Slashdot Mirror
Linux in the Workplace
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems. Not only is partitioning and dual booting a little tricky, the OS CD that comes with a new PC is usually just a system restore, making it difficult to configure a dual-boot environment without messing up factory settings and file systems. Learning Linux has become an all-or-nothing proposition; in many cases the new user has to wipe Windows off his system for good or rely on a second machine just to get started.
The irony is that Linux has never been more user friendly, and the latest KDE desktop on my gentoo box is slicker, faster and easier to use than XP. It is becoming easier to be productive on Linux, and while university students have already discovered this, corporate IT departments who support a large number of Windows-only commercial applications tend to view open source solutions as a time burden (these are the same IT departments whose days are consumed with applying Windows patches or verifying license compliance).
The book Linux in the Workplace shows the ordinary user who has never laid eyes on Linux how to perform everyday office tasks. The book assumes that the user has a machine with Linux already installed and successfully configured. This book (which is more of an introduction to the KDE desktop than Linux itself) is easy and fun to read, and has lots of screenshots. Slashdotters might find this book a bit too basic, but it's the kind of book that a technophobe spouse or child or parent might love (and could very well appear under Christmas trees right beside the new Linux PC).
This book devotes a chapter each to talking about Open Office, Gimp, Konqueror, personal information managers, and various KDE office and email applications. Most of them are part of the KDE window manager or installed by default. This book walks a thin line between being too superficial for daily use and dwelling too much on the technical details. There are better books on The GIMP or OpenOffice, for example, but still it is nice to have introductory chapters in a single book. I found a few useful tidbits on controlling file associations, xscanimage, screen capturing and ark archiver. The book is not without a sense of humor. In a useful section on creating a GPG key, the book says "your passphrase should be rude or embarrassing ... using a naughty passphrase will remind you not to type it where others can see."
This book began with the mission to bring a simplified approach to Linux. By definition, it must exclude certain topics, either by design or because an application was not yet mature when the book was being written. The book scrupulously avoids a discussion of server applications like apache (which makes a certain sense), but it would have been nice to have a section on Evolution or mplayer (yes, a media player is an indispensable application for the bored employee) or ssh, cd burning programs, browser plugins, mozilla, crossover, irc or ftp clients.
Surprisingly, the book contains almost nothing about printing or how to install or upgrade applications. Because the book is intended for a newbie user, not a sys admin, it recommends talking to your network administrator about that. Cop out? Perhaps. But even the unskilled non-root user will have to install apps once in a while; the book would have been much better with a section on rpm managers and compiling programs from scratch.
From a sys admin's point of view, I would have liked to see a case study of an office that had actually made the switch. What problems did it encounter? How did the switch change business processes? What applications required the most time and energy for support? How did a Linux-only office manage domain authentication or interoperability? What system management tools made administration easier in a heterogenous environment?
The book raises an epistemological question about the best way to learn a new technology. Will a user who has never really performed tasks as root be able to leverage the freedom and power offered by open source? Will a user truly be comfortable with an operating system without first having experienced the agony of a bad install or frantically scouring the newsgroups for help ? This book presumes that a learner needs to be able to use normal applications before being ready to handle the admin stuff. The problem with that approach is that it depends on IT staff being near and ready to do some hand-holding. But Linux may emerge in the workplace not as a result of IT's enthusiasm but because of ordinary workers' exasperation with uniform proprietary solutions imposed by these IT departments.
In summary: A useful and friendly KDE-centric introduction to Linux for nongeeks. The lack of system administration material makes it probably too basic for slashdotters.
Also recommended:
RUTE Users' Tutorial and Exposition
A Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux 8 by Mark G. Sobell (not yet published)
Robert Nagle is a technical writer, trainer and Linux aficionado in Houston, Texas. You can purchase Linux in the Workplace from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Don't you think that it should have been called Linux for everyday use or something like that?
Especially because an Office PC is (arguably) expected to have Exchange, scheduler etc. installed? The book doesnt talk too much about all that
A good book nonetheless.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
As a network admin we deploy Linux servers (Debian, thank-you-very-much) because they simply kick ass. Sendmail, Squid, Apache, FreeSwan, iptables, etc., all blow away similar products put out by Microsoft. I wish more IT people would seriously consider Linux at least for server duties.
"Maybe geeks and slashdotters understand why Linux is so appealing"
No, geeks and slashdotter think Linux is appealing. It isn't a fact that it is, some people just think it is.
We definitely need a whole lot more books like this to encourage office users to adopt Linux. We don't need those complicated details. But I expect Star Office or other office-related things be explained in greater depth. At least on par with those MSOffice ones.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
This could be a book that creates its own market. As more people buy the book, more people run Linux in the workplace, thus making demand for the book rise.
I would make a 3.Profit! joke here, but I think an evil laugh is more on order. [evil_laugh]Muahahaha[/evil_laugh]
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
These people think of their computers as a tool just to get work done and don't care what operating system it runs? You make linux out to be some fanatical cult thats the best thing in the world and all other OS's are garbage. Nice freedom of choice there, huh? Again, people don't care about such trivial things.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
never been more user friendly, and the latest KDE desktop on my gentoo box
Sorry, I quit reading after that comment, I was laughing too hard.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
operating system throws out all its experience and legacy apps and makes effort to adjust to YOU!
All resistance in my workplace evaporated the day I told my CFO that he didn't have to pay licensing on Linux. They have had it up to here w/getting raped by MS.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I don't find Linux appealing you insensitive clod!
Printing can be a huge problem in the unix world. I would certainly call the exclusion of that part a cop-out. Otherwise it sounds like a very interesting book. However, saying that KDE is easier to use and faster than Windows XP very subjective. I usually try a new version of a linux distro or two every 6 months. Sure, everything has gradually gotten nicer, and there was even a time when I thought KDE had an advantage over Windows (when it was alpha and before windows 98 came out). But time and time again, I find myself drawn back to the Windows interface. The ease of use just isn't quite on the same level as Microsoft and Apple.
I've always been surprised and even disappointed at my friends' lack of curiosity about Linux.
Linux on the desktop sucks for one reason: fragmentation.
If there wasn't a bunch of if distribution == x && graphical environment == y in the HOWTOs, we'd be much further along right now.
Even with all that cruft, the one itel holding Linux back is the file system requirements. Every mainstream consumer desktop sold these days has a hard drive installed with a 100% NTFS partition. People don't want to screw with boot managers and people don't want to screw with repartitioning.
If someone created a *free* distribution that could be installed *through* Windows on the local NTFS partition (with appropriate *free* boot manager), then we'd have a much larger installed base. Developers could start coding on Linux and distributing it with their applications.
But then there is the GPL/binary module hassle. it will never work. I'm waiting for Apple to port over to x86. I predict 2004.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
I think that gentle introductions to Linux for Win users are a Good Thing. Someone who decides to buy this book probably already has some level of interest in Linux, and is looking to see if the switch can be done with little-to-no pain.
The real challenge, is getting people to that point. One approach is to have lots of stories published in the mass media that talk about how easy/efficient Linux is. The challenge there is not to raise expectations too high. If someone expects to be able to sit down in front of their computer, put a Linux CD in, click "ok" a few times, and be up and running, doing everything they had been able to do in Win, they'll be disappointed, and are likely to give up. Non-geeks aren't motivated to hack around for a while. They want to use their new tool.
People need appropriate motivation. As an example, speech recognition software is more likely to be successful when the user has a strong motivation to work through the early hassles. People with RSIs or other physical constraints are more likely to become successful speech reco users than are ablebodied people.
So, the challenge is to motivate people to try it without raising expectations too high. I'm not sure what the answers are, but although this type of book is a good step, more needs to be done.
but then again, so did the Dot-Bomb when it started.
Whoa! It's like...a koala crapped a rainbow in my head! ~Sealab 2021
"Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems."
Wrong. Linux has failed to catch on because M$ makes it prohibitionally difficult to preload it.
Linux has failed to catch on because it is disgustingly hard to use unless you want to spend inordinate amounts of time working with the most finger-breaking minutiae.
Linux has failed to catch on, also, because Word and Photoshop don't run on it except in the execrable WINE. People want Photoshop in Linux, not some emulation crap.
Linux has failed to catch on because that's the way the deck is stacked. Live with it or do something about it, but the last thing we need is 400 pages of whining.
