Slashdot Mirror
Which Desktop Distro Will Die First?
Over at NewsForge, Roblimo asks the musical question of which of the several recently released "desktop oriented" Linux distributions won't survive the coming year. It's nice to see user-centric distributions at all, but it really is a niche market for now. Apropos that,
psykocrime writes "The fine folks at UnitedLinux have issued a Press Release announcing UnitedLinux 1.0.
Should be interesting to see whether this sinks or swims, considering the general ambivalence (at best) or even outright hostility (at worst) that most of the talk about United Linux has met, from the Linux community.
Questions about GPL compliance, per-set licensing terms, etc... is this the future or Linux or just another albatross?" And J. J. Ramsey writes "BeyondUnreal reviews not only Xandros Desktop's installation, but also shows what this distro's $99 price tag actually gets you. Read more here. LinuxPlanet also has an in-depth review of its own."
Lindows. If they have any success in 2003, Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion. If they fail during 2003, Micro$oft will just laugh at them and label them as the Open Source failure. If they break even.. they'll probably just sue anyways to get it over with.
Why? Because the one with the most votes already has widespread consumer awareness about its distro. The one that nobody knows about is the one that should be the most concerned.
...One will survive. And yes, I am optimistic. Linux on the desktop is possible. What needs to happen is people need to be exposed to it. How? Here's my plan.
Start with education. Before someone can use Linux, people have to get beyond relying on Microsoft to take care of everything and actually learn some of the ins and outs of their machine. That way, when it comes to actually installing Linux, they're not as lost as they would be when it tells them "Hey, your modem isn't compatable."
After they are educated, start them on something that doesn't require a leap of faith (i.e. repartitioning their hard drive, etc). Knoppix is perfect for that. It runs off of a CD and doesn't require any extensive knowledge, reformatting or repartitioning. This will help them get used to Linux's differences from Windows at a pace they can understand. They can click around, see what's where, etc.
Once they're familiar, at least in part, with Linux as an OS, then they might be ready for a distro like Mandrake, Debian, or one that doesn't require them to do any Kernel work. Another reason for starting with something like Mdk or Deb (or even RH), is that software installation after the initial OS load is fairly simple thanks to packages. The only conceivable snag in that plan is dependancies. Make the machine dual boot with the default OS in LILO (or whatever boot manager you pick) pointing at Windows. That way, they don't have to leave Windows right away.
From there, it's all up to software companies. But, of course, they won't be too quick to jump on. While Joe and Jane Consumer won't really care about modifying and redistributing source code, major software vendors aren't too keen on the Open Source/GPL way of doing things. They're only concerned about money. Since MS likes to keep their source closed, they feel a whole heck of alot more secure about things. They can charge for their software, in other words. It's getting them to embrace the Linux platform that is going to determine the fate of Linux on the Desktop in the end.
And all this is probably just wishfull thinking on my part, since we all know how MS works...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I think Red Hat will succeed because it has essentially become pretty much the de facto standard for Linux.
I mean think about it: here in the USA when people know about Linux they definitely know about Red Hat Software. And Red Hat Linux is the commercial distro that is by far the most used in the corporate world. Even IBM's well-funded Linux research uses a variant of Red Hat Linux.
Slackware may be better for the highly-experienced user, and Mandrake may be great for newbies, but for the corporate crowd Red Hat Linux is pretty much it.
face it.. the general population is not ready for linux desktops. hell, the genereal population isn't even ready for windows XP or OSX.
True that. But the thing is, XP and OSX are ready for the general population. Linux is not.
Give me an AIM client that doesn't look nasty, a browser that doesn't crawl and swap on a machine that runs MSIE effortlessly, and an Office suite that doesn't look clumsy.
I am a comp sci major with pretty good Linux/Unix experience behind my belt, and still I would be neither happy nor productive if I didn't have windows on my system.
The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.
The general public doesn't care about open source, community effort, MS monopoly, none of that shit. They want features and smooth interfaces. And Linux isn't ready to give them that. Will it ever? May be. Probably. Remarkable strides have been made by RH, for example, to make Linux more usable by "regular people" during the last 3-4 years that I've been paying attention to it. They seem pretty adamant about continuing in the same path.
