture the desktop market we need some standardisation. If it be Gnome or KDE or anything else it doesnt matter.
dvNuLL
I've never understand what people seen in Enlightenment. It was huge and slow. Many people think that there is only twm, fvwm, KDE (kwm) and Enlightenment. But there is a lot of fast, and beautiful window managers! Look at Window Maker, IceWM, BlackBox! What's the reason to use Enlightenment? How many people ever used it, not just installed and turn on two times monthly?
What expected person, who created Enlightenment? Everyone should use it, becouse everyone talk how beautiful it is?
Linux is dead on desktop? Bullshit! Today we have working browsers (Mozilla/Galeon, konqueror, opera). Today we can watch, capture and even edit movies. Office suites are going forward (yes, I know your "is it compatible with DOC?"). And you can play games in Linux, just look at RTCW - what are differences between Linux and Windows versions?
Poppy cock.
.Net will bring us in the mean time. You will need huge amounts of cash and a thickbill fold to even execute code because your CPU time will be billed back to u.
.Net with Paladium already has the required design spec to automatically bill your account if you access ANY data Micosoft or some schmuck someone thinks your should pay for...anything from the weather forecast to ordering a book online for TWICE the PRICE just so you can use Microsoft's
How can a desktop war be fought when it hasn't arrived yet? KDE and GNOME are not ready.
However, mark my words IT WILL BE SOON.
This guy must have his own personal timeline and if the technology doesn't arrive by then because some company has already got the market and the software, its too late.
Thats just plain stupid, and that is not how economies work.
Are you NOT going to shop around for a car just because Henry Ford built the first one, and got thier first and basically took over the market initially?
No, of course not. I also many decades later, have never bought a Ford. My latest car is a Volkswagon, and my last one was a Nissan.
Why? Quality and price thats why.
He misses the entire point about Linux and its economics which drives it, why it has even got into IT server rooms in the first place, for example.
It is widely known, that if Linux is to win the desktop war, it will need to take over the server room first, which I think it is WELL on its way to doing that.
No matter what this guy says.
It will take 10 years for the industry to reshape itself around linux and ONLY linux.
But it is going to happen. I hope it happens in the US first otherwise our friends and our enemies who do, are going to have a HUGE economic advantage in information technology over us if we have to be saddled with ONE company taxing ANYTHING you do on your computer.
Which is exactly what
Sounds incredible? I don't think it is if you do your homework and carefully read what Microsoft has in store for thier future OS.
CRAPPY PRODUCTS!!!
Anything you do essentially becomes a cut for BUILDING BILL A BIGGER HOUSE and to further centralize corporate control over information.
The picture this paints is NOT A PRETTY ONE and your local congressman no doubt is more than willing to let it happen as long as they get thier cut for thier next election campaign from these sorts of companies that want to dictate what kind of information you are permitted to have, or learn by who can pay the top dollar to do so.
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I admire Rasterman's work and run enlightenment as my wm. His opinions on anything else are just that... his opinions.
We had better hope that his opinion on linux on the desktop is wrong however, as this is our only hope to keep knowledge freely available. The battle has been engaged and Microsoft and Mac are definitely on the dark side. The last available route to power for us ordinary folks is knowledge... wealth and force are becoming restricted to the oligarchy. If linux loses we are all in the soup and will remain there, simmering, for the next millenium. Make no mistake... this is a political battle, not an economic one. At the core of it lies our freedom or slavery. Geeks have the wherewithall to tip the balance in favour of freedom. All we have to do is organize. Information will free us and keep us free.
www.qcislands.net/peerless/
I do agree with Rasterman on a few topics, users are drawn towards apps instead of technical specs and such, but that does not mean that "the linux desktop is dead"? I doubt that very much.
:P
:)
Let's just hope this doesn't scare potential linux recruits away. The Horde needs new blood
Rasterman is indeed a very talented programmer, but even those are wrong every now and then
-Drakh
As usual the place to look for inspiration in this matter is Apple, though I don't think they quite got it right either:
Joe User should never see the root directory, if he's using a decent package manager (this may exist) and a decent desktop environment (not quite there yet) apps should just exist as icons in the user invironment, not as files in a /bin directory. And they should install by simply clicking the 'I want more better software' button.
Here's where Linux has the advantage -- all the free stuff has been assembled into self-installing packages which are managed by the distro. Neither Apple nor MS will give you much assistance in installing software other than the stuff the write.
The desktop should reside in the user's home directory, and the documents, pictures, music etc folders should go inside the desktop, much like the way it works on OS X.
Some side advantages to preventing users from accessing the home directory: in Windows 2000 and Mac OS X you have to look for files both in your home directory (your documents folder) and in the /Applications or /Program files folders. If after finding an application you want to navigate to your home directory you have to navigate through level after level of arcane directoires... Linux has the potential to completely remove this part of the process by putting all applications in a toolbar in the user's desktop environment automatically, much the way the $PATH allows more advanced users to run command-line apps without knowing which bin or sbin directory to look in.
And, 80-90% of all computer users only need a browser, an office suite and a few other utilities. Those are available for linux.
Except that there's this issue of 100% compatibility, which both home users and businesses demand. Neither group wants to "fiddle" with software that doesn't meet the exact compatibility formats of Microsoft Office applications. You can bitch six ways to Sunday that this is because of a Microsoft monopoly, but it doesn't' help compatibility problems.
Even if Linux application suites can come close to MS file formats, there are plenty of other applications that have no Linux equivalent, and no economic incentive to create a Linux equivalent.
Rule number one is: You ask the customer what applications they need.
No, rule number one is that you ask them what applications they need and what applications their friends of business workgroup is using.
The fact that you fail to grasp these basic issues suggests to me that you're spouting hot air instead of actually talking to people at the low end of the computer knowledge scale.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that you're neither a software developer nor a lawyer.
mkdir user_root /bin/* apps /usr/bin/* apps /usr/local/bin/* apps /etc/* config /usr/etc/* config
cd user_root
mkdir apps
ln -s
ln -s
ln -s
mkdir config
ln -s
ln -s
.
.
.
Not completely perfect, but you get the idea. Make user_root specific to each user and chroot them to it at login. Maybe make apps only contain a couple of links (like to browsers, music players, gimp, etc.) If you don't like the fs layout, symlinks are way easier than recompiling everything to a new layout.
The problem isn't that the software doesn't exist, the problem is that people don't know about that. And the cause of that is lack of a marketing budget: a big company can market the hell out of a redundant little utility to copy a disk partition and get lots of people to buy it for $50/copy, which they then use to market more redundant, overpriced utilities. On Linux, you get that stuff included for free, but nobody markets it. As a result, consumers assume it doesn't exist because nobody is throwing big, colorful boxes in their face or putting ads into USA Today that say "Optimize and simplify your dial-up connections with kppp."
