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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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)
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!
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 !
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.
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
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...
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
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; }
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?
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 am serious about putting TechnophobeLinux together. Please reply if you are interested in helping.
I hope you change the name for Christ's sake. Hell, even "AnalProbeLinux" would sound friendlier than that!
The Mandrake three CD set does not include the source code (well, of the kernel). It's all binary RPMs, no src.RPMS.
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
"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.
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.
You mean it ceased to be innovative in 1980?
That works.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Bob consumer does not like choice, that's why all those different and confusing PC-makers are dead and we are all running Macintoshes, right?
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.
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
I think logic left this thread 3 posts ago.
Face it: There is no technical reason that hinders Linux desktop adoption. The reason is that people will use whatever is preinstalled.
Seems like Walmart is currently the only computer seller that is not wetting their pants before Bill Gates, so go Walmart. Other OEMs will follow and the Microsoft desktop domination will be over in 5 years.
Windows needs domination, would anybody run Windows if it didn't had all drivers, all apps and would come preinstalled wether you like it or not?
As soon as Linux gets off the ground (and Walmart has laid the foundation for that) and gains significant enough marketshare so it can't be ignored by corps anymore (something like 15%), there is no reason to run Windows anymore and Microsoft will become the next Novell.
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.
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!
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!
I know Mandrake (at least at 8.1) could install a reasonable amount of software from the first ISO. You tell the installer which ISOs you have and then it tells you what you're allowed to install.
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
"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!
I doubt it. Back when Enlightenment came out, there was nothing like it. If there was, please enlighten me. Up until he released it, I had never seen desktop windows that were anything but square. It blew my mind to see the GUI in many different shapes and sizes through the window manager. It was amazing. I don't know how someone can be bitter by being the first to publicly release something so cool. If he is bitter, he has tremendous energy and drive once again and has something in waiting for us.
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
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.
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
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
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."
I think he does. It's what crapflooders do.
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.
I've got news for you - it's done.
:D But I'll learn. Most of what I'm doing is just removing and rearranging code, anyway.
Ever used links? No, really? For a while now, it's had this really nice option, -g. Load it up, and it'll load links in the framebuffer. Full graphics, no X. It's fine, because the average user can't multitask in real life, let alone on a computer.
If Uncle Joe multitasks, it just means that he has Outlook Express open in the background checking his email while he writes a letter. He'll never have two tasks open in the foreground. Never! Find me a single Windows user who routinely doesn't have all their windows maximised. Sure, every so often they might use 'tile', but that's about it.
The thing is, most people want pretty pictures. So what do you do? Simple. First, make the kernel compilable in single-user-only mode; there can still be Win98-style 'user profiles', but no real system-level multiuser support - that will just confuse users and bloat the system.
Next, load the framebuffer on startup. Hide all boot messages, and insteaad just display a stylized, *huge* penguin (not the one they do now, bigger) in the style of the Windows boot screen.
When it finishes loading, instead of seeing a standard login prompt, the user sees a row of icons on the top of the screen with default apps (mail, browser, word processor), a help button, their chosen background image, and a command prompt. With accelerated framebuffer support, the graphics look as nice as those on Windows. Almost everything a user needs to do, they can do with the default icons, and anything else they can just type in the commands. (The buttons on top are like the ones on the WinXP start panel - after a week or so of use, they become the most common programs the user runs.) If a user needs to multitask, that's what 'screen' is for.
You know, it can't be that hard to do this... now I'm going to try to make a distro with [a] a modified FS, [b] a better package-installing system, and [c] this kind of interface. Except that I can't code.
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.
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!
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.
Hmm... I'm guessing the framebuffer device, /dev/fb/0 or /dev/fb0, is set to root-only. Try changing that to have user-accessible permissions; the former if you have devfs, the latter if you don't.
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.
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
SuSE
If you haven't yet, check out SuSE 8.0. YaST is the app to beat. Who cares about rpm v. apt-get? With YOU it's totally transparent.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
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?
Congratualtions. I switched more or less on a whim a few months back - now all my linux boxes run gentoo. The portage system is simply a godsend when it comes to simplicity and is just generally better than anything else I've seen.
Note that I don't think it's good enough for "home" (read "newbie") users though.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
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.
Try w3m. It does both of those.
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."
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.
I was under the impression that symlinks do not work if you chroot. That'd kinda break the chroot wouldnt it? You'd have to hard-link everything, which is only possible putting user_root on the same partition as all the other dirs. Unless I'm wrong and symlinks work through chroots.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
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...
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.
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.)
Are you talking about Lindows? That's what they are doing with the Click-n-Run installer...
"Directories? What? I just click-n-run stuff!"
unfinished: (adj.)
How about "Amish Linux"?
Hell, even "AnalProbeLinux" would sound friendlier than that!