Oh yeah, another thing Linux needs is the ability to work on all the hardware windows can work on. Whatever's in my computer, windows handles it. If the best linux can do for me is a fuzzing sound card, a modem that drivers don't exist for, and a TV tuner I can't use, then I am not switching. I don't care if this is due to companies keeping their data proprietary. To the end user, it's the same shit: it doesn't work.
And Linux's fabled reliability isn't worth shit if it doesn't support your hardware and you can't do what you need to do.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
I've been using Linux for years, and I still encounter distributions that I've never heard of.
;) Also of note is Linux From Scratch.
So, here's my list.
'Business' Linuxes:
Perched for massive growth: RedHat, SuSE.
May die from bad business planning: Mandrake.
'Eternal' Linuxes:
Slack, Debian. These will be around long after all the trendy little skript kiddiez are dead and buried. When business has left Linux, and it will, grizzled veterans will still be playing with source and debs. I'd dare to say these two distributions aren't so much distributions as they are religions.
'On the Verge of Apotheosis' Linux: Gentoo. Total customization? This is fast becoming the 'l33t' of the 'l33t'.
'Dead, Dying, Wounded, Peasants' Linuxes:
Turbolinux, all those other ones a fraction of the population has heard of, but never seen. But who knows - miracle recoveries can happen.
Now, to cut off the flaming Mandrake users - Shut up. Asking for money is no model for a business. I'd like to see Mandrake succeed as much as the next person (Linux needs a good freaking desktop!), but you can't question that Mandrake doesn't have the corporate staying power of RedHat and SuSE.
When I'm in Windows, I consistently think about the things I could rather be doing in Linux.
"Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen."
"Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now."
"Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap."
"Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email."
"It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"
The list goes on. I only boot to Windows now when I absolutely have to. I don't even use the "oh, I need to play games" excuse any more because I've simply stopped playing windows games. I'll play nethack or Q3 or an emulated SNES game instead.
Sure, it's a choice in the way that I choose to use Linux, but it still means that it passes your test. And yeah, I could run programs like Cygwin in Windows, but that's like saying you can run Windows programs in Linux via Wine, which doesn't cut it.
Once I started learning how to use Linux as Linux, rather than as a bad version of Windows, I became much more reliant on its features. Now I feel frustrated by anything without a bash shell and a copy of vi. It's all in what you learn to accept from your interface, as well how you're willing to work with it.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
SuSe and Slackware due to general lack of popularity, corporate backing, and maintenance.
So many Americans say this about SuSE: well, I've got news for you. It is the number one distro in Germany, the largest Linux market in Europe. Ditto, Denmark, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, etc.
It is used in very many corporations, and has MUCH better support than RedHat or Mandrake in my experience (having contacted all three in the last month.
There is a larger world outside the US...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
I don't care that people want to use Windows. It's not a horrible OS and there are many pluses. But stop preaching about "looks bad" and "not productive" because quite frankly, if my 9 year old can figure it out, the 13 year old can do her homework, and the 15 year old can code - ALL ON LINUX - then it's a matter of preference, choice and experience. You don't want to change and that's fine, but your ability to be productive on Linux is NOT universal.
I write for a living. I have all the latest toys and I've never had a problem finding drivers or support under Linux. StarOffice is great, Galeon/Mozilla display things fine (except for lazily coded sites designed for "ie") and I'm extremely productive.
Your inability to be productive on linux is not the fault of Linux. It's your own.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
What we need isnt 1 of everything, it's compatability. /etc/X11/XF86Config and /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 makes compatability a problem. :) ] :)
I am personally sick of looking around for various config files//installation paths which I'm used to having in certain places, whenever I try out a new distro. For the second one I've just given up, I'm sticking with Debian and doing most things completely with package managers. The result is that I have lots of dependencies installed for no reason. Yeah, I'm lazy and not the most savvy user. The point is it annoys me. If distros can't keep required files in the same place, the least they can do is have a standard-formatted database of where it is keeping the files, and keep that database in a certain place. Even a little thing like the difference between
We dont need 1 Window manager, we need consistent features between them, so that programs dont mis-assume something and try to, for example, place themselves where they used to be when the window manager has already done that, resulting in it being placed in an entirely different place every time.
We dont only need a more stable X, but a more recoverable one, and one with more on-the-fly reconfiguration ability. Linux users seem to focus so much on uptime- not having to re-boot -that they dont seem to notice that in order to get many things done you have to close down all the programs you use to work. Hell, we need screen for X. I just started using screen, that thing kicks some ass. We need to be able to get back to the console even if X crashes and is no longer accepting input. We need ways to keep working not just keep our "uptime" high. Who the hell cares about uptime? How long has it been since you had to re-start X? That number matters more. Your working uptime.