> KDE 3 recently. All I can say is WOW. Amazing
> stuff. Things just work - out of the box. Its
> all there - the menus are great.
If you want to feel the same thing again try XFce. The feeling you felt when going from GNOME to KDE will be felt 10 fold when you see that XFce can do everything GNOME and KDE can, and far more, yet run as fast and take as little resources as IceWM or Blackbox.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
Oooo O_O
How MESSY! ;D
The entire University of Maryland system (which includes my school, UMBC) has a deal with Microsoft. Part of the fees every student must pay go to Microsoft, and as a result, people can get copies of XP or Office for around $10. If they see Red Hat Linux in the school bookstore for $80, I don't think they're going to want it.
Sure, OpenOffice is great, but how am I supposed to recommend it over MS Office for $10? Obviously, I'm annoyed that I have to give money to a convicted monopolist every year; when the deal was in the works, I did a point/counterpoint with the head of technology at UMBC in the school newspaper. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been put online.
On the other hand, I was using IE on a Mac the other day and tried to open up a tab...oh, wait
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
This business of cloning the Windows look and feel is a bit silly because most people don't fully understand Windows either- they dig out a Dummies book, or get someone to help them.
And LP 'lost' to CD.
The point would seem to be- have Linux, or open systems in general, positioned to be the DVD in the equation... and then let Windows go to hell and collapse from its own weight. Remember, Microsoft cannot afford to just let people keep using its products without continuing to upgrade and pay! They will shift people off older Windowses FOR you. Just intercept those people as they're unwillingly shifted off to something newer, and get 'em them...
E was great, I loved it. When/if E17 finally appears (and works on FreeBSD properly, the CVS one doesn't), I'll be one of the first to install it. For the moment I use KDE and Windowmaker at home/work respectively.
;-) All was not lost - due to customer requests they now have a lightweight native X client for their remote app service.
Anyway, The war for the desktop is not home users. Home users mean nothing in the big picture, save a nice treat if we can hook some of them. The majority of Microsofts monopoly is comprised of company desktops. Company desktops are often used for nothing other than email, browsing, and office apps. If we provide decent alternatives for each of these, while maintaining an extremely low cost per workstation (remember commercial licenses are more expensive), then we can compete.
Enter SuSE linux, Galeon, and OpenOffice.
SuSE: installs cleanly, and just works. I've been on the FreeBSD trail for some time now after getting sick of the annoying way in which rpm dists upgrade (or don't). SuSE has impressed me from start to finish. It knew my hardware, it installed with minimal interference, it even came with nice default themes for Window Managers, and updated just fine from their site when I told it to.
Galeon: Minor work for the sysadmin types to get this set up as a simple-to-install package with a new enough version, but they're the only ones in a corp. environment who will have to do this. It uses the mozilla rendering engine, it does Flash, Java, tabbed browsing, etc.
OpenOffice: Grab version 1 (or buy SO 6 from Sun). Again this just works. Printing just works. It even gets Excel formulas right now, and seems highly stable and usable.
As for email clients - take your pick....
We're starting to roll out Linux where I work, directly due to the increased costs that come with MS Licensing 6.0. Great for us you may say, but some companies have essential apps that don't exist for Linux. Do your homework and lobby the vendor. We use a hideous mess of a Call Handling/Kitchen Sink type application called Goldmine. Avoid it if you can, before it gets as far as test implementation
I think this year, and possibly the next, will truly decide if Linux will get anywhere or not in the corporate desktop environment. If it does, we enter a winning situation where multiple operating systems are available and practical for all (Joe uses Linux at work and likes it..), as choices - and that's what was really important in the first place.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Remember when Enlightenment DR0.15 was all that? Sure, it was buggy as hell and was a bitch to install, but it was not TWM. This guy has been working on DR0.17 for so long I thought he was dead. I know he's been through a lot--first he left RedHat , and Redhat dropped E in favor of Sawfish, then he went to work for VALinux, until they fired everyone who had anything to do with linux.
Just because he can't finish E-17 doesn't mean that desktop linux is dead. Quite the contrary. We don't miss or need E-17 anymore. Shit, Raster, the grapes are so sour they converted to vinegar on the vine.
---
If one does not compete, then one cannot lose.
From the Tao of Programming, Book 8.1:
'A novice asked the master: "I perceive that one computer company is much larger than all others. It towers above its competition like a giant among dwarfs. Any one of its divisions could comprise an entire business. Why is this so?"
The master replied, "Why do you ask such foolish questions? That company is large because it is large. If it only made hardware, nobody would buy it. If it only made software, nobody would use it. If it only maintained systems, people would treat it like a servant. But because it combines all of these things, people think it one of the gods! By not seeking to strive, it conquers without effort."'
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I've been using Linux for about 4-5 years now (on and off between Slackware and Debian, currently Debian). And for a long time I only used the simplest wms (olvwm, fvwm2), later I used wmaker, and now I use KDE (sorry, rasterman, I never got the hang of e). True, I got a faster computer so it didn't take 10 minutes to start KDE but what changed. I used to just login a couple of console sessions - one for emacs, one bash. Now what do I do? One KDE "Desktop" is for emacs and one is for Konsole. Aside from minor asthetics and programming in Gnome (yes, I confess. I use KDE but program in Gnome, image that! (flamebait - ANSI C kicks C++ ass!)
Back a couple of years ago I told people that so-called "desktop linux" was a waste of time. People don't care if it looks like windows or mac or what not. They want apps! But look at loki.
They ported a few games to linux and, as cool as it was to play Civ:CTP on my linux box, I soon went back to my true love of hacking.
I'm a hacker. I'll stay a hacker. All I need is emacs. Linux was started by hackers. His Holiness RMS (so flame me!) is a hacker. There's too much quibbling about this license and that license and what not. Give it up. Maybe gnu/linux will have a niche market in servers (where it _is_ well suited) but it won't have the desktop.
Don't get me wrong. I use linux 99% of the time but it just wasn't made for joe consumer. It was made for and by joe random hacker. And that's the way it will stay.
Oh well, maybe I'll install the HURD...
-- Tyler Roberson
aka RedTeen aka PenguinHead
We could have the very best Desktop in the world, but without it being preinstalled on PC's we'll never going to make any inroads as far as mainstream home PC's go.
::)
Most likely as someone mentioned we'll see it installed in areas completely controlled by IT. Like universities and some corporations.