And no, whining isn't "doing something about it." Only Linux geeks will read this book, and then sigh and shake their heads and cluck their tongues.
I don't think the lack of adoption of Linux has anything to do with ease of use or even software. Look at the two main markets:
Home users: These users buy computers from stores or online (Dell, etc.) that already have Windows preinstalled. Where is the incentive to use a different operating system? I think that penetration in this market has to come from oem's making the extra cost of Windows perfectly clear (add Windows = +$$$). The lack of software is still sort of the problem, but I think this mainly comes down to games (we need companies to start doing real dual releases... still pissed that I bought NWN and it's still not available for Linux). Home users don't need all the features of MS Office (StarOffice would be fine).
Business users: What businesses run is basically dictated by management. I think that Linux is actually making progress in this market because management essentially cares about the bottom line above all else. Linux is simply cheaper. Again, it has nothing to do with ease of use/applications with the big exception of groupware (although I read the the german government was commissioning work on this). People will claim that they need MS Office, but in reality if the whole company switches than there really is no need. Maybe one or 2 copies for interoperability with outside sources, but StarOffice seems to open most MS documents fine.
Best slashdot comment
In november this year, I built my self a new box and its an all linux solution! I keep a laptop with a stripped version of windows handy BUT I HAVENT needed it since I built my box!
.doc i can chuck at it! Even the very complex ones, mplayer plays all the videos I have came across, Networkings a breeze and I would not install windows on this powerful machine!
OpenOffice handles every
Linux USED to be hard (Before KDE 3.0 and OpenOffice were released), but now its not! And as for games, I have my trusty game cube, and tuxracer is a load of laughs too.
I predict Microsoft could face the same fate as apple did in the 1990s, people are realising that Linux gives them more choice on software. Microsoft almost killed Apple because its operating sytems could run on cheap and open hardware, and not properitry and expensive like Macs were, now the same is happening to the software market.
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
Until us users get the equivalent apps as available in Windows, Linux is a waste of time. I'm sorry, but The GIMP, while ok for Joe Blow and geek image tasks, is not even worth considering if you are a professional artist. At present, there are only about 3 apps that match indows quality: Mozilla, Quake, and Star Office. Everything else is waiter/programmer quality.
And if it's Unix you want us to switch to from Windows, well I might as well just run a Mac. Now THAT'S how you create a OS, using REAL Unix, not "Unix-type" code.
Face it, Linux is just a Unix wannabe. Why settle for ground beef (Linux), when you can have filet mignon (Unix/OSX)? And everyone knows damn well Unix is far superior to Linux.
Apps. What part of this is so hard to understand?
Linux is quite capable of running games. Witness Quake 3 and all from Loki.
No one who matters will sit around saying, "Gee, I wish I could use Linux, but does it play games?"
Gaming houses sell to where the players are. They'd be stupid not to. Gaming houses aren't like Microsoft, Apple, IBM or Sun. They don't have the capital to just throw away on stupid ideas. Thus, you will never see Linux gaming (Aside from possible late ports as an afterthought) until the users are already there.
The majority of computer users didn't install Windows 3.11 for games. They didn't install 95 for games, nor 98, ME or XP for games. They installed it for productivity software first.
Games are always an afterthought in terms of operating systems. Professional adults who also play games do not base their choice of operating system on what games it can run; they base it on whether or not they can get their work done with it.
As for the 'l33t' teenagers, sure, they'd come over in boatloads if Linux had games. But do you really think that would give Linux legitimacy in business? Please.
fa la la la la la la la suck my dick /. fuckers
Merry Fishmas you
Mainstreamers want to know as little as possible about their OS and their apps. They simply want to reap the benefits of having a computer--doing homework, burning CD's, surfing the web, sending and receiving e-mail, playing games, etc.
Until the Linux programmers understand at the DNA level just how much mainstreamers hate being forced to learn all this technical crap that most people on /. love, and until they make serious progress in removing that learning curve for Linux, people will continue to use Windows. It's not that mainstreamers like Windows; I've talked with many dozens of them who detest Windows, but they still see it as their best alternative, since it's the only thing available that will do what they want to do.
OS X is not Unix. When will Mac fanatics understand Unix is spelled U N I X, not O S X?
Seriously, Mac OS is Mac OS, get over it.
I have a few users who said they absolutely need photoshop for web graphics. They absolutely insisted. Insisted right past me, past my boss, right to the CTO. The CTO got sick of hearing their whining that they *needed* photoshop and we spent several thousand dollars to placate them, instead of a few hundred for Paint Shop Pro. Sure, we could have given them Linux and GIMP, but no, these folks needed Photoshop.
How much money is wasted because users *need* MS Office? Need Photoshop?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
"The irony is that Linux has never been more user friendly" is a pure bullshit statement. Linux still is a pain in the ass. Wrapping it in a pretty GUI merely hides the suckitiveness of Linux. It is exactly this type of obsfrucation that makes for Linux not being accepted in the workplace. 20 years from now, and you heard it here first, Linux will be the DOS of the future. Much like CP/M is today.
The audience intended for this book is indifferent about the subject matter. Namely Linux. Yet, they're suppoed to read this whole book?!? About a subject they don't care about?!? Why would anyone want to read an Treatise on open source alternatives if they couldn't give a rats ass about them in the first place?
While I've never an official network admin for anything larger than a 10 person office
Quite often at larger companies, they keep their licenses locked down and often do audits of their machines and what is on the network to avoid breaking and EULA terms.
Quite often I've been stuck in a situation where I've needed a server for a J2EE app server, handle bug tracking, mail and/or file serving.
Whats a developer/mgr to do?
So I bypass the corporate infrastructure and install Linux on a whitebox or other system deemed 'to wimpy' for use anymore--and voila, my problem is solved.
It also allows me to put together systems utilizing open/free source solutions to demonstrate to upper level execs (or clients) the benefits or a system without me needing a budget to work from.
"Where is my mind?"
Everyone says Linux doesn't cost anything, while the software may not, re-training the employees, tweaking the software, etc, is all part of that cost. How much does linux cost to deploy to all your servers/workstations? Figure out how much it costs per hour for all your employees to be re-educated, your IT department to fix potential issues, etc. If this number is less than what it wold cost you over the next few years of software upgrades then you have a winner, otherwise you are probably better off keeping the existing infrastruture.
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
If your average home user could go and look at two PCs, one with Windows, MS Office, and some drawing program and the other with Linux, Open Office and Gimp and noticed $300 or so difference in price tag, Linux would be considered much more often. Average people do not care about technical details. They care about dollars and ease of use.
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
:)
The reason I've seen a few geek friends try out Linux then walk away disgusted (possibly forever) is hardware support. Sure, with modern distros almost all common hardware available is supported, but in a lot of cases it requires a kernel recompile, some config file changes, sometimes even low-level stuff like probing around to find out an IRQ setting.
Compare this to Windows. Not only does almost every piece of hardware come with a driver, most people are comfortable with the driver install process (and the ones that aren't usually have a family member or friend that is willing to do it).
Too bad Linux kernel & distro developers can't create a kernel standard for common release, and just put a stake in the ground and say "Here's Linux 2003. Any certified standard common pre-compiled driver module dated 2003 or older will work with this years Linux." No recompiling the damn kernel. Then of course there'd have to be a very standard common driver installation program... And the rest of us who want to recompile our kernels can still do it if we want.
Eh, but what do I know. I run BeOS and a driver is typically one file that I drop into a folder and usually begins running immediately.
_______
2B1ASK1
Linux is still too complicated for most users. RPMs and improved auto-detection have taken things a long way, but it's still too hard for most people to use Linux. It's a mess trying to get library dependencies correct, meanwhile XP has made Windowz even easier. I agree with another person's comment that fragmentation hasn't helped.
or maybe I am.
You, sir, are an asshat.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
- Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
Um . .Sorry, but even if all our computers were dual-boot Windows and _______ Linux (which distribution, BTW?) it would not matter. Windows has the mindshare of users. I can't even go back to DOS applications with the younger employees--all they know is Windows.
