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."
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.
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.
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?
For $76, StarOffice suggests 5 personal installs.
You know, StarOffice IS available for Windows, yet people continue to choose to pay for MS/Office. You know, sometimes things are worth paying for, including Microsoft.
And, right now money favors linux hands down.
Based on straight dollars, perhaps. But not based on value. For the average person, Linux is completely worthless because it can't run the applications that they want. Yes, if all they do is e-mail and browse the web, then Linux is an OK solution (unless you want to browse with a site with a Flash plugin, and then Linux becomes totally worthless). But if mom wants to run that off-the-shelf blackjack game, or recipe filing program, etc, she is totally out of luck. 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. Let's not even talk about setting up a home network with NAT, or installing new hardware.
The typical consumer simply is unaware of what they can buy and use. That will change.
The typical consumer is unaware of Linux because Linux is a worthless solution to them. That will never change until Linux becomes a useful solution, and I have my doubts that that will ever change, because the people who work on Linux have no motivation to make easy what John Q. Public considers important. "By geeks, for geeks".
Your pathological hatred of Microsoft doesn't change the intrinsic value of Microsoft software for the average person.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It is a false statement to say linux is worthless because it will not run applications that users need.
The arrogance of this statement is incredible, and you don't even realize is. What you're saying is, "it doesn't matter what the user wants to run. If Linux doesn't run what they want to run, it's a problem with the user, not with Linux".
I have not used Microsoft for any meaningful work for years. [...] When you make a general statement and expect everyone to think it applies to them you only disqualify yourself as a consultant.
How can you write two sentences so close to each other and not realize the intrinsic hypocracy of them? How cares if you personally can get along without Microsoft software. That's irrelevent to whether the rest of the world *wants* and *can* get along without Microsoft software.
an office suite and a few other utilities. Those are available for linux.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all software is commodicized, and that if you give a user any substitute for WHAT THEY WANT, they will be happy. They will not be happy when they can't run WHAT THEY WANT.
Again, your arrogance is incredible. Mom wants the off-the-shelf blackjack program that her friend is running, and she can't run it because Linux "just doesn't work". Your solution is, "well, just run this other one". But she doesn't want that one, and she doesn't want to figure out how to get that one.
And again, it doesn't matter how much software is available if the user can't figure out how to get it or how to install it. Set up home network with NAT? Trivially simple under XP. Impossible for the average user under Linux.
You ask the customer what applications they need. Then and only then can you conclude which products might serve those needs.
Yeah, that would be a great world. The bonehead users have to hire consultants to tell them what applications they need.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.