Never at home. Why? You have Joe Whoever browsing the web, enjoying what he's doing. A friend tells him to go download App XYZ. Now, what are the odds that XYZ is going to be a Windows app, and when it doesn't run, Joe will A) Start reading and searching for an alternative and in the process end up learning something? B) Whine and bitch and then give up to go stare at the bug zapper C) Whine and bitch to the poor tech support people who will never get Joe to understand that there are multiple OS's out there?
For those of you who want to see M$ lose its strangle hold on the market. Develop FREE OPEN SOURCE WINDOWS CODE!!!! We got plenty of *nix code. Those with C skill please, I know it will be painful, but go out and learn to program for Windows.
Enlightenment will always be my window manager and xterm will be my desktop
-- taking over the world, we are.
I've been using linux exclusively for two years on two home computers. I find it hard to believe I'm the last living non-programming, non-computer science, non-engineer, age over 50, with three kids older than the average age on slashdot and four grandkids, person to do so. Someone not knowing that would lump me into the "point and click, gotta have Microsoft, Mom & Pop" crowd. Perhaps we're too quick to throw in the towel, expecially after the frustrations following the bursted linux hype bubble. Lots of folks lost either money or bragging rights (or both) and the fall back to earth was painful.
Linux' strength is its non-commercial, sharing nature. Using business models or metrics appropriate for commercial entities (market share, etc.) to measure linux' value is like putting a round peg in a square hole.
NON-geek Linux user since 1998
After read the interview, very interesting, I noticed that this site is running PHP-Nuke and they just removed all the copyright notices of the site engine's code from the footer messages and from the metatags in the source code. Anyone who knows PHP-Nuke know that this site uses it.
Why people who talks about Linux, free software, gnu, gpl, etc. doesn't even respect the rules of this world and pisses over the others hard work?
Ah! maybe you can delete this comment because it mentions PHP-Nuke... something that doesn't like to Slashdot.
Great, Object Pascal in a Visual Basic like development environment.
Sure, some people swear by Delphi, and Kylix probably suits them fine.
On the other hand, Borland said that Kylix was supposed to be a c++ dev enviroment as well.
So far, No dice.
I personally would love to see Borland's c++ builder for Linux in the form of Kylix, hell I might even consider using thier CLX widgets.
But Until Kylix is more than just Delphi, it will remain a very niche product.
Thanks! Works like a charm. Now we're totally defenestrated!
[this
Linux Desktop says Rasterman is dead...
I put a ? against apache, with the number of broadband users going up quite a few home users might want to serve web pages and a simple everything lives in /var/www/html apache install would acomidate that.
/var/www/html.
Looking through the apache logs I wouldn't recmend anyone to run IIS.
I also run mail on adsl, which is easy to setup but a lot harder than dumping evrything into
why pay £50 a year for 20mb of email space on someone elses domain, when you can have 100gb of email space if you run you own mail server, and as many email addresses as you want.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
However, now Raster is trying to talk about the direction of linux in general. And while I'm certainly no-one within the community as compared to someone who has contributed as much as raster, as a long time *nix user, not just as an admin managing servers, but also running quite a few desktops, I think I have some room to speak here. What he's talking about direction-wise here is no longer just his project. I hope Raster will lend me some grace here in taking up a contrary position to some of his points.
Not on the desktop. Not on the PC. Not on anything that resembles what you call the desktop. Windows has won. Face it. The market is not driven by a technically superior kernel, or an OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day. Users don't (mostly) care. They just reboot and get on with it. I don't disagree with his argument that the market isn't driven with by a technologically superior kernel. I think windows users care, they B&M about it all day long. They just don't care enough to endure the pain of switching. For many of them, learning the first time around was a chore and they don't want to go through it again. Others have been using windows so long they can't even conceive of something different.
My big disagreement on this point is its effect on Linux. I don't believe this kills linux on the desktop. If a superior availability of apps, and a greater market share were enough to kill all competition then why did linux come to be in the first place? How does apple survive? Why is OpenBeos there? Why are people fighting to keep the Amiga alive? (Really, I want to know on that last one. ;-) J/K I've heard that speel from too many people to want to hear it again)
No, I say that linux should never DOMINATE the market, and if it does, chances are I'll have stopped using it long before then. But was that ever really our goal? I can't recall a time when Raster has EVER said that it was his goal to see everyone use E. More than that I have vague recollections of him saying the opposite. And other than the wackos (who do not, afaict, represent the core of linux users and developers) bent on linux ruling the world instead of cracking jokes about it I don't think anyone else in linux does either.
Instead, linux, its applications, the kernel, everything are all about choice. People write compatible apps not to outdo MS, but to provide alternatives. They make workalikes to make it easier to escape. Does that mean NOBODY should use windows? Well, the response to that varies. Maybe in its current form, but if there was enough competition that MS was forced to truly improve it I don't think people would say no, nobody should. I don't think the "desktop war" was ever a war. This isn't a zero sum game. There isn't just one winner and everyone else is a loser.
Instead, if you maintain users and enough people use/contribute to your project to keep it going then you are a winner.
[Linux's] life on the desktop is limited to nice areas (video production, though Mac is very strong and with a UNIX core now will probably end up ruling the roost).
Who cares? Do we only make products if EVERYONE is going to use them? What kind of sense is that? Everything has a target market. Are the Grandma's and Grandpa's of this world really our target market? I don't think so. Not that that means we don't care. What Linux does makes their life better indirectly simply by providing choice even if we aren't the best one for them. Linux has paved the way. It has demonstrated that you CAN compete with MS, you just can't be someone who can be bought or stomped on by their monopoly. By providing an active choice others can come along and try and follow that guide to provide an OS for G&G. Heck, that is probably one place where you really COULD make money consistantly on service vs. sales of software. ;-)
The only place you are likely to see Linux is the embedded space. Purpose-built devices to do a few things well. There is no encumbent app space to catch up with as a lot of the apps are custom written. It's still a mostly level playing field. This is where the strengths of Linux can help make it shine.
I am not sure how you make this logical jump. Maybe if WinCE and MS Office didn't exist for handhelds. But considering your other points, if one accepts them at face value we'd have to say that MS has already one on that front too. They /already/ have the apps, and they /already/ have the name recognition. And, if you discount cross-platform preferences there (desktop -> PDA, which I know isn't the only potential for embedded devices but I'll use it here for reference) what about palm? It's already got brand recognition, and it has apps, and people are familiar with it.