Back to the Zaurus: this presents a great opportunity to substitute Linux for monopoly-ware, precisely because it is a fresh, new platform that doesn't have a deeply-entrenched user base. Even though its PIM features aren't as refined (or useful) as the Palm's and the Word/Excel manipulations aren't as refined (or useful) as the PokeyPC's, there are many more people who have not yet experienced the Palm or PocketPC platform who would love the Zaurus. And, for vertical applications, the Zaurus offers a tremendous benefit over any other platform. It's open, flexible, fast and capable. Can you SSH into a PokeyPC? Didn't think so. I know you can run Terminal Services' client on the PokeyPC, but on the Zaurus I run VNC Server to provide remote demonstrations over the Internet. Run Apache with PHP, mod_perl and MySQL on the PokeyPC? I do on the Z. Moreover, the browser on the Z is Opera 5 and it beats the heck out of PokeyIE in terms of speed, compliance and features (I'm playing with betas of Opera 6 which is even better). And, the Z costs less than an iPaq. Did I mention the pull-out thumb board?
PDAs are new and market penetration is light enough that the current "leaders" are still small players when considering the total potential marketspace. The desktop is old hat. Concentrate on the new space and win there. People are having to adapt, so Linux has a fighting chance.
[I know people have problems comparing the Z to Palm or PocketPC, but most people aren't Graffiti experts, etc. Remember, I'm looking at the Z for a vertical application, not as a PIM].
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I stopped buying proprietary ice cream from the big monopoly dairy corporations a couple of years ago and now make my own free frozen dairy product -- I call it "Iced Gnu Cream" -- from open ingredients purchased at the co-op grocery about an hour's drive down the road. Sure, driving there and back takes time, and I've had to modify an old fashioned manual ice cream freezer to make this stuff (boy, cranking that thing is an effort!).
The stuff I make is really cold, as cold as proprietary corporate ice cream, but I haven't figured out how to add flavoring unless I buy closed source vanilla or chocolate, so I've been eating it without flavor so far. But, at least, I'm not beholden to corporate America for my frozen treats. (If anyone else knows how to make open, non-proprietary chocolate, let me know, OK?)
I don't understand why everyone doesn't do the same thing.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Don't be. It sounds to me like you have a normal and well rounded set of friends. Good for you.
Linus himself had something to say on the very subject in a recording of an interview I have, I think from Cebit 2001:
(I've put the whole interview up if you wanna hear the rest.)
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Like faggorty?
BSD, that's what OSX is. Linux is a Unix-type OS, it's a copy, an imitation.
And we all know, a copy is never equal to the original.
And I find it very ironic that a Linux zealot is calling a Mac user "fanatical".
However, I can't recommed Linux as a solution to a small to medium sized company or to individuals, except in very limited circumstances.
DESKTOP: For desktop use, it lacks support for hardware and software and I certainly am not going to support my less technical friends and clients over the phone when they need to update their kernel or install true type fonts. Also, when it comes to software, if an application exists, it probably exists for Windows. You can't say that about Linux, which requires emulators and the like. Fine for me, but not for my mother. As for hardware, I personally would like to upgrade my laptop, but there's no driver for my wireless network card. A commercial operating system is cheaper than a new card....
SERVERS: For server use, I can't recommend it for small companies, since there would be no local expert able to add a user or other simple task without my intervention. Your average joe can pick up a Windows book and do regular maintenance or add printers, etc. That can't be said for Linux.
Things that have nothing to do with it:
1. COST. Only in large companies does the TCO issues begin to play, and then, it's still not clear. As for the desktop, most computers come OEM with Windows (the cost being hidden) and users either already own Windows applications or expect to buy them with the new computer.
2. RELIGION/POLITICS. Most people don't hate Microsoft -- they're ambivalent. It's like the number of people who boycotted Exxon after the Valdez disaster in Alaska. Most aren't going to put up much fight, especially when it involves an inconvenience. Driving across town to a gas station is MUCH easier than learning the command line or a new GUI. They're unlikely to do either.
3. RELIABILITY. Windows XP on the desktop is reliable. Period. If yours is crashing regularly, you've done something wrong or installed some 3rd party application incorrectly. I get the impression from reading here and my Linux certification materials that most Linux users are mostly familiar with the godawful Windows 9.x operating systems. Things have changed in the last few years (Windows 2000 and XP).
4. SECURITY. Windows XP/2000 is known to have security issues. I recommend installing a personal firewall and not using IE (I like Opera). This solves most security problems. Most people don't really care about these issues and will spend the $30 to add software to fix the problems. The Linux way seems to be security through obscurity. If there were a dominant Linux mail client, like Ximian, then there would be viruses written to attack it. Outlook is a big target.
Everyone talks about KDE/Gnome as the reason to switch to linux, linux is the kernel and drivers for the hardware. Users want applications and a nice looking desktop, eyecandy.
Personally, I like XP as my gui, and Linux as my server and extension to my workstation. I use my linux box as resources for my windows box. Mount shares, Run services, shell with command line tools, keep tasks running in the background while I play video games on my windose box. (Keep IRC open in a shell with irssi)
I really dont understand why people dont use the best of each platform. Have the best of both worlds, the power of applications (and GNU utils/commands) on a *nix box(bsd or linux) and the anti-aliased fonts/games/apps of windows. (Sounds like OSX, doesnt it...)
But if you only have 1 Box, XP+Cygwin seems a better option for now. KDE/Gnome/Openbox are still lacking in areas, and windows programs wont run native. Repeat, im not bad mouthing linux, linux is a great OS. The Gui KDE, and Back end Xserver is missing features, 3D features, Anti-aliasing, advanced hardware features. But the command line gnu tools, and opensource applications are great. I'm sure with time, linux will be the better choice for a full time os, but gui and applications support needs to be there.
-Brook
-
Blackbox 4 windows an alternative to litestep.
I know this because I ran a small shop where people brought in machines for repair, surfed the internet, etc. The house machines were all Linux (Mandrake), except for one dual-boot machine. When they were finished I asked them "How was it", and they said "Whatdya mean?" You were using Linux, I replied. "What's that?" My point? They didn't care or even realize they were using Linux, but when we started to compare Linux v. Microsoft, they almost always went home and installed it. Sure, they came back with lots of questions, but they were the same questions Windows users ask me, typically "Where do I change the colors/screen resolution/is that the left mouse button or the right, which side of the CD goes in, etc."
I believe the reason Linux is not caught on more yet has nothing to do with the features/software or useability, it's due to Microsoft.
Another round of "[Why|How|What] Linux [is|isn't] good for the [desktop|end user|office|server|admin|etc..]" battle!
1. Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Flash/DW/Fireworks suported (macintosh can do it, so why cant linux? arent both unix based?) 2. Installation is foolproof (as in, insert CD, click yes/ok/uh-uh/aaight then BOOM!!! linux is alive and kickin) 3. Running popular 3D games arent such a bitch on linux
d035 7hi5 100k 1ik3 4n l337 5i6 2 j00 ?
http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=New s&file=article&sid=145
The vast majority of people who use PCs don't care which operating system is running. They don't want to care. Or even know. That's why most people don't upgrade from the OS their system came with and why Linux is not a hot topic for non-technoids. This is not about such people being technically incompetent or uninformed. It's about not seeing a reason to change.
I've worked for companies selling UNIX-based systems on and off since about 1984. I had the UNIX religion and evangelized for a long time to people who didn't care. Now I know why they didn't care because I don't care either.
It's not the OS. No normal person doing normal computer activities should ever have to interact directly with an OS. That's what GUIs are for.
What people do care about is applications. Remember, you didn't buy a computer to have a computer, you bought it to DO something with. Applications are what you "do" with.
I use a system with multiple removable disks. I have bootable drives with Linux and X86 Solaris installed on them. I almost never use them. I almost always use Win98SE. Why? because it rarely crashes and I know how to use Office 97. I bought Win98SE and an expensive copy of Office 97 Professional years ago and it's what I use everyday. I don't want to learn something new that doesn't offer me any compelling advantages. I've never found any compelling reason to drop Win98SE and Office 97.
And neither have most of the people who use PCs.
"...(these are the same IT departments whose days are consumed with applying Windows patches or verifying license compliance)."
.msi version of the patch. If that is not available make your own, it is not hard (Not nearly as hard as dealing with RPMs to replace all those holes in KDE.). .msi patch on all systems in the domain.
Patching and license compliance are only a problem in companies with shitty managers who do not have their infrastructure built to handle such issues. Windows 2000 made that stuff pretty damned easy.
1- Steps to distributing Windows patches in an Active Directory network:
I. Get the
II. Administrator tells domain controller to install
III. Done.
Steps to ensure licensing compliance in Active Directory network:
I. Ensure that ordinary users cannot install software without administrative help, which they should not be doing anyway!
