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."
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
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
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.
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)
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 !
After e, wm's were more bloated...
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
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
The basic problem is that a computer is wrong for technophobes. It is a do-it-all machine, not an appliance. Trying to limit the thing to those common functions have been tried repeatedly without success; people still know they got a computer and expects it to be as versatile as one. Look at the expensive failures of Audrey and other such machines.
On the other hand, devices like mobile phones, Palms and so on have been successes. At heart, they too are specialized computers, but they do not look like or act like computers, and the buyers do not expect them to. There is where Linux for non-technical users has a future.
And, if you click on the Advanced mode button in the corner, you get switched to KDE or GNOME.
"My thingy is broken! I did something and now it's all wrong!"
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
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...
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.
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
The *ONLY* thing that keeps Windows and Office on OEM's machines is dirty tactics (either sell 100% preinstalled or pay a premium)
However, Microsoft does not control the whole OEM market. There are companies which do not have contracts with Microsoft or do not love Microsoft.
Walmart is the first big one. Others will follow, maybe even Sony.
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.
Once the white box boys figure out...Money is money.
I'dl ike to suggest that the "white box boys" know their own business better than anyone. If it were really true that they could make more money by pre-installing RH 7.3 and OpenOffice then you can rest assured that some enterprising company would be doing it and eating everyone elses lunch. The fact that this is not happening leads me to believe that your assessment of the "readiness" of Linux isn't quite where you think it is. You subscribe to the "peole don't yet realize we're ready" theory while I subscribe to the "you're in denial about the fact that you're not ready" theory.
Perhaps it's the edge of consumer-friendliness that Windows has over Linux at present that kills it. I mean how much money are these "white box boys" - or anyone else for that matter! - really making on one unit? $50? $30? Less?? You get two support calls and suddenly you have made $0.
I think there is no reason to claim that Linux will save these guys money until you have an example to point to that's convincing enough to make others follow. When/if that happens you won't have to claim it - we'll all be watching the OEMs trip over themselves to sell Linux-based computers.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
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.
It's not just a matter of money, it's a huge matter of convenience- that's what drives a large part of the consumer market. Make it easy, transparent, no thought required, and you'll have a chance.
On one hand, it really sucks to see people throw up their hands and say "We've LOST, let's go home." I don't see this as a "war" between M$$ and Linux, I see it as a process that involves building alternatives, and educating consumers about their availability. Some processes take time...
Also, consider this- there's not too much more that M$ can pack into upgrades of Excel and Word. For all practical purposes, each successive upgrade (from a consumer perspective) will offer diminishing returns. This is the reason that a company like M$ would want to turn the whole notion of a software "purchase" into a software "rental." Change it from a tangible commodity into a service, and you've got yourself a nice fat, predictable revenue stream. And you don't have to resort to extortion to get people to upgrade.
There are two things I think the Linux camp can do to continue with this process: focus on the little things that make it suck, and do what it takes to provide seamless interchange between apps on Linux, and apps on Doze. Consumers are generally lazy, so CONVENIENCE is the key.
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
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."
Nop, you need the subdirs. I think the "problem" has no solution. Windows is organized arround APPLICATIONS. Unix is organized arround TOOLS (little specific programs). Now we have a mix of tools and applications (application beign openffice, xine, etc.).
/progs meta filesystem. Like /proc this /progs could map all files installed by a package.
/prog/apps/openoffice/ would list all files instaleed by openoffice regardless of if they where mixed with other files (say you used /usr/local as prefix and not /opt/openoffice).
/progs/apps/openoffice to uninstall a program! Dependencies could be mapped to that dir also!
Linux will always have this duality. If you know Unix, you will learn to chain the tools and do productive things, as well as learn the applications you need. Joe Average doesn't need this and will NOT learn them. He only cares about the applications: separate programs that are standalone where you only need to learn to use the app.
Joe uses the PC for certain fixed problems solved with apps and sacrifices some flexibility in favour of user-friendlyness.
Power users will learn the difficult way of doing things. They will be able to do complex stuff the standalone application can't (chaining tools, scripting, batchs).
The inherent complexity of the file system could only be solved by mappings. If you are Joe Average, you could be presented a different file structure. But all the tools will still have to be somewhere regardless you seen them or not.
A needed step would be database of where when what and beign able to present a list of every file an application installed. Something like an explicit package management: say a
Example:
I'd love (and probably many others will) to use rm -rf
Using a registry could be a problem, unless filesystem maped.
unfinished: (adj.)
Up until he released it, I had never seen desktop windows that were anything but square.
Xclock, Xeyes ?
Probably didn't see many that weren't rectangular because it turned out to be mostly useless.