Why? I say for choice. Myself, I choose linux. I just picked up an iPaq this week in fact. I'm running familiar on it. I tried WinCE. It was fun playing solitaire, but I need to do some stuff with it so installed familiar. I played with the X side for awhile and now I'm trying out opie, but what I really am looking forward to is playing with raster's creations he's been working on with his ipaq. So far, it's scary, but WinCE is more useful to me atm on the ipaq than linux is. Suspend doesn't work, I can't synchronize my todo lists, address book, etc. But I don't care. Part of using Linux is contributing. I'll keep hacking on it until it does what I want, and running linux allows me to do that.
I'm just so tired of people guaging linux's success by how accessible it is to the average user with below-average computer skills. You can't take someone elses target market and complain because they can't use a product not aimed at them. Please excuse, but I think that's just ridiculous.
I choose BSD with the advertising clause.
Woot! One of the many things I've always loved about Raster. Which brings me to another thing I love about Raster, his typing habits. If it wasn't for the fact that the content refelcts Raster I'd have to wonder if he wrote this at all. ;-)
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
The previous poster suggests that Linux lacks sufficient applications.
But my experience is the opposite. I run Linux as my desktop at home, and I get frustrated when I have to run Windows at work, because Windows is lacking so many of the tools that I am used to having on Linx.
Gates and co. are probably hoping most open-source developers are like Rasterman. If so, they have nothing to worry about.
You're right, Desktop Linux is doing fine.
That's especially true when you consider that Linux only really entered the desktop market two months ago, with the release of OpenOffice 1.0.
That follows the release, also within recent months, of Mozilla 1.0, and Evolution 1.0.
Linux entered the server market in a serious way around five years ago. Now Linux runs on a third of the Intel-based servers.
Linux entered the embedded, supercomputer, amnd mainframe markets, all within the last three or four years, and Linux is already a major factor in all those markets. Windows has gottent nowhere in those markets.
And now, Linux just entered the Desktop market.
It's a bit premature to be declaring it dead.
OS/2 has been dead and buried since windoze 95 came out, yet IBM still sells it and supplies the fix kits. I wonder if that's legal. :)
This sig no verb.
Don't say Linux is free. Say Linux is better and show them why it's more powerful and flexible than Windows. Then you can say "oh and it's also free"
---
An apple a day keeps the doctor away... well... we can hope.
For Linux to make the set onto the desktop, it really needs to have some major parts of it's code rewritten. First, X has to GO!!! I love X, but for the average user, popping up a window from another machine just isn't important. I was at school and many of the Comp Sci majors there didn't even know that they could remotely display information.
I believe that Linux needs the Apple treatment. A true front end has to be written, possibly from the ground up... for Linux. The guts of Linux are great, but it just doesn't have anywhere near the ease of use that other OS's have.
People need to have an OS that's friendly, do unto Linux what Apple did to BSD. Write a great (modern) interface and ditch X. This new interface could always have the capabilites of X, but it really needs to have screen performance as its primary concern.
Linux will never standardize to one window manager, toolkit, file system, distribution installer, etc. There are even distros that employ various patches that you will never find on the standard official version. The whole point is that there will be many many choices. Many ideas-some completely experimental, some will pull through. Throw away this brewing stew of ideas and you will do a great disservice to the computing world. If you want an alternative to Windows you need to start from scratch. No X, no Unix directory structure...it must be a complete OS from top to bottom and led by software engineers-not coders. I have some projects in mind but that is not the point here. Linux has its place and shouldn't be screwed up with to satisfy people who weren't really interested since the beginning.
---
I just want to point out that the reason I use linux is because it always teaches me something new. Most people who actually use linux already know this of course, but it sometimes helps to not be so general by stating "People just want something they can use." Last I checked I was one of those beings called "people" and the main reason I choose not to use Windows is because I can't do anything BUT "just use it".
When you sit down at a Windows machine you check your brain in at the door, along with your coat. Having choice is liberating. Of course, most people who use Linux know this too, but sometimes it helps to remind others _why_ we have twenty different applications that allow us to resize windows. I get pretty fuckin' bored with Windows lack of ability to customize the desktop metaphor. Also, it seems it doesn't matter how many iterations of Windows we see, they'll never manage to stabilize explorer.exe and keep it from crashing/consuming most of my system's memory.
As far as Rasterman's opinions go, he is entitled to them. He has far exceeded "doing his part" to help the linux community/movement as a whole. The man is entitled to say whatever the fuck he wants, just like you and me.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
I think one aera linux has diffuclty is in who will support machines with linux installs. I know that at the place I work, we wouldn't give any support to linux. We mainly support Windows and machintoshs a little bit. And If you have problems with a windows machine its not to hard to find someone with basic windows experience to help you out.
http://www.wickedtoast.com
The desktop is hard. Everyone on this board has a reason why Windows is doing better than Linux. Blame it on economy of scale, blame it on whatever you want to feel better at night, but a really important reason - possibly the most inportant for the non-technical user - is the human-computer interface.
You see, commercial companies can afford to pay people like me who are trained to talk with an application's user base to better understand how they approach clumps of information on the screen. We work weeks, months, years building and refining the interaction these end-users have with their programs.
This kind of attention to detail doesn't come from calling them "lusers".
For linux desktop applications to have anywhere near the appeal of their Windows counterparts, people are going to have to start spending money to develop proper interfaces for these products. This will require commercial companies - ones that have the money to fund non-programming positions - to enter linux space.
For better or for worse, most companies aren't convinced money can be made with Linux on the desktop, so they don't bother. So for people who want to "set it and forget it", Linux just doesn't make sense.
For the Linux users, ask yourself - "how long did it take me to get my system up and running to my staisaction? (including configuring the Window Manager to act like you want)" Quiz some of your Windows-using friends how long it took them to set up. But then I think y'all already know the answer.
..then why is my desktop still working???
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Considering that win32 runs on around 90% of the worlds desktops with MacOS taking up most of the rest of the share, you could argue that Linux on the Desktop has never really taken a breath.
;]
Sure, it's made leaps and bounds in terms of usability, but if less than 1% of computer users worldwide actually use it, it can hardly be considered a success.
The biggest problem facing Linux on the Desktop is a catch-22 situation.
Developers and computer enthusiasts want choice, however, the more choice that is given, the more confusing it becomes for your average computer user. Many of the developers probably don't even care whether Linux becomes a popular desktop environment - they are doing it for fun.
Lets face it, win32 basically has two desktops at any one time - the last version and the latest. Both are 95% compatible with each other regarding applictions.
Linux has too many and too many distibutions to run them with. This is great for your computer enthusiast who loves to tinker, but for joe-user, it's one big mass of confusion.
Continuous disagreements as to which distribution or which desktop manager is the best/fastest/easiest etc. hardly helps matters, nor does win32 bashing.