II. Have all installs handled automatically by the Active Directory Domain Controllers. Set it to only install what is already paid for.
Linux zealots need to stop attacking Microsoft and commercial software companies over things that are non-issues at a company with a well-managed IT department. Sell Linux on its own strengths, not on percieved weaknesses of others.
As open source picks up steam, it is time to look at the Movement from a business standpoint. Namely, what kind of metrics exist to analyze a free software project and determine whether or not it is successful? Certianly not sales, because the software is free..
I've thought of a couple of possibilities but, like everything, they have pros and cons:
First, we could measure the number of downloads or, perhaps more accurately, the amount of bandwith spent on downloads. This would be kind of a negative performance metric, in that more mney spent (and therefore lost, since no money is being paid for the software) is actually a metric of success! That boggles the mind in that the more money a free software project loses, the more successful it is! I don't think that will take off as a widely accepted metric however, fo obvious reasons. I also don't think it works, since many people may download open source software, fail to get it to perform properly, and simply never use it again, so the metrics would suffer from variance.
So, my second idea is to create a small piece of open source code that could be embedded in all open source software, perhaps as a part of GPL requirements - sort of an EULA, if you will. This code could then connect to a master server owned by a corporation who's job it is to track all OSS usage and report monthly metrics. Perhaps it should be a government organization, since a company might not want to take such a thankless task.
What are your thoughts?
the same could be said of anything anywhere the word "appealing" is used.
... :)
I'm not sure what your point is
because Word and Photoshop don't run on it except in the execrable WINE
"Word", short for "word processor", is a generic term referring to software more powerful than a text editor but less powerful than professional page-layout software. Therefore, word runs natively. Microsoft brand word doesn't.
Photoshop, on the other hand, is a trademark of Adobe Systems. However, the most significant thing GIMP can't do that the Photoshop brand image editor can is pre-press color image processing, which isn't useful if you will primarily be doing web or game art. As for the "easy to learn" factor, my six-year-old cousin picked up the basics of GIMP rather quickly.
Will I retire or break 10K?
--there's an obvious two main reasons linux isn't used "more"by windows users. One, windows comes on their machine, it's installed. Two, windows is too hard for them already, they are intimidated by it and as such the thought of something brand new and different is even more intimidating. There's not even an awareness of what an "operating system" is, to most people windows="computer and the intarweb". I know windows users who even after years still cannot do simple easy tasks, have no idea on security, are reluctant to use even what came installed, never even bother to explore all the menu options, etc. I call it "never getting out of first gear", they are content to drive in first gear forever, until they buy another new computer because the old one "doesn't work anymore". rinse lather repeat. And they don't *see* linux, it's NOT on the shelf locally, at least anyplace they go and look. People say "it's at walmart" well, maybe online it is, my local walmart gives you the choice of XP or XP and that's IT. And if you tried to explain there is no "linux company"and the concept of rolling your own or buying a canned distro they would be totally lost, it's an alien idea, it can't exist or it's some program runs on windows they don't know what it does and don't need. I've asked them to stock linux at the local chinamart, they say "naw, that's decided at corporate". Radio Shack, same deal, that's the only two places around here that sell software. Granted this is a rural area but it's where I live and the reason I see around here why linux isn't used or tried. At best people might buy a game, or a very specific application such as a money managing app, but that's it. Once it's in the schools and the kids come home and change their parents home PC's for them, maybe, until then not happening in a big way.
Linux is good for work (people already proved that), but people want to have fun. The way to do that besides pr0n is playing games on the OS they love. It's not just games that we need, but also driver support for the bleeding edge vid cards and sound cards that will use the games to their fullest. If we don't get these, Linux will just be another OS with a lot of potential, but nothing to show for it yet.
An old IT manager summed it up in 3 words. After sales support. MS has loads of it and Linux has well, not much. Red Hats model for after sales support is a joke since I would estimate that 80% of the software is downloaded(no support). Until a solid support system is in place people are not going to jump into that pool.
How many "average" people would purchase a brand new TV with no after sales support?
I hear what you're saying, but the members of this technical forum are far more technical than the average Windows users, especially at the office. Joe Blow has 5 years of experience with MS Word, Excel and Power-Point and wants the same apps at home- that's all there is to it. To make that work he needs to be able to call Dell, order a new PC with Red-Hat and Office 10 for Linux. If it's anymore complicated than that he will go with Windows every time.
It's amazing how few people have switched to Mac's even with this capability. I bought a new iMac just for grins, and with 10.2 and the Cisco VPN client, I can dial up my office and fire up Outlook to the Exchange server no problem, as well as have CRUD access to the docs on the network.
Gotta get Office on Linux without any adapters, emulators or dual-boots. The average user, (who is keeping the lights on in Redmond), isn't as fast as this community.
The lack of software is still sort of the problem, but I think this mainly comes down to games
There are lots of games that will run in Linux:
Will I retire or break 10K?
You job is to make the system work. If your boss wants Photoshop that's his business, not yours.
I make my bosses aware of their options and I advise when they request it, and I try to stear them away from making bad choices (buying Kai Photo Goo instead of Photoshop, for example), but when push comes to shove, they make the puirchasing decisions and I make their purchases work.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Funny you mention that. I just installed Mandrake 8.2 on a new Dell P4 1.8ghz machine and it ran like a pregnant yak. This box has 256mb of RAM and whatever ghetto two-year old ATI video Dell puts in for corporate customers who don't want Nvidia or new Radeon. KDE just kept getting more and more laggy until I finally had to bounce it--after 30 minutes of use! All I was doing was setting up my proxies and network printers in that time. Yuck! Maybe I will throw them a few bucks after all so they can spit-shine Mandrake 9 before unleashing it upon the masses.
BSD, that's what OSX is. Linux is a Unix-type OS, it's a copy, an imitation.
Yes, I know GNU's not UNIX®, but neither is BSD. Neither is Mac OS X because the royalties for putting the UNIX mark on the product are quite expensive for an operating system marketed to home users.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Admins (byte-counters) know about OSes, and server apps. PERIOD.
When an artist tell you what tools HE/SHE needs, you don't question them. PERIOD. An artist will know more about artist tools than some byte-counter will. Who the fuck are YOU to start lecturing an artist about his craft? You wouldn't like it if the artist started hectoring you about server apps, eh? Likwise when the accountants tell you which app they need, you say "which one"?
In short, stick to pontificating about admin tools, and keep quiet for all others.
sed awk grep cron sort ftp smb etc.
I can make a shell script in about 10 minutes that will do, in a matter of seconds, something that a human would take hours to do with their favorite GUI app. I rarely run Linux X apps. I do run X apps exported off unix servers on occasion, but the real power of Linux is what I mentioned above. Plus, I don't need to worry about, or even have, an X display driver. We have New Fangled windows-based systems that simply have no way of doing these rudimentary, STANDARD functions (outside of purchasing $$$ or building $$$ specialized apps).
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
and we spent several thousand dollars to placate them, instead of a few hundred for Paint Shop Pro.
Really? Jasc Paint Shop Pro starts at $82 for one seat. Adobe Photoshop Elements (Photoshop minus prepress) starts at $100 for one seat. Thus, unless you have a bunch of people working in prepress, Photoshop isn't much more expensive than PSP.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If your application involves setting everything up, running a few tests to make sure it's working, then unplugging the monitor, mouse and keyboard, turning off the lights in the room, and locking the door, Linux is one of several ways to go.
Otherwise it's a waste of time.
...that we Windows network admins have already caved in and poured hideously large amounts of money into purchasing Windows 2000 Server and the requisite CAL licenses. For example, my employer already invested a huge amount of money in the 1998-1999 timeframe to install a large NT4 network. Once we finally got all this working and stabilized, all of a sudden MS releases W2K and does the forced premature obsolescence thing and because we are a small govt organization who purchased our MS licenses under a certain "select" contract, we are not allowed to "upgrade".... we can only buy it all over again from scratch or get roped into a "lease/rent the licenses" deal. Management absolutely refuses to "buy it all over again" even if we could afford to do so, and our organization's charter, policies and local law prohibit us from leasing IT infrastructure.
Linux is looking even better and better for us, and I wish we could migrate completely off of MS and go to Linux, starting yesterday, but the cold hard reality is that we have too many mission critical apps that are Win32-only.