Not everybody likes the same look and feel. Some people like their start-menu, some people dont. The ability to have a consistent look and feel is important. If you want your system to look a certain way, you should be able to make it look and work that way without much work, and you should be able to switch back and forth like that so that whoever was using it before you can pick up where they left off- Linux is a multi-user system. It should stay that way.
Not just a more complete manual is needed, but a rehashing of what we already have. Sure, open-everything is nice, but a lot of the resources out there are just plain messy we need an editor.
We've got lots of driver support, but not enough, it's true. It also doesnt help that most of the time "installing a driver" involves compiling one. Linux wont get anywhere as a widespread desktop unless it can work well for idiots. That's the real problem: Many people are idiots. Linux users seem to have gotten the idea that computers shouldnt be made for idiots. The truth is: Macs are easy to use, and many people _should_ be using Macs. I like Linux. I like Open Software. But we wont get anywhere until it works well for utter morons. [ Does this count as flamebait because of the obvious troll responces?
Yeah, free software does have that problem of not easy to make a living off of. No solution there, but even though it sucks, we've come pretty far. Maybe we'll be good some day
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It's all about what businesses decide suits them best. If enough companies have an incentive-- be it open source, community effort, [or] MS monopoly. All of these factors can provide a reason for a company to invest money in an alternative. More importantly, any one of these reasons may make it worth a significant investment to switch.
The last wave will be the US; other countries have much greater reasons to invest both public and private money to refine Linux to serve their own needs. (Namely that Windows and Mac are both American products and money spent on them has almost no ripple effect on the local economy.)
How much would it really take to make Linux viable, given sufficient corporate resources?
Once companies switch, it isn't much of a step for their employees to do the same...
Those two things are related. As soon as you get a real rush of programmers and popularity, you can kiss your consitency goodbye. You're always at the mercy of some idiot who thinks that his "revolutionary new idea" (bitmapped buttons / custom window frame / dark grey on black text) is worth throwing own consitency and ease of use. You just can't win, they outnumber you. Enjoy it while you can.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Easy to install? The last few versions of Red Hat I've installed (6.2 and 7.2) were significantly easier than my last few installs of Win2K. Do I have the right drivers? How many times will I need to reboot to get working drivers installed? Anyone who has ever installed Windows 2000 has all of the skill necessary to install Red Hat 8.0.
Usable? Well, after installing Windows 2000 out of the box, I have an email client, a web browser, a few games, a nearly useless stripped down word processor (Write), and not much else. Without purchasing additional software, Windows 2000 isn't terribly useful for much other that basic internet access. With Red Hat 8, I get a word processor, spreadsheet, photo editor, and bunch of other useful, usable software. The various productivity packages that ship with Red Hat may not be perfect, but they're good enough for 95% of users and come with the operating system.
Good? That's in the eye of the beholder. I am certainly much happier with Red Hat than Windows. Sounds good to me.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
"No one will pay for desktop linux"
Well I guess its a good thing Linux and most of the GPL apps are free then.
"But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat."
You said it. It depends entirely on what your doing.
For example take Redhat 8.0. If you just need Web,Email, and an Office Suite it fits the bill nicely. I never used to say that about linux but now it couldn't be more true.
Contrary to your bleak outlook the linux desktop its experiencing huge growth. Sure it may only go from the current 2% to 4% within the next 2-3 years, but that's an insane growth rate that makes even Microsoft jealous. Microsoft can no longer dream of that. Its even more impressive considering that overall all of the linux companies don't even advertise in any measurable amount.
Think about it. Sooner rather than later Linux will have the same size market as Apple and most likely will surpass Apple and gain even more market share.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
There are too many editors in the market place:
.NET features, DRM and XML and anything else I read on cnet this morning. And that non-expert users will abandon emacs and vi in favour of GUI editing environmnts with intelligent paperclips that assist with more complex editing tasks. The market just can't support nearly a dozen text editors!
- sed
- ex
- nedit
- pico
- emacs
- vim
- elvis
- notepad.exe
Our insanely expensive consultants report says that the minor editors will be driven out of the market by Microsoft's better integrated offering that will support
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"