To put things in perspective, many of the people I know developing things such as security applications for Linux, don't actually use it on the desktop. These are not joe-users, they are people very comfortable with kernel manipulation, firewalls, networking etc. who are working in a commercial environment. They use both win32 and Linux on a daily basis.
Linux on the Desktop hasn't even got of the ground yet. I for one, don't really care. I have win2k that works perfectly for me on the desktop and Linux that works perfectly for all my server needs.
There are many many other people who feel the same way, and sure, many others that are on some 'religous mission' to rid the world of microsoft -
Well, if that's the case, start where Linux is already a success - the server market, then, as Rasterman mentions, embedded applications - before it's too late to take a market share...
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Alright I can't stand this anymore. I've taught a lot of computer illiterates about our filesystem, IT IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. As long as you draw a tree, with each node clearly marked, it's very easy to understand the filesystem. I think it's easier than :
"OK your C drive is running out of space, that's why you cannot put things on the desktop, because you see, the desktop is really hiding inside C: drive but they pull it out to make it look like the desktop is seperate from C: drive, well it's not... see, if you go under C:\blahblahblah\Desktop there! this is your desktop."
Now THAT's confusing. A tree is easy to understand. To mount a filesystem means attaching a new little tree. With a drawing, it is not hard at all to understand.
So enough exclamation marks. All statements above are beside the point.
What users need is an appliance that simply works. Even power-users need things that Just-Work. What would such an appliance do? Well, reading email, browsing the web, typing documents, listening to music, burning CDs etc. Hmm, kinda like what they do with PCs today. But why have it look like a computer that users have to administer?
By claiming that Linux should conquer the desktop and wring it from evil-Bill, hordes of good people are missing the point. Don't try and re-do something that Windows has a light-year head start on, not to mention an embedded-base you can not match in 5-years.
This problem needs to be approached differently. Someone with both Vision and Money may re-invent the computer as an appliance, identify what it needs to do, how it should interact with it's users (is it a single-user or a multi-user system, point and click, keyoard and/or speech input etc.), identify a hardware platform (possibly a cheap PC), and then start looking to aquire a code base for its software.
At this point Linux and other OSS comes into the picture, for all the obvious reasons. Now the Visionary needs his/her Money. Since a lot of work needs to be done to combine the components to get the workable whole, and then to support it. Some distros are trying to do this but I have not seen one that has gone all the way.
The business model for such a company would be different from that of distro-vendors. This company would maintain the appliance it sells and get paid by the user to keep the appliance functions working and to add new functions if the user so desires.
Please note that this machine would have a radically different look-and-feel from the traditional windows and linux systems. The users don't even see the file system, the users don't administer the machine, the users use their precious time benefitting from the appliance.
Is this a dream? Yes.
Is it impossible to make this dream come true? No, it just takes vision and dedication, just re-invent the desktop.
Would I buy such a thing? Yes
Would I work for such a company? Yes
Nice to see that someone with a clue bothers to answer.
Dammit,
Linux has to die on the desktop two days after we swapped the company next doors entire network to Linux, server & desktop included.
I 'spose they'll just have to go back to the expensive and insecure, DRM enforcing, virus prone junk they were trying to get away from when they called us in to do the switch.
It's a real shame really as they seemed to thimk that KDE on Mandrake 8.2 was really easy to use and Open Office did everything they need but they must have been wrong.
I'll tell them tomorrow (monday) morning and see what they say.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
I hope you don't leave your car running in front of the door, so you can save that 3 1/2 second for starting the engine...
> For the average person, Linux is completely worthless because it can't run the applications that they want.
You know that for a fact, huh? Just straight out? Linux is _worthless_ for the average person?
The arrogance of your statement astounds me.
Well, I consider myself to be an average computer user, and Linux does what I want on the desktop.
My sister and her husband are also average users, who don't know anything about computers, and Linux is doing everything they want as well.
My sister surfs the net, and sends e-mail, their daughter does school reports, and her husband maintains a "database" of baseball cards for trading. They all use Mozilla (formerly Netscape) and OpenOffice (formerly StarOffice), and the baseball card collection is tracked using the same tool that would have been used on Windows, namely, a spreadsheet.
If you were being more objective, then you would realize that Linux will do the job for many "average" users, while others, because of special application needs not yet met on Linux, must use Windows. Of course, there are still others who must use a Mac, or even an old Amiga.
> But if mom wants to run that off-the-shelf blackjack game [Linux has many card games, which very likely includes blackjack, or Linux users can run Mozilla and Java to access web-based blackjack], or recipe filing program [I'd have to check], etc, she is totally out of luck. [again with the arrogance]
> Even with Wine she is totally out of luck, since there is no way she would be able to install the program to run with Wine.
I wouldn't know, since I don't use Wine. I have not found the need to run any Windows software.
> Let's not even talk about setting up a home network with NAT,
I had no problem setting up my home network with Linux, and, when she asks, I will do the same for my sister (if she were running Windows, she would still ask me).
As to Network Address Translation, I assume you mean so that many computers can share the same Internet connection. Again, I had no problem taking an old 486, and installing a version of Linux intended for firewalls, and a little reading allowed me to set up the IPTables.
In the end, I feel much more secure about my home network, than I would if I were running Windows. Don't forget that IE currently has 19 unpatched vulnerabilities, some of which would allow an outsider to bypass your firewall and get to your home network:
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/
> or installing new hardware.
Actually, I think Linux has the advantage here. While Windows 98 may be the king in terms of supporting the most peripherals, Linux supports more hardware that NT, 2000, or XP.
Plus, I can't tell you how many times I have installed new hardware (say a SCSI card) under Windows, just to watch Windows go into auto-detect hell, followed by something being broken (e.g. my mouse won't work).
> The typical consumer is unaware of Linux because Linux is a worthless solution to them.
Again with the arrogance. You are absolutely certain of that? No matter who the user is, Linux is _worthless_ to them? You have amazing psychic abilities.
> That will never change until Linux becomes a useful solution, and I have my doubts that that will ever change,
Oh, so now you can see into the future as well. Amazing!
> because the people who work on Linux have no motivation to make easy what John Q. Public considers important.
That is the opposite to what I have observed.
Linux developers are motivated to do what is right for Linux users, because the developers are also the users.
Contrast that with what Microsoft has done.
Do you think the Geoworks users really wanted Geoworks to stop working when they installed the next version of DOS? (Geoworks was the most popular application for home users at the time.)
Do you think the Ami Pro users really wanted Ami Pro to stop working when they installed Windows 95? (Ami Pro was the fastest growing word processor at the time, having already captured 20% of the market.)