Yeah, I predict by 2004 you may have saved enough to BUY A CLUE. Really, the only REAL reason linux is on the desktop is because "consumers" take what they bought. Some "advanced consumers" may even be savvy about gnu/linux but won't install it because "it's good enough". If we tinkerers and hackers thought MSWin32 was "good enough" we wouldn't have gone over to other, more hacker friendly OSes. What will push the others into our camp will be MONEY and FREEDOM. TOC for free OSes will fall as we and linux mature together. And freedom will be the other incentive... the freedom to do what one wants with their machines, their software, their data. The GPL doesn't limit freedom; it gives you a lot more freedom than you'd have otherwise. Try incorporating MSWin32 or OSX code in your commercial product and watch what happens.
...that Microsoft's excuse for "support" is any better? Obviously you've not have the (dis)pleasure of paying a lot of money to sit on hold for a long time to wait for a condescending, bubblegum-smacking teenager who could barely read the owner's manual back to you and ask follow a script written for a moron, and then not be able to solve your problem except say that maybe it would be fixed in the next upgrade which, of course you'd have to purchase all over again.
It's not there yet.
All of my servers are Linux, and they do great. In fact, I'll turn 1 year uptime on them next week. However, I don't think Linux is ready to be on my desk at work.
Every once in a while, I get this urge to try to dump Windows altogether. I've tried it several times now, but I keep coming back to Windows because of apps like Photoshop and Trillian, and the solid UI. There are X equivalents of most apps, yes, but they just aren't the same, and I'm not as productive with these as I am with the Windows products.
Most Linux desktop apps have not been very stable for me either, and what's worse, they don't FEEL stable. MS Windows has a very solid, polished feel to it. They've dumped tons of money and hours into useability, and they have alot to show for it. I think Linux will get there (its come a LONG way already), but for me, its not there yet.
Last time I ran a Linux desktop, someone asked "why are you running Linux instead of Windows?". I really couldn't come up with a valid answer for him, other than "I just want to!" or "I hate Microsoft!".
The bottomline is, right now I'm the most productive when working from an SSH session on my Windows desktop.
Your post brings up a lot of valid points. I want to like Linux, and I've tried for nine years to find a reason to use it. My first distro was an old SLS (kernel 0.99) set I downloaded off a BBS in 1993. After a lot of fighting with it I finally got it working. Then I hit the "and now what?" point and ended up reformatting the partition and giving it back to DOS.
.rc files, or any config files. Windows users laugh at Linus users for having to put up with this. There shouldn't be a single file (save for HOSTS) that anyone should EVER have to edit. Period. This is 2002, not 1975!
Over the years I've repeated that experience, with Slackware 3, Redhat 4,5 and 7.3, (FreeBSD), and a few others that I don't remember. I always get Linux installed, fight my system like mad to get X working, and always find myself at the same point at the end: "Okay, now what?"
And I look around and don't see a compelling reason to keep Linux on my system. There is almost nothing I can do with Linux that I can't already do with my Windows system, and there are a lot of things I can't do with Linux that I can with Windows. And some things that both systems can do are so hard to do on Linux that it is simply not worth my time to figure out haw to do them.
But there are other factors that limit Linux in my opinion, and in the opinions of others who already use Windows:
1: Inconsistant UI. Sure, KDE and GNOME are internally consistant, but any program that doesn't use one of those managers is a total crapshoot as far as UI goes.
2: Amatuere hour software. You know, the utilities that were written to fix the authors problem and then released into the world. Too bad the UI is crap and the documentation assumes you already know how to use the program.
3: Having to edit text based
Linux has made great strides, and it is easier and more uniform than it has ever been. But one of Linux's great strengths in the geek comunity, the freedom to tweak it any way you want, is its biggest weakness in the general consumer market. The lack of a single, unified UI (sorry, but KDE or Gnome has to die and leave the other in charge) and file structure kills Linux in the mind of the Average Joe.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
And PSP can be found even cheaper, if you look around. I love PSP. In fact PSP5 was the version I used most of all. Once in a while I'd throw in the evaluation version of PSP7 when someone had a newer .psd file that PSP5 couldn't open, just to convert it. Then one day I found PSP5's features starting to lack, and I switched over to PSP7.
I'm still an amatuer artist and have access to Photoshop, but I don't use it. My skills don't allow me took take full advantage of Photoshop, yet. But if I should ever get good enough, I don't mind forking over the money for it.
I tried The GIMP (Linux version), and it was so, so lacking. I'd rather pay $50 for PSP than use The GIMP for free.
Simply be enthusiastic about Linux. Show people it. When you discover some "cool shit" that you can do, show people. Don't bash Microsoft. People already curse Windows, but they carry on because they don't think Linux is ready. Someone I knew didn't know that all their hardware would work straight off a RH8 install. "But with Windows, I need loads of additional drivers" he said.
Don't laugh when their machine bluescreens - try and help them work out why. Use Linux on your desktop, even if it's slightly more hassle. Make sure that when you've installed a lovely theme, or window manager, you enthuse about it, and get people to see it.
Make sure people know you can play music under Linux. Another common misconception is that it does't have sound support.95% of users simply check email, browse the web, and play games.
Most people that use Windows know it's annoying, and shit, but they don't think there is an alternative.
Just don't bleat on about how crap it is - instead, enthuse about how good Linux is. Show them that you can open PPT files in Open Office fine. Show them that you can connect to Windows terminal servers using RDesktop. Show them a diskless workstation in action.
Motto? Enthuse about Linux. Other people get curious, and try it out.
P.S If I don't get some good mod points for this heartfelt outpouring, I'll feel very hard done by!
Get your own free personal location tracker
Listen,
There's a good reason Linux is still not going to go mainstream or be liked by the everyday user or gamer. This has to do with the argument over open drivers.
You see, I just installed Mandrake 9.0 and it has taken me over a week to get it to work. The big problem is that Mandrake won't put in recent NVidia drivers because they aren't "free" or opensource I guess. They are free, but they refuse to add them.
Thus, the average user (who probably has some variant of GeForce) has to download new drivers and go through the agonizing process of installing them. This took me days of frustration.
Next, was my Lucent Winmodem. Mandrake seemed to say that I couldn't use it. After some investigation on the net, I found drivers to use it. These weren't in Mandrake. It was yet another frustrating step.
I also had to add some decryption packages or something to use my DVD player... Windows is stomping all over Mandrake in multimedia.
Linux distros and the community have to get over this phobia of non-free, as they put it, drivers. People don't want to spend hours configuring their setup if they are non-geeks.
As much as everyone brags about how easy to install, setup and use stuff like KDE is, there is at least an equal or greater amount of trouble people will have to go through to use Linux that will likely cause a great deal to delete their Linux partition and go back to Windows.
I've spent ten years watching the Linux people clap each other on the back and proclaim the New Age.
1. Invent a self-contained, self-referential computing universe with a high opportunity cost of joining and negative benefits to 95% of the market.
2. Staunchly refuse to "dumb it down" for "clueless losers"; play catch-up with Microsoft and Adobe.
3. ???
4. Lie back on the laurels of victory and cast a benevolent eye upon the Linux-using masses.
The whole "go away a little closer" mindset is self-perpetuating, and RMS is practically the anti-Christ -- Linux people, the true believers, can't imagine; they refuse the evidence, it's everyone else's problem.
Stallman is like Yasser Arafat; he's a living monkey wrench in the works of progress.
1) Do you want to pay $0 in license fees?
2) Do you want minimal computer downtime, resulting in workers spending 100% of their time making you money (and making you RICH)?
3) Lastly (and this is the best one), do you want to reduce your IT staff by 95% because this OS is so stable, one man can do the work that previously took 20 to do with Windows? Better yet, you won't have to give that one remaining IT guy any raises (in fact you could probably reduce his salary), since there are 19 laid off IT guys ready to take his job!
Then you are a candidate for Linux.
So if markets hate choice, then why do we find such a large variety of choice in other products, like cereals? I guess the general public is more capable of handling the difference between two types of sugar coatings than it can comprehend the differences between to layers of window managing code. But the general public's knowledge will definitely change, in say, 50 years.
/., you could be looking at 50 more years! What kind of attributes do YOU, as a lifelong user of computers, want to develop over the years?
