Slashdot Mirror
Advocates Join to Promote Desktop Linux
phatvibez writes "Cnet is running a story that says 'Several companies have joined to launch a consortium to promote Linux for desktop computers, a significant expansion for an operating system that today fits more comfortably on servers.' This is great news, I hope they actually do something and we see some great stuff come from this!" Another submission on this note: TweetZilla writes "According to ExtremeTech, Suse is taking a play from Xandros. Crossover Office and Plugin are now bundled into Suse's desktop to provide Windows and Office compatibility." Update: 02/04 18:18 GMT by T : Here's a link to the consortium's web site.
I know that there are supposed to be some out there, but I haven't found any that really work at this point. Example: The Evolution connector "cheats", it reads and processes OWA pages.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Here's something interesting from the article:
" SuSE and Red Hat are aiming Linux for developers and for employees using computers for limited functions, such as entering information onto a back-end system or fielding calls from customers placing orders by phone calls."
Even if an employee's job description shows limited computer use, employees also use computers for Internet browsing on breaks, checking their email, reading company memos in the company's standardized file format (likely Office), stock trading in off-time, pr0n, whatever.
In order to be successful, the group will hopefully make it clear that an OSS desktop can do whatever their MS desktop can do (and more), and cite examples from an overall workday of how something done in Windows is done in Linux.
This is all well and good and I'm excited about it, it's a step in the right direction. The only thing that I could add would be to bring in the hardware manufacturers, Hardwares like Digital Camera, Printer, Webcam, etc.
An avarage user would like to have that installation CD comes with the digikam that they just purchased. they are not savy enough to download 20 different tarballs and rpms to get it going.
For this to really work, they should get some computer manufactors behind it.
If this consortium developes a friendly version of Linux aimed at desktop users and are successful at promoting it, they consumer would still have to install it on their system and in some cases configure hardware and whatnot.
If they were to work with Dell, or HP/Compaq were they would be able to ship "Restore" and "Recover" CD's with the machines, when something goes wrong, the user would simply be able to boot off the CD and restore the computer into the state it was when it was brought home. The operating system would be installed, all the hardware would be configured.
Assuming anyone wants something to actually HAPPEN, how about a consortium to promote third party developers to port their applications to Linux?
Want a sign that Linux is really moving to the desktop? The sign will be when the major application developers (Quicken, Symantec, etc) care about porting their applications there.
How about this consortium produce a high quality porting kit for Windows applications, with high quality documentation?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Please, somebody explain my error:
SuSE with Crossover Office: $129
Xandros: $99
Windows XP Home Edition: $99
I forgot... what's the point again? Why can't I install Windows XP and have 100% Windows compatibility, then install Cygwin-KDE for 100% linux compatibility?
I think it's great that Windows apps are running better and better on linux, but they run even better on Windows. I like linux and I like its software, but if you have to pay the same amount either way, I'd hardly call a $99 linux distro a reason to switch to linux.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I'm not a big fan of it. I don't think it's even close to a desktop replacement OS.
:) But they are hardly a user-friendly desktop distro. They cater unabashedly to the Linux power user.
I like the portage system and the fact that all the apps are compiled optimized for your system. You don't have to worry about dependancies since the scripts take care of it for you.
I don't like the fact that I typed "emerge kde" and 48 hours later , and after seeing numerous "cannot create file due to a permission error" messages fly by, it still hadn't "emerged". Granted it was compiling on an old Celeron-333, but it had 524MB of RAM to do with as it will. That was just for KDE, I had spent 2 days installing and configuing the system just to get fluxbox to come up.
I couldn't even get fluxbox to configure itself for any user other than root, had to go edit all the config files manually and the menu generator didn't work at all.
Compare this to most peoples experiences installing Mandrake, SuSE, and Red Hat (usually about an hour to 2 hours) and I think you can see why Gentoo isn't on the list.
I certainly don't want to run Gentoo down, they're just down I-25 from me.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
This is my third time trying linux, on Redhat 8. I'm microsoft free, and finding it somewhat difficult to stay here. The main reason is taht I'm a little afraid to ask. Any time a 'newbie' asks for help, it's assumed that they're not worthy of the knowledge or something. I'm not sure of the mentallity of it, but it really makes it difficult.
The lack of software really doesn't bother me that much. all i did on windows is Battlefield 1942 and the webdesign stuffs. Now i use JEdit for java, text editing webpages, and Gimp for graphics. The only thing i'm missing is Battlefield.
The reason I always came back to windows in the past was out of laziness. First of all, it's really a steep learning curve, unless all you want to do is email and browse teh internet. Stuff like changing my resolultion, fixing my soundcard, and figuring out the file system held me back before.
Anyway, thats just my story. I'm sure there's a lot more people who try to switch, and for one reason or another just find it easier to give in and put windows back on. If there was more of a willingness to help newbies understand the basics without making them feel like morons, I beleive there'd be a lot more perminent switchers to linux.
Actually, I suspect that the reason Red Hat aren't part of it is that they don't really care that much about Linux on the desktop. They're on a fair number of desktops, of course, because they have the best-known distro, but they're basically a server software company. They probably figure that their core business is doing fine, why try to to expand into other areas? Let the others take the risks.