Do you really think that Office 95 users wanted it to be impossible to trade documents with Office 97 users? (Who do you think benefitted from that, the user, or Microsoft?)
Do you really think that Netscape and WordPerfect users want to have most of IE and MS Office preloaded into memory?
Do you really think Microsoft officials were serving the public when they wrote the following:
> "I have heard it said that we want to allow our top 50 ISVs to be able to innovate on Windows as their primary platform, and port back onto their Unix platforms, but we don't want it to work too well." [Bristol vs Microsoft]
Or this:
> "at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps." [Sun vs Microsoft]
Or this:
> "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO [Gil Amelio] to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...." [DOJ vs Microsoft]
Or this:
> "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "The approach we will take is to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface,'" and "What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then go out to buy ms-dos. or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office." [DR-DOS vs Microsoft]
Whenever it was to their advantage, Microsoft has coldly stabbed the user in the back. You won't find Linux developers doing that.
> Your pathological hatred of Microsoft...
Actually, if anyone is demonstrating a pathology here, it would appear to be you. You seem to be so stuck on your position, that you have done no research, and have thrown facts and logic aside, in order to make huge sweeping statements about what is right for _every_ user.
You sez:
"But Until Kylix is more than just Delphi, it
will remain a very niche product"
See the title above ?
"Niche products" such as MS Windows has all its "niches" and Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank with all that "niches" !
Don't put down Kylix or other "niche products". If you are a good programmer, you can use ANY "niche product" to create GREAT apps that the end users can use.
But of course, there are people such as you who will complain that Kylix (and others) are "niche products" and you will not use it because it's not "up to your standard".
Why don't you try a "non-niche product", such as a Borne Shell, to create nice end-user app for Linux, eh ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Go to
www.borland.com/products/downloads/download_kylix
to dl Kylix, for free !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I'd rather think Rasterman is dead than Linux on the desktop. It's fatal for E neither to support Gnome 2 nor KDE.
The future for Linux is bright as it is very scalable and runs both on embedded devices and mainframes or clusters. There are plenty of apps and most of them are available for free. As soon as the people will really need to pay for Microsuck Software (C'mon, 95% of M$ users do not pay a penny for their apps), they will switch to Linux. And as soon as M$ will build Palladium and tell the user what he may or may not do, Linux has won.
--A very happy KDE 3.0.2 and preemptible 2.4.19_rc3 user
You sez:
"The basic problem is that a computer is wrong for technophobes."
Are you living in a real world, or are you just seeing things with your geeky scope ?
Look around, and you will see that COMPUTERS ARE EVERYWHERE, and THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD ARE TECHNOPHOBES !
Translation: MANY TECHNOPHOBES ARE USING COMPUTERS, whether you like it or not !
MS Windows become so popular because of this one fact - that it covers up (most of) the things the technophobes are afraid of - techno-goobledegooks.
The customer base is the PEOPLE OUT THERE, not the geeks who are using Linux. If we are too make Linux a successful OS, we must acknowledge that we can NO LONGER make Linux to suit only ourselves.
We must also consider the needs of the people who have no idea what FileSystem means, or how to scan their own ports, or the difference between the ROOT and all the other accounts.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Good for you. But you are an open source hippie beatnik, not joe average, and you don't NEED a simple to use straightforward desktop. You probably don't even want one.
Perhaps you missed the point of my post though.
I am not trying to take away your choices. I don't see it happening.
I'm only pointing out that the only way linux will have a rock solid desktop that developers will really, truly like to use is when things really are standard. As long as they have to deal with all these variable desktops,it's unattractive to development, and will remain that way.
What I'm saying is that linux isn't going to be the wonder desktop everyone wants unless things get more focused.
Given that, I don't mean to say that's what should happen. I don't believe it will.
You open source hippie zealot. I'll bite.
Did you feel threatened? Did you feel I was forcing an opinion on you?
I was not suggest at all that anyone stop using what they are using. Go for it. Choice is good. Make tons of weird software.
I'm only pointing out that until we see some real unification and focus, linux will remain a second rate desktop. I'm not at all suggesting this is a bad thing.
Who said we NEED to do anything?
The post was theoretical. *IF* you want linux to be a rock solid desktop that developers will publish software for, then it has to be standardized. Does that not make sense?
You are right. You are free to do whatever you want with linux, that's what the license is all about. I never meant YOu should do anything. Please. Go on doing whatever you want to do.
The post was only to say that UNTIL the linux marketshare consists of basically a standard system with standard GUI, and standard APIs, to the degree that Windows is (or better, Mac), linux will not be a real consumer desktop solution.
I never said it HAD to be one either.. it's just food for though to those who keep acting like it should be.
You are talking about the choice of which OS to use TODAY, and you are more or less correct. Pick the right tool for the right job, based on what's available.
What we were talking about, though, is how things will pan out in the future, and what may need to happen if things are to work out the way many seem to want them to. Many talk about how linux is ready for the desktop. This was simply a point as to why it's not.
So Linux may be fine for your needs. Personally, I would LIKE to see a solid desktop on top of it. because, really, from an actual computing point of view, the choice of 20 window managers really does not add functionality, it merely makes it confusing for developers.
When I say single desktop, I obviously mean a single set of APIs for gui programming. I suppose that's not obvious to most. Sorry.
If the API is solid, all desktops will be similar in functionality anyway.
What you describe IS a single distribution. I suppose I worded it badly. I mean we need a standard that developers can code to.
Microsoft got into a monopoly position by many different tactics; we all know it wasn't the strength of their desktop.
Ever since win32, gui programming has been realtively constant in wwindows. Someething written for win3.1 with win32s works equally on win95, win98, etcetera, at least as far as the gui goes. Minor changes along the way, yes, and new features with newer versions, yes... but it's basically the same.
But look. Having 10 window managers with different features, and several different gui toolkits to choose from does NOT make it easier for the developer to write something he can sell later, it makes it harder. Trying to figure out which demographic has which libraries installed already is a pain.
Take a sampling of unix environments, please, and show how many are actively using CDE. Not a lot. Hmm.
So what good is a CDE app?
BTW.. if your XP install crashed that many times, you must have some pretty weird hardware. I've done 200 installs, and not one crashed.
When it comes to your expensive MS Office install, how hard is it to find help? Not only is there Microsoft's own support system, but on the internet and in published print there's a friggin world of support for *groans* "Dummies"...
On the other hand, what about OpenOffice or StarOffice? It's a whole different deal.