I wouldn't expect there to be much business in that particular niche of the embedded-systems market. "ToasterLinux" would be more archetypal.
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.
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.
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
I would disagree that linux is just now entering the desktop market.
Corel Linux and WordPerfect for Linux has been around for several years. However, WordPerfect was not successful in getting the kind of attention and success it deserved for its products.
The Corel Linux distribution (1 and 2) had a clone of the Windows Explorer which offed point and click networking almost indentical to that on Microsoft stuff. Today, Mandrake, RedHat and others (with the exeception of Xandros) have failed to reach that level of ease of use.
Maybe when RedHat, Mandrake and others take the desktop market seriously we shall see some real innovation and development in that direction.
OpenOffice is important. So too is StarOffice. And, unlike some who claim that SUN should be charging for StarOffice, I strongly disagree with that. $76 for StarOffice is a great low price. And, the fact that SUN is going to support it makes it very attractive for corporate accounts. And, you need a sizable number of corporate customers to put linux on the desktop. Of course, StarOffice (and OpenOffice) run on many platforms. That too is a plus and will greatly increase its success and adoption by major accounts. And, once StarOffice and OpenOffice has their market positions established they can help ease the move onto the linux desktop.
So, I would agree a milestone has been reached. There is no doubt about that. Mozilla is important (although Netscape has been around for some time on linux and unix). And, Evolution is important. An office suite, a browser or two (almost forgot to mention Opera and KExplorer) and Evolution are essential applications for the corporate market. And, the corporate market is likely to be the first major push for linux on the desktop.
The other aspect of linux which can not be overestimated is the availability of Java and Delphi/Kylix for cross platform development. OpenOffice, StarOffice, Mozilla, Opera and Evolution do not rely upon Java or the RAD products from Borland. So, applications can be written for multiple platforms without the RAD products. But, JBuilder and Delphi/Kylix make that task a lot easier. And, corporations who want to develop their key in-house applications for both platforms should seriously consider those tools as well.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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 !
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.
Spend your $400 then.
80-90% of all computer users would rather have their cash.
But, do not worry. If you think it is worth spending that kind of money for each of your employees, you can be my guest.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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...
Hardly. With the power management set up (including such things as monitor blanking and hard-drive spin down) and wake-on-LAN enabled, it doesn't really take a lot when not in use.
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...
Now you're being foolish. Sharpen up the debating skills a bit - 'examples' like that are too easy to knock down.
Cheers,
Ian
"kuzdu",
/use/sec/linux
nope I wan't somthing that searches against an online database for current drivers etc.. for my hardware or even binary only's the things that arn't in the distro.
There are a lot of userspace drivers or things like GPhoto2 especially for USB decices where no kernel modules are required.
Also it should part configure the kernel for you.
cd
make auto-config-using-proc-and-hardwaredb
make xconfig
etc.....
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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
Doesn't using Linux on your desktop make you a geek by definition? ;)
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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?
Yeah and to use Wake-On-LAN you need just another running computer... Very good energy saving indeed...
Doesn't have to be a 'computer' as such - my router will trigger wake-on-lan. Since I remote access my machines from work, I'm also not always physically present to go around flipping on-switches.
Well, your opinion seems to be, that if cars had power managment and such, just to say, they don't use so much energy (and money) any more, you wouldn't care.
Depending on how well the power management works, no - I wouldn't mind all that much. This should be qualified though.
The trouble is that power management on cars is likely to be abysmally impractical since the engine requires a minimum number of revs to tick over. Plus, leaving cars around with running engines is just asking for them to be stolen. In other words, I don't think a situation such as 'stand-by' will ever arise with a car. Well, not an internal combustion one anyway.
In other words, it's an apple and oranges thing. Comparing leaving a power-managed computer on to leaving aq big hungry fossil-fueled car chugging away is not a sensible comparison.
And believe me, Australia is nothing in comparison to the US.
I work with several Australians who might disagree... :-). I'm not in the US though - I'm in the UK. The Californian hassle, which was caused by ridiculous economic decisions rather than engineering ones, simply does not apply to me.
Cheers,
Ian
Virtual servers. In the router, I map that incoming traffic for port such'n'such should be directed to the equivalant port on a specified LAN machine. That then wakes up the particular LAN machine in question.
>Plus, leaving cars around with running engines
>is just asking for them to be stolen.
Now this is a bit lazy thinking of yours here. Of course you lock your car... :)
Cars can be broken into. If you leave the engine running, then it makes it that much easier to steal if you just manage to get the door open.
If you have got an easy and uncumbersome way to save power, energy (which all hurt the environment one or the other way) then why not do so?
Why not indeed? It's not a point we disagree on. My argument is simply that a well power-managed computer does not harm the environment very much. It seems we do disagree on that. That's OK - I still take your points and I hope you agree with some of mine.
Cheers,
Ian