Whether or not this is a sound strategy, only time will tell.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I seriously hope I can word this not to sound "elitist", but IMHO running Windows applications on Linux is not a good thing(tm). As Linux gets more dsesktop orientated, momentum has been building to reduce two "shortcomings" of Linux: 1) Simple application installation (RPMs, apt-get, +++) 2) More applications I personally am amazed how complete the Linux desktop has gotten. So why is there a need to complicate things for the user again? If a user learns the software installation process for his Linux distro, I don't think it would be a good idea to mix windows application installation into this. Get OpenOffice instead of CrossOverOffice, use Gimp, try Kino. There are great Linux applications out there. Windows applications run very well on windows. I do understand the argument of "In order to get Joe to use Linux he will need to be able to run App X". But instead I would like for Joe to wait until Linux app Y is able to do what App X can do on windows. And IMHO we developers should focus on app Y and not trying so hard to get app X to run on Linux. The better and faster we cann achieve this, the more users will be able to accept Linux as a true alternative OS. Cheers, Andre
Several Linux vendors band together to make a consortium to make Linux viable on the desktop strikes me as having limited added value. Though it may result in greater standardization, reduced duplication of effort, and improvements in UI, it's still companies that deal exclusively in Linux.
What would impress me, and truthfully, what I think would make a difference, would be for other vendors to join this consortium. Without application, game, and hardware vendors onboard, it is simply trying to sell some "fringe" applications ("fringe" being used for lack of a better word). Without it, it just seems quite incestuous.
Linux on the desktop is NOT the issue since Linux is a Kernel not an OS; and certainly it is not a a GUI. The window manager, applications and device detection/drivers are the issues desktop users care about.
Linux is not seen by the end user (at least not many end uses I know do programming that interfaces with the kernel of their OS). They don't give a rats bottom about VM handling techniques, or guaranteed time to handle a device interrupt, or how many fromitz boards are installed in their consoles. What they want is to plug in their USB printer and have it configured automatically. They want their scanner to work simply. They want to email their spreadsheets with a single click or three. And they want that at a reasonable price.
What will get OSS software based systems (Be they Linux, BSD, GNU or any other OSS based system) will be ready availability of application software that will behave like the stuff they use now, and be available on store shelves WITH SUPPORT and complete documentation at a reasonable price (free is good). Most consumers like tangible things. They like a box for their software and they like to have a paper book to look at. It gives them something to hold on to and feel like they've spent money on something.
Developers and distro makers sitting around arguing about how to get a specific kernel adopted in companies is a waste of time. They need to strategise about how to market the rest of the system that end users actually care about, and they have little control over those other projects.
Think about this... if Linus T. had internal access to all of MicroSoft's code, and could re-write, extend and generally replace the WinXP kernel with Linux, would it be a victory? The answer is: No... Everyone is still locked in to MS software applications. The kernel is not the issue.
And if you don't believe it, look at Macintosh. They went from a proprietary kernel to BSD/Mach, the end user doesn't care in the end. They just want Word, Excel, Photoshop, et al to run as expected. During the transition there were some arguments about moving toBSD vs Linux or GNU or Be, but the longer, hotter discussions were always over "When will application ____ be ported?". The ___ was initially Photoshop, then we went down the list to Quark, Freehand, Pagemaker, etc. There were even more topics about how X looked, and how easy it was to work with. In most articles, mention of the kernel was a brief comment like "BSD/Unix based".
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Think about the way linux has grown as a server. From very specialized applications (five years or so ago: "did you hear XX company runs Linux as a print server??? wow!") to more and more general applications.
Right now Linux on the desktop is great for some fairly specialized folks. On one side, if you are an engineer/scientist who has always run a Unix workstation (hey, my "wordprocessor" has always been LaTex edited by Xemacs), then desktop Linux has been great for years. On the other end, if you want a locked-down machine that only browses and checks for e-mail, Linux is currently great.
The trick is to broaden the appeal of desktop Linux out in incremental steps. Get the administrative assistants at the engineering firm running Star Office on Linux and get rid of windows at an otherwise Unix shop. Some departments need only browser, e-mail and an decent Excel clone. Done. Some departments need to set up meetings on a firm-level Exchange server. Not 100% done yet, but already good enough for some and as it gets better a few more will switch.
The point is, think incrementally, think about heterogenous users and don't fall into the all or nothing trap. If Linus had listened to "it isn't ready until it runs on 64 processor machines", he never would have started.
I'm currently dual-booting between WinXP and Slackware on my desktop at home.. My only issue with Linux as a desktop os is the lack of native commercial (game) software out there. Loki games has pushed to get more stuff over to Linux, but.. they went out of business because of the lack of profit from porting these games over. What we need to see is more of a push from the major software developers out there, (Just like ID software who ported the quake series over) so that we can get more of the windows desktop users over.
I've installed RH8 on my mom's computer (she's completely dunce with computers), and the interface has been so easy for her to use that she just kinda picked up everything on her own. (Not only that, but I can support her via ssh'ing into her machine) Is it hard to use? I guess if you're used to other OS's it's a little counter-intuitive, or if you are wanting to get into the advanced (or command line) portion of linux it's a little bit more difficult, but for the most part the robustness of window managers for X has made linux into a pretty good desktop OS for newbies.
As far as issues with support goes.. (on irc..etc..) do research before you ask questions. A lot of people who are spatting out answers to you lose patience when people demand an answer out of them. It's not their job to support you, so show gratitude. Google things up and learn how to search for things on groups.google.com A ton of issues people run into have been answered time and time again on email.
Newho.. that's just my $1.289
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.