To put this in simple terms, just think about secretaries. They're usually unskilled and uneducated, but the average competent secretary knows a few more tricks about MS suites than you or I do. Slap a beautifully free copy of something else in front of her, and you've just made an enemy of the last person you ever want to piss off in your McCompany.
http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
Stop wasting time writing open source unix, and open source a windows NT clone. Then run MONO on it. As a software architecture, NT is really nice. If your problems are with its implementation, well, we will be replacing the implementation. :)
We don't need apps. We have them already. What we need is for Wine to mature so those apps run. Apps like OpenOffice are the way of the future, but not ready for the mainstream market yet. We need a bridge that will allow people to move to Linux and use their current apps. It's completely infeasible to take the desktop market any other way. We can't hope to mirror all the windows apps with native Linux versions, and if we try, we are just waisting our resources.
Get Wine working WELL. Buy Crossover Office. It currently works with Word & Excel 2000 almost perfectly. Wine is the only bridge that will work.
As for Enlightenment and Rasterman's comments that the desktop is dead...
I think that Rasterman is bitter because he was getting paid to work on E-17 and that made things very comfortable. But him (and the XFree86-DRI team, and many others) were laid off, and he had to find a real job. As soon as this happened, E-17 development ground to an almighty halt (and it was actually going somewhere before this) and he started working on EVAS-2 which was more for his new employer than for E-17. If Rasterman hadn't been paid for E-17 work initially, I think he would still be coding for it, but to him - after being laid off, the Linux desktop is dead. And so is E-17 development.
I still use E-16 (cvs) and it does everything I need to, and does it better than Gnome and KDE currently do. They still get in the way too much. I don't see E-17 being finished this year, or next year...
We just completed a large pilot of Linux on the desktop using Gnome 2.0 and all the latest goodies. I think we've come close to the default windows platform. If we lose, Microsoft will have to pay big time to get the account as our costings are a fraction of theirs.
I think the point that everyone is missing is that the gap has never been narrower between the two options and is closing fast. Think back three years, here's what we've got now:
Evolution - Outlook killer
Open Office - MS Office killer
Gnome/KDE desktop - windows desktop killer
Mozilla - MS IE killer
Nautilus - MS explorer killer (check it out now, its fast and great)
These products either didn't exist or were shadows of themselves three years ago. I know for certain that in the Sydney market, things are hotting up for Linux on the desktop not the other way around.
If you think even vaguely about the trend its for us not agin us.
If there is a gap, it's in the calendaring apps, maintenance tools for large sites and size of Linux shops for the comfort factor. I'm working with prochange.org to try to solve this.
Join us and help.
You heard me!
Perhaps you're not clued into the whole freedom to choose thing yet. You do mean to suggest taking away choice because when software is no longer developing, it falls behind and falls out of usefulness. If you want a single desktop then go the fuck back to windows, asshole!
Erik
+= E
Rasterman is a pompous jackass.
Thus proving that the Linux zealot deliberately picks inferior software just to be different.
> Thus proving that the Linux zealot deliberately picks inferior software just to be different.
Don't be an idiot.
I picked Mozilla because it is better, and because I didn't want to have to worry about the security flaws in IE.
And I picked OpenOffice because it gave me a drawing tool. Microsoft's Visio is so expensive that only a few people in the company are licensed to use it.
It's a typical story. Microsoft's software is low in quality and high in price. The Open Source replacements, on the other hand, are high in quality, and cost-free.
With Open Source, I can get excellent software, without stealing anything, and without having to submit a budget for approval.
I chose to get a good product, to protect my security, and to save money. If you think that makes someone a zealot, then count me in.
IF THE MAJORITY of the people would start embracing Linux by ditching windows, even if it was like MS-DOS 3.2 now, it WOULD DAMN RIGHT start developing rapidly to whatever people would want it to become. It's the money in the pockets of the majority that drives the game designers, application programmers etc. If there is a popular need, it can be done! Hell, Adobe would port Photoshop to DOS if that was the OS majority of people would start using now!
Linux is succeeding extremely well on the desktop when one considers the complete lack of software availibility, and our own arrogance.
Already, Linux would be just as easy for my parents to deal with. They would just scream for me to fix it. At least with Linux I get the option of doing that remotely. (I could with Windows too, but it costs a bundle).
The first main problem with Desktop Linux is that you must install it yourself. Installing Linux is infinitely more difficult than getting a machine preinstalled with windows (or Linux). A few beige box makers have at times made Linux available. One wonders why they do not now. We hear mumbles about investment return, and such, but I tend to suspect that Microsoft puts some pressure on them. Case in point is Walmart. If they piss Microsoft off and Microsoft says, "you aren't licensed as an OEM to out Windows on your computers now." Walmart can say "OK. We won't sell them with it. Computers are such a small portion of their inconme that it doesn't matter to them.
Contrast this with Dell. If Microsoft were to lean on them, Dell couldn't possibly afford to go against them. The loss of the right to put Windows on their machines would be financial suicide. Microsoft may of signed a consent decree, not to do so, but we all know how well they've lived up to such agreements in the past.
If we ignore the install proceedure, and assume that all the apps are available and set up as desired, Linux is no more difficult, and at times eaiser than Windows.
The problems with getting things released for Linux so that Linux can compete are mostly political and perceptual. The almost fanatical zeal we often have toward many aspects of computing is also a severe problem.
First off we have the GPL. This worries a lot of companies. RMS is a zealot, and a wierdo, but most everyone agrees that when he says he means something, he does. Unfortunatly that isn't good enough for a lot of people, corporate lawyers in particular. According to a lot of them, the GPL is inadequate when it comes to explicitly describing what you can and can't do with GPLed code. There are language problems that to a typical geek don't seem to be there, but to a lawyer seem to cause palpitations. Some have suggested that a section clearly defining several terms used in the GPL might help a lot.
There is also a percieved problem with the GPL and many of it's supporters. To many businessmen, it smacks of socialism. To their minds, socialism wants to take away everything they have worked to get, and give it to people who would rather not work. (Argue amongst yourselves if this is an accurate definition of socialism, I am not defining it, just pointing out how how a segment of society (and one that we need to cultivate to accepting the GPL) sees things).
The BSD liscense is more palitable to many, but the Halloween Documents would indicate that Microsoft already had stratgedy in place to counter the BSD crowd. It would seem that the 'viral' (yes I dislike the term too) nature of the GPL is something that they saw no real way to combat.
The solution here is to check with some corporate lawyers, and fix some of the ambiguity of the GPL that they seem to fear, then counter the Microsoft "GPL will make you give up all your company's secretes" FUD with reasoned, non-sarcastic, counterarguments, preferably from people who look every bit like the businessmen that Microsoft reps do. Remember, to some it's more important that you look the part than it is that you can actually fufill the part. It's life, deal with it.