In fact, my only real complaint about your post is that it represents the basic short sighted view that plagues so many techies. Why predict until only 2004? Do you have some chronic illness? Otherwise, assuming you belong to the most common demographic group of
Personally, I hate the thought of me being stuck on some candy-like gui hot off the corporate presses, old shaky hands putting me on the same level as a 2 year old (I'll already be pretty down about having to wear diapers again). So, in contrast, I plan on using Linux for the rest of my life (I am pretty confident that its GPL/Open Source characteristics will give it the longevity of your average Epic Poem). I currently use gui tools, but I also learn the CLI equavalents because they are the key to understanding the system and, when master, are much more efficient.
So, by the time I become a geezer I hope to be fairly knowledgible about Linux which will probably have changed a lot by then but so will have I, with it, every step of the way (hopefully with my own contributions to brag about). And though I may become feeble with a mouse, or whatever "one-size fits all" device that will be used then, I hope my mind will remain sharp enough to type or say (VR) a short, and to the point, bash command, or perhaps my own variant that I will develop after I retire for my own personal use. And though my grand-children will be able to kick my ass at Grandtheft auto 28, they will learn to revere my skills with open source tools which, without the pressures to bring investors a profit, have been allowed to be bent and pulled enough to fit perfectly into the lives of its users.
As we close yet another year, this might be a good time to step back and take a look at the "long-term future" that faces us. Death is usually an uncomfortable thought, but, at least for me, it is made even more uncomfortable by the thought that my life was insignificant and meaningless. Some people may feel it foolish to put so much in a simple "tool" that can be bought on the shelves of an electronics store, but, unfortunately, I have lived long enough to realize I will most likely not be immortalized in any of my descendant's history books for my accomplishments. For someone who is going to be forgotten, this is the closest thing to imortality I can get.
Open Source allows me to add my own page to history, even if it is a history that many choose to ignore, riducule, or trivialize. Nomatter how insignificant it is, it is all I have left of my childish dreams of being important enough to contribute to society. And, when thoughts of my own insignificant mortality creep up, it guides me to a more optimistic place where everyone lives a significant life and anyone can contribute to the betterment of humanity.
I predict that Open Source will continue to exist, because I will keep it alive. Unfortunately, this prediction is limitted by my lifetime, which hopefully will last a bit longer than 2004.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
It's easy to go to the store and pick up case of beer, buy it, bring it home and drink it. You also pay a deposit on the containers. (M$)
You can however brew beer. It takes time and energy. The process is sometimes tedious. Nothing between cleaning the containers, to mixing and heating the ingredients, to putting it into the second container to get rid of the yeast sludge, or even finally bottling. It is time consuming. The end result is pretty satisfying. (BSD/Linux)
There are attempts to make the brewing process easier. Ex: Mr.Beer, but they are hokey and can be expected to be well... second rate. (Lindows)
Where does this lead? The majority of people will buy Budweiser... it's the industry standard, you can't go wrong. Even if it's boring, it's beer. Did I mention, it's easy?
I'm a long time NT guy (NT 4.0 MCSE, Citrix Metaframe 1.8 CCA), and while I had played with Linux 5 years ago, next saw any appeal on a desktop. My first experiment with Linux was in 1997. About 40 hours later, I had it all configured to my tastes, everything worked, and I wondered what I was going to do. All it was was a slightly inferior to the NT 4.0 desktop that I was using at the time. Forget games, I was an NT guy, we had no games either.
At my business, we deploy on PHP 4 + PostgreSQL, so we have Linux database servers and OpenBSD webservers. Our first Linux web server in 18 months just came online, we got sick of security issues.
I currently use a Powerbook w/ OS X for my desktop, I'm extremely happy. When we were playing with Redhat 8 to install the test box, we did one install as a workstation for fun.
It was distinctly less ugly than I remembered Linux desktops, and was pretty equivalent to a Windows desktop (though it can't touch Aqua). However, when I tried to install Phoenix, I ran into dependancy problems because I hadn't installed Mozilla first (I was going to run Phoenix). When I created a "launcher" I couldn't get it to show up on the desktop until relogging in, etc., etc.
If I was a grunt office user, I could be trained to work in there instead of Windows. Someone else would create all my icons, etc. For Sysadmining, I have no problem playing in Linux, its easily to configure, etc. However, as a "power user" I was frustrated, and wanted nothing to do with the box.
I find OS X + Powerbook makes me EXTREMELY productive. Redhat + GNOME + KDE + Blue Curve was too frustrating. It's "looking" better, but it isn't better.
Look, there are plenty of times that I get confused in the Mac GUI because it isn't Windows. I can usually figure it out, and the result tends to make more sense than Microsoft's version.
With my Powerbook, I plug a second monitor in and the dock/menu bar slide over. When I disconnect the monitor, I'm back to one monitor. BBEdit has configuration options for working with two monitors, very nice. With my Windows laptop, I had to shut down to undock b/c of the PCI video card to get the second monitor. How would Linux handle that?
As a result, Apple go the check. Switching was only a few thousand, and I'm more productive. Knock off one extra project and its paid for itself. Give me another two weeks. Linux... sorry, its not there yet.
Alex
Sport, "network administrators" are sucking dick for chump change these days. Those silly, ignorant do-nothings went over your head and got what they wanted, and you got slapped down. Using your godlike network administrator powers, can you divine who's disposable in this scenario?
Why don't you storm into the CTO's office after New Year's and say "Either Photoshop goes or I go." Don't forget to report back with your victory in the name of Linuxhood.
I use linux in my desk top in my day to day work.
MS the evil empire is forcing Dell and HP to ship windoze.
MS and these wintel shops should be sued so they can offer linux din their desk top.
If Joe Bob buys linux desktop he will not know the difference. Linux is more smoother and stable than crappy windoze.
when i get home, i want to turn on my PC and i want it to just work. I don't want to spend days finding out weird command line options to do something trivial windows does automatically or with the click of a mouse. I do my work at work, i dont want do spend a huge effort just to get things working (if you're claiming linux is even approaching windows in ease of use and usability etc, who are you really fooling besides yourself?)
Also if you couldn't explain an NFS export and mount point as being analogous to a SMB share and drive mapping either you or your MCSE's are, well, maybe confirming what they say about MCSEs.
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
That's not why it's failed to catch on. It's because the average computer user still finds Windows complicated to use... and that's when it comes pre-installed on their computer when they buy it. To the average user Linux is just too complicated with diminishing returns. If you walk into a store and pick up a piece of software chances are it will either run on your Windows or Mac machine. With Linux you have to put some work into it, like actually reading some documentation or finding the site. A scary proposition by itself, let alone trying to install it from ISOs.
Linux still won't be consumer friendly (despite some of the great packages out there) for years to come.
Anyone else who has done Windows support for an organization with 5000+ employees in it can vouch for the reluctance of the user to actually think while using their machine.
The trouble is people want to be free to do what they want so that mean inconsistency. The average Jane and Joe like Mac and Windows because once you learn one app the whole world of app's are now familiar and easy to learn.
The masses like to be dicatated to as long as it makes things easy. Also once they learn something they don't want to learn something new unless they have to. To switch to Linux has a learning curve most aren't interested in going through. The cost of the occasional Windows upgrade is cheap compared to inconvinece of having to learn some thing new. Sure there are some willing to spend the time for assorted reasons, but I'm talking the masses.
Now you also have a catch 22 to deal with. Corporate America is interest in Linux to save licensing fees, but know the time and cost of having to train new employees can exceed licensing fees. Right now you can walk out on any sidewalk and grab people who know Windows and MS Office, no training required. At same timemasses aren't going to learn Linux and Linux app's until more corporations are using it and its a hiring opportunity. Another part of this catch 22 is what Linux window manager to learn, what OSS office suites and other app's to learn.
Linux's freedom is its own enemy at getting deployed in corporate America. Outside Ameriaca is another story.
The review talks about the issues with trying to partition a hard drive to install linux. I suppose most people would reformat and repartition to do this, but not having a real install CD, or not wanting to reinstall is a big downer.
So I would like to just remind everyone of Parted, the GNU partition utility. It can create, resize, move, and delete most filesystems. The notable exception is NTFS. If you follow that link there's a nice chart that shows exactly what Parted can do with each filesystem.
So if your Windows is on a FAT partition, parted can resize it such that you don't have to reformat, much like Partition Magic, but it's of course free. And, you don't need a working Linux system to install it, there are bootable floppy images available for download. It's main drawback is the user interface, but if you read the Docs first you should be able to do most simple operations without really understanding the details.
I feel like you have described my experience with Linux exactly. I have come to like it now, though, on my "test" machine. I am able to do EVERYTHING I need on Linux that I do on Windows (finally) except video encoding. I haven't found a replacement for VirtualDUB that I like (although I'll admit I haven't looked very hard). I just like all the tools available for Windows and video encoding. Anyone get some serious MPEG4 encoding with a capture board setup and working well?
Would you also be disappointed in my lack of curiousity in Microsoft Windows ?? It's come a long way since the bad-old-days of Windows 3.1. That's the time frame when I purchased my first PC and installed Slackware 1.1 (0.99pl14 kernel). Previously, I used a MacLC2 (dual boot, MacOS6 and MacOS7), and I logged into to various unix boxes for "real work". Before that, I had an Apple2, and again, I logged into BBSs and unix boxes for email, newsgroups, and chat.
I kept the Mac for many years and used it for word processing and graphics (bought one of the few monitors at the time which had two video inputs). MS Word 4.0, MacPaint 1.1, SuperPaint 3.0, Canvas 2.1 were getting pretty old, but they still worked great and did everything I needed. My old Mac has a 50 MHz speed-up card, and those old apps ran great. Likewise, I could do almost all unix-oriented tasks on the linux box, including email, usenet news, and later surfing the web. Linux (and related apps) has grown and grown, and the PC hardware has remained cheap (unlike trying to upgrade the mac). A couple years ago, I took the plunge and finally started using the GIMP, which replaced my last major hold-out on the Mac side.
Over the years, there's been 2 win32-only CAD apps I've needed. At times I had dual-boot, but eventually I purchased vmware and I really like the repeatable resume. I can finally not have to fiddle with windows.... I just set it up once and every time I start that virtual machine I get exactly the same working win32 system with my one CAD app installed.
I saw WinXP in the store not long ago. They've certainly made it pretty. It also looks like Win2k and WinXP are real operating systems with compatible apps and drivers (I was quite unimpressed with NT 3.51 and 4.0).
My linux setup works. I know how to use it. I have a set of apps that run great and do just about everything I need. I've got all my special apps in /usr/local and ~/bin, so backup and migrating to newer distros are easy.
I know there's LOTS of neat new apps for Windows that don't exist for Linux. I know the modern versions of Windows have become much better.
But I don't really care. What I have works, and until there's some really compelling reason to consider Microsoft again (that isn't easily solved by a repeatable-resume vmware virtual machine), I just want to leave well enough alone. It's certainly not broken, so why fix it ???
I can identify with your Windows-based friends who are quite happy with their computing paragigms and therefore aren't really curious about Linux. I can't see how yet-another-book is going to "help". If everything is working great and there's no need for anything new, then what is the "problem" that needs to be "solved" ?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
in the workplace, but I had problems installing it. It kept needing to be rebooted (3 times for one install!). and once installed, not all of my devices were working, so I had to borrow a friends linux box to download the needed drivers.
Then I had to figure out how to configure my network, and it needed to be rebooted again. and then I forgot the proper workgroup name, so I had to reboot yet again.
And then for some unexplained reason, everything froze when I clicked on a link on a web page. and I needed to reboot again. Then it told me I need to fix something, cause I didn't shutdown windows properly. and I needed to reboot again, cause it booted up into 'safe mode'.
So, I gave up and installed Mandrake.
I havent rebooted since.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
At my company we don't change to linux because we didn't find a MS access clone
Photoshop Elements? What a joke!!
Other than prepress, what does Photoshop Elements lack vs. Photoshop?
Have you even used Photoshop Elements?
No, but I'm considering recommending it to a friend who is considering pirating something. Would you please tell me why an artist who does not do prepress should stay away from Photoshop Elements?
Will I retire or break 10K?
What this book totally neglects to mention is how awful all Linux distributions are at properly detecting and configuring hardware and settings, particularly when it comes to video cards and monitor refresh rates.
Until your average Joe can run through a distro's installer and end up with a beautiful X-Windows configuration that properly runs all the res modes and refresh rates of their grafx card and monitor, Linux as a desktop OS will never take off. Even the latest Gentoo release on my brother's GeForce 4 Ti and Hitachi 19" monitor absolutely refuses to understand that his video system is perfectly capable for 1280x1024@100Hz... instead, X-Windows will only let him do up to 1024x768@60Hz, and defaults to 640x480@60Hz. Absolutely pathetic for an OS that keeps claiming it is "easier to use".
The only way he has available to fix this is to use the clunky "xvidtune" program and take a 6-semester course in monitor timing formulas. What average user is going to do that? They won't. They'll say "fuck this, I'll use Windows".
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
The file formats between versions is getting ugly.
I have tried hard to use Linux at home. I have been a computer enthusiast since i got my first Atari 800 then C64, Amiga 500, and countless PC's with windows 3.0 95,98 & XP. I build computers, and am the guys all my friend/family call with computer probs. I ran Mandrake then Red Hat on a couple computers in dual boot. I like it a lot. But tring to install anything (programs, drivers etc) is or can be extrememly difficult. With windows you double click the exe file and thats it. The instructions for some Linux program instalations read like rocket science. I get such a headache trying to figure it out I just end up going back to Windows. To the average PC user they could never figure that stuff out.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
The Zaurus is actually a perfect example of why linux has been having such terrible trouble getting to the desktop.
I've got a Zaurus. I like the fact that I can write custom mobile GUI applications in Python. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's uses for extremely niche applications. I've found the thing useful, so I'm not completely biased.
But unfortunately, the Zaurus UI is VERY badly designed. It's not just lack of "polish", it's stuff that any decent UI person would tell you you *never* do, especially on a mobile device with a ridiculously tiny screen.
Why is the Zaurus so very unusable?
Linux's success, which is success on the server, has come about because linux developers/users had cultural beliefs and abilities that lent themselves well to the creation of things like Apache and the Linux Kernel. Unfortunately, they had cultural beliefs (HCI is BS, RTFM, text better than graphical) that were detrimental to the making of usable software. You have to have a developer culture that values ease-of-use in order to make usable software. They were also lacking in many of the necessary skills (thinking graphically instead of textually, user-interaction design etc.) needed to do this, as well.
Let's look at the Palm as a case study. The Palm user interaction was designed before the code for the OS was ever written and before the first injection mold tool was cast. The creator of the Palm, Jeff Hawkins, could often be seen walking around the company with a wooden mockup of the device, taking it with him to meetings and taking down imaginary notes with the stylus he had created (whittled down from a chopstick!). He thought long and hard about how to minimize the number of taps to do things (which the TrollTech has not). In short, he did what was needed to be done to have a successful, usable product.
If Jeff Hawkins was a linux developer, he would have said "I'll just tack on the GUI once I've finished all the technical stuff. Modularity and all". If someone with any UI design experience would try to save the day and tell him he needed to design the UI before anything else, he'd tell them they were being ridiculous. If someone complained that things were too hard to do, he would tell them to stop whining about what they're getting for free. He would then release the stuff he created to many of the geeky linux folks as early adopters, believing that usage would start with them and proceed to trickle down to normal folks. All the while refusing to understand that linux geeks tend to have very high tolerances for badly designed and inefficient user interfaces and will yell "Stop spreading Microsoft FUD about linux being hard to use!" at the first person who points out an ususable Open Source UI.Assuming that the Alternate Linux Universe Jeff Hawkins was receptive to user feedback regarding the bad design, he wouldn't be getting any because the majority of users would be telling him that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.The poster in an earlier thread who in jest pointed out that the guy who said KDE was easy enough for anyone to use was actually running it on Gentoo couldn't have been more right.
Palm was successful because they did things the right way, not because they were familiar to windows users. WinCE did things the wrong way because it was familiar to windows users (some Palm executives once said that competing with PocketPC "was like shooting fish in a barrel").
Linux getting to the desktop will require both the linux developer community and current user community to put down their Neale Stephenson essays and change their attitudes and the way they do things. Until this happens, the greatest roadblock to Linux on the desktop will be the linux community itself.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Sure, here are the instructions. Good luck with IP rights on cocao trees.
The most important thing in my eyes about an OS is about how visible it is - how much it gets in the way. it shouldn't get in the way, at all. in fact, a GOOD OS would be one that users don't even know about. working on a computer, for a user, is about the applications. about getting work done.