Another problem is with computers and the general populace in general. The truth of the matter is that people are taught not to think. They're taught to memorize everything. If you havn't memorized how to do it, you can't do it. Linux is now different. That means that even if you developed an EXACT replica of a Microsoft GUI, the vast majority of people would have to completely rememorize everything they knew about windows before they could use it under Linux, even though they wouldn't know there was a difference unless you told them. I've actually seen people get lost because the colors on the desktop changed.
The real solution here is to get people as they enter the computer world. Get people to switch from windows to Linux, but aim at the new users. Of course to solve this problem we have to solve the problem of getting Linux preinstalled on machines, which I have the feeling won't happen untill Microsoft is slapped down hard.
Finally we as a group tend to be arrogant asses, (and I am also guilty) who tend to be very offputting to the non-geek. This won't be solved any time soon either though. It's fairly easy for one person to say "Gee, I'm being an asshole. I should change." Than it is to get a culture to do the same.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
> > The biggest debate in the group at the moment is which distributions to recommend
> I think this right here really summarizes the problem preventing Linux from gaining mass acceptance.
You're right. Having more than one choice is really a problem.
That's why I don't have a car. There are just too many car manufacturers to choose from. And there are so many options -- aargh, I'll just never get a car until they can make up their minds and offer me a single best choice.
For similar reasons, I don't own a VCR, or a stereo, or any appliances, and there are so many choices at the clothing and grocery stores that I may have to stop buying those too.
Maybe I can hire someone to make all my choices for me. Hopefully there is only one company offering that service.
What are you talking about? The last time I tried to install M$ it took me four freaking hours of reboots and other BS. About two years ago I wanted to build my last M$ box for talking to cameras, scanners and other legacy hardware cruft I have. It was a 450MHz k6/2 with 128MB ram and 15GB hard disk. First I tried a nice shiny new w2k disk. It took about two hours to fail misserably on, of all things, disk partition. I tried it three times with different options. NO GO. So then I followed the win98 ritual for two hours or so of rebooting for all the devices to be seen and "work". Oh yeah, none of the common hardware would have worked without sepcial hardware driver disks provided by the vendor of each device. I also had to know that certian motherboard drivers should not be installed, and about a hundred other rather geeky pieces of arcane M$ cruft to get the box working. So, I'd suggest you bring your box to the M$ folks if you would like to have it worked over. I'd also suggest you invest in a new hard disk for them to install too, just in case you don't like what they do.
Debian installs on the same hardware in 30 minutes. I'll admit that I don't know how to make it see the sound cards and the other hardware goodies, but that does not give me perpetual problems like a broken M$ install does.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Bring both determine the choice based on user needs. Just make sure you have enough experts to support the choices you offer and that you come to a basic agreement of what kinds of users can best be served by which distro. Have demonstrations of the setups that the user can see. There's no accounting for taste!
To maximize the number of people you serve, distribute the effort as widely as possible. Leave your best installers at the desk with cell phones, network if possible, and offer to send people out to install. Those that run off to help install should have demonstrated basic understanding, but don't have to be experts if they can call for help.
Good Luck!
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The CDE desktop itself, the whole look and feel and integrated cut and paste didn't become widely adopted - which is my point. We have had numerous window managers and taskbar applications since then, and numerous themes within the window managers (or taskbar programs) since the days of windowmaker and enlightenment 0.13.
An epson stylus 400 printer was the culprit (I pulled everything but the video card, one HDD, one CDROM and the printer cable for the install) and some legacy software has been crashing it regularly since (as well as occasional crashes by such things as the shell (EXPLORER.EXE) immediately after startup. Perhaps XP doesn't like my motherboard - time to go back to win2k which does run the legacy software (and the shell doesn't crash). My point was that I found XP more difficult to install than a very old linux distro which had limited hardware support, and I've always found editing the registry to be more difficult than editing files inBack to the original point - XP is allowing more themeability, ways to diverge from a standard desktop. Last year I worked in a place with a couple of hundred NT4 desktops, and the ways people had set up their menus, icons and even where off screen they had hidden the start menu diverged wildly. It took a bit of mucking around to even list files on these different machines due to different setups, and in a lot of cases I just used "cmd" to get a terminal window. The standard desktop is only standard where IT policy has made it manditory, and locked users out of adjusting their settings. Why should *nix have a standard desktop to copy windows, when windows doesn't?
RE: <http://www.rasterman.com/pages/news.html>
I agree that it is rather frustrating to go from level 0 to 1 often, but that seems to be a disturbing lack of consistency, much less any form of documentation (could be a cute little diagram) to show the mapping. One thing that frustrated me recently was with Windows. I needed to automate a boat load of tasks, but was finding it rather difficult to find info on how exactly to go about doing this. Sure I could find plenty of redundant help on how to do it through the GUI, but what was not coughed up easily was the 'under the hood' methods... the guts if you will. The jump from GUI handling to scripting level automation was a gargantuan gulf by comparison to the level of excrutiating detail given within the GUI methods.
I then formulated my simple little wish: to have a system spy that could first show me what the pretty buttons and tags really did and what and where they called. Second, it would have a record mode that would allow me to do it all through the GUI and apply that to other systems including any changes via parameters or other variables. Third... it would provide documentation that picked up where the GUI docs left off. This includes not just specific command line tools, but actual COM's called, sys files read, etc... all that crap that never seems to be completely documented ANYWHERE with a app, tool, service or use with Windows.
For that matter, I guess a long time gripe has been that files that opened up _ANY_ sort of config or optional dialog did not explicitly and clearly show how to pass in parameters. If it did not have parameters (or at least a CLI dialog) then it should at the very least say in its run time header where such a file could be found.
I should not have to take up research into every nuance of the windows operating system and API simply to perform a very simple task... simple from a GUI perspective.
I've never told anyone to RTFM yet.
...he didn't even know how to install software...
You think they can't be bothered. Usually they don't know which manual to read.
Even after that 100th Mandrake user asked me how to install NVidia drivers I referred him to the best guide I knew and waited for questions.
I'm happy for gates to snap up new computer users but if those new computer users become intelligent then I'm just as happy to help them with linux.
Sure, it's a shame when my girlfriend has a p90, 16mb and she using Win98 and there's not much I can do about it, but I don't tell her to RTFM.
And I make sure my patience is replenished 2.
A blog I run for the wealth
Of course you MUST remember that Rasterman's definition of Desktop probably isn't the same as yours!
... Especially since M$ blurred it with .Net
I'm not sure where my University lab computers lie in the definition between Desktop, Embedded and server.
A blog I run for the wealth