;)
picture a typical work environment. people who generate media on computers. you have some graphics people - they work on graphics and animation. they will want to use say photoshop, director, premiere, etc. there are some sound people. they use soundforge, logic, cubase, reaktor, absynth, and so on. the programmers will use.. well, whatever suite they want to. there are more (and better) development environments for win32 than there are for linux, though this is a slightly closer call. however gimp and similar linux versions of apps - they are fine for playing around. but they are not near professional grade. and what about the project manager, he will want to use microsoft project. because that's the best program of its kind.
open source is in some ways a detractor here. apps wont be released for linux until companies are safer in the knowledge of market share, and that their market will have the right attitude toward their products. it can't be that hard to port them - how easily were apps ported to Mac OS X?
people will go to a platform with the best apps. you can get all sorts of stuff for free OSes, but it doesn't mean they're good enough for professional use. even non-professional use - tux racer may be cute and stuff, but it oesn't compare to anything good released on pc for the last 3 years.
you, as a slashdotter, may think this doesn't apply to you, because you like configuring your machine, tinkering with settings, and so forth. but you're not a user. you're acting like a system administrator. and the way to get linux into the mainstream is not to make everyone want to administrate their own machines, but to make linux easy enough for someone to use it and not have it get in the way.
whether this is a good thing or not is another question entirely. it may be bad to "dilute" linux to the lowest common denominator, if that affects its power.
fwiw, i would garotte anyone who advised using windows on a server environment, having had more than enough nightmares with that already myself too
fross
It is often worse for an interface to look the same and act different than it is for the interface to look different *and* act different.
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.
While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.
A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.
I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.
The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.
A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Well, duh! Of course they don't see open source as anything as a time burden. They don't have any free time what with all that Windows patching they need to do.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The #1 reason Linux hasn't captured the desktop market from MS is that MS products are still too easy to steal. I guarantee you when MS finally gets that issue solved, home users will be switching in droves. Very few home users are willing to lay out the cash required for XP + Office + Photoshop + whatever other unlicensed software that is on their drives.
Organizations still built around NT are doing it because they have bad mangers who haven't managed to upgrade in THREE YEARS.
Either you are a spoiled rich brat with money to burn or you have been brainwashed to believe that such short forced upgrade cycles are supposed to be the norm. Large business investments in a particular software technology have historically been, and are generally supposed to have 7 to 10 year lifecycles, with incremental upgrades that build upon the base product... not complete replacement of the base product. Pouring repeated large volumes of money into a vendor's pocket for "it's a totally _new product_, not an upgrade" is what constitutes bad management. My employer is also suffering from this endless upgrade gravy-train and we simply cannot afford to replace our NOS licenses every two to three years just to satisfy the vendor's greed, and our management also refuses to lease their licenses too. I've been an NT network manager since version 3.5 of the product and am sick of the game too. I've been waiting a long time to have a pure unix server backend once again and thanks to Linux, we're finally able to begin doing it.
As for things like DirectX and user interface, I'll let others argue about whether SDL/OpenGL is a good DirectX equivalent, or whether KDE 3 and GNOME 2 are better than the Windows XP interface. It really depends on exactly how you use your system. For my needs, Linux is far better, but I'm sure you can come up with areas where it's lacking.
you're bringing new points to this argument. A properly patched windows box is just as secure as linux. Oh like theres never a sendmail or wuftpd exploit in linux. shut the fuck up.
Dude, I have thought the exact same thing from time to time, wrt immortalizing oneself in the hall of open source heroes. My hat's off to you.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Linux has failed to catch on because it doesn't have Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop. Or Adobe AfterEffects, or Adobe Illustrator, or Macromedia Flash, or Director... the list goes on.
In short, Linux has none of the desktop software people want to use. No big surprise it hasn't caught on.
And stop blabbering about GIMP or ABI word. No one's gonna use that crap. They just don't cut it.
You did indeed!
Merry Christmas
"Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems"
ROTFL. Maybe it sucks as an end user system.
"The irony is that Linux has never been more user friendly"
It surely could not become less user friendly could it. I mean when your at rock bottom, you can only go up.
"The book assumes that the user has a machine with Linux already installed and successfully configured. "
Why does it assume this. Is it because this is too large of a step for users to accomplish. I think so.
"Surprisingly, the book contains almost nothing about printing or how to install or upgrade applications. Because the book is intended for a newbie user, not a sys admin, it recommends talking to your network administrator about that. Cop out? Perhaps"
Who the fuck would buy a OS that requires you have an admin to set up printing.
When will the zealots realize they worship shit?
"never met a Microsoft zealot"
Thankfully it's at least mono!
Consider ~24 kbps / 22KHz, after all its just voice. Us dial up users would really appreciate it, and so would that server.
Cheers.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
In short, Linux has none of the desktop software people want to use.
And Xbox doesn't have Super Mario Sunshine.
And stop blabbering about GIMP or ABI word. No one's gonna use that crap. They just don't cut it.
Why not, specifically?
Will I retire or break 10K?
1. Linux needs MS Office and key apps like Photoshop, etc.
I don't need MS Office. For my needs, Open Office is just fine. I rarely use it. But for a business, Open Office needs to be directly compatible w/ office, and the corporate world needs a genuine MS Office for linux. They need that road to be open to them. Sure, they'll try OO for free. But if they run into compat problems, they could just go buy MSOffice. Problem solved.
I'm trying to 'switch' now. I've got two boxes. My winXP, the original box, is now only turned on to use it's hauppage WinTV mpeg digitizer to catch a show, or to use Photoshop, Thumbs+ or an multimedia file that I just can't play on Linux. The other box, a PIII slapped together from spare parts around is the Linux box, is all I've used for the past few weeks, barring the above. I'm spending time learning gimp. I dearly miss Photoshop and Thumbs+, Homesite too.
The thing is I know people who Linux would be better suited for them. It's safer, they can't delete the wrong files (ie win9x,), no virii problems. But can I guarantee they can print from it? Can they print well? Nope. If they buy a USB MP3 player will it work? Maybe.
Will that same hardware work with Windows? *probably*.
2. There's an odds game there, and windows wins it. It's the device drivers for the hardware. Until manufacturers put out drivers, Linux is always playing catchup. Not that I'm *not* very grateful that there are a lot of people who write these drivers in their own time so that I can use them in an OS that I downloaded for free. Don't get the wrong. But if I buy my kid one of those creative keychain mp3 players - can she use it on a WinXP box? I'd bet on it. Can she use it just as easily if the machine was a Redhat8 machine? Maybe. Dunno. I'd have to search on it, maybe even buy the thing and try it out. Maybe write a few shell/perl scripts or something to make it easy for her to use.
If that's the case, that's too much trouble for people, for Linux to be mainstream use.
Linux needs drivers to products that are fully equivalent in functionality to the same Windows/Mac drivers.
3. Licensing
Microsoft needs to stiffen the licensing and security of it's OS and apps.
Until people cannot 'borrow' a WinXP cdrom from a friend, or from the office, and install it on a computer at home/at a friends/neighbor/parents place, Linux will never become as popular as Windows. Why would people bother? It's free. Unethical, yes. But it didn't cost them anything. Same thing w/ the Office cd's and photoshop et all.
Of all the people that I work with, that I know of, I am the only person who's actually *bought* Photoshop. (yes, the company bought many many licenses) But I know for a fact that they've all got it installed on their pc's at home. (and yes, the argument can be made here that since everyone's using it, when PS 10 comes out everyone will clamor for it, the office buys more upgrade licenses, everyone's using the app, and more sales are just about guaranteed for perpetuity, but that's another topic).
When the day comes, if ever, that people just can't copy or borrow-to-install, you'll see many many people asking to borrow a linux cd set to try it out. It's all about money, and most people only spend it on hardware. To a lesser extent some software ($30 for an antivirus), never a large costly app like MSOffice. And nearly *never* on an operating system.
http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal
"Either you are a spoiled rich brat with money to burn or you have been brainwashed to believe that such short forced upgrade cycles are supposed to be the norm."
Neither of the above. But I have worked with NT and 2000 enough to know that NT is a pile of crap, and that Windows 2000 is so much better only a madman should still be running it. While it is not cheap or easy, Active Directory really does have enough advantages to make it worth upgrading from Windows NT. As for your 7-10 year lifecycle, are you smoking crack? Those numbers might sound nice in MBA classes, but would you really want to run an enterprise using 7-10 year old technology?