Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the Desktop
webmaven writes "Mitch Kapor's Open Source Application Foundation just released a 34 page report on the Desktop Linux market, written by Bart Decrem, who has discussed desktop Linux previously. The OSAF is working on Chandler, which the press have generally described as an 'Outlook Killer', but it's really intended to be in a completely new application category, more similar to Lotus Agenda in some ways than what currently consider a PIM (email + contacts + appointments). The report goes into some detail about the current state of desktop Linux, trends, and various limiting factors, and concludes that while a revolution is not immediately in the wings, a trend can definitely already be discerned, and they expect adoption of desktop Linux to increase over the next few years, and identifies leverage points to accelerate the process."
Look at workalike apps that run on Windows. They can't even make it. You expect users to adopt a new OS *AND* utilities? Get real.
...a question which sounds like "flamebait", but it seriously isnt.
Are there any real objective 3rd parties who investigate and report on the different aspects of linux ( ie TOC, benchmarks, etc ) who truly are impartial to either OS. It seems that anybody writing 'reports' are either slanted towards windows, or linux. I dont think i've ever read a report that says "well, linux sucks at x, and windows sucks at y as well. in summary, they both suck ( or they both rock, or whatever, etc. ) . "
Where does one find unbiased reviews and benchmarks of OS's ?
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
I don't know, I find the latest versions of KDE and Gnome to be quite nice to use, and very pleasing to the eye. Granted, their actual functionality is very close to that of Windows, but as a standard desktop environment is concerned, KDE/Gnome are pretty nice. Of course, if you're talking about revolutionizing the Windows, Icons, Mouse, and Pointer model of desktop use, that's another story. I'm all for using a gesture-based system like in Minority Report, myself...
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
Really my main beef with linux is how hard it is to set the thing up when you haven't gone through the process in the last six months. I generally forget what the config file is named that I'm interested in, or where it happens to be located. Frankly, any setting that most users will have to change at some point in their life should be easily accessible through the GUI menu system.
I will admit that it is a heck of a lot better than it used to be, but I still have to do a bit of googling to get my linux system usable. Windows on the other hand, you can go to the control panel and what you want to change will likely be in there somewhere, unless it's application specific, and you don't have to read any manuals or docs to figure out how to configure your system - it's intuitive.
You can still choose to install the Office Assistants, but you've always been able to choose not to install them. I've never had to deal with Clippy, from Office 97 through Office XP. Of course, most people prefer to just bitch and moan rather than do something about the problem, so it's not surprising that people are still complaining about Office Assistants.
If people are already using Linux on the desktop, they don't need to read a report about Linux on the desktop, do they?
...)
(not to mention that every "desktop" distro in the past two or three years has come with a pdf viewer by default
The requested URL
It would be nice, however, if someone would put out a goddamn program that isn't called 'kApp', 'kBrowser' or 'kCoolgame'.
Cuteness has its place, but it's a real pain finding the right app most of the time.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
No - we need an OS/windowing system that forces coders to make things usable automatically. Command line and graphical launch should be the same thing from a developer standpoint - instead of having to pop-over to the command line, the user should be able to pop-open a constext menu for the run-parameters of a program, and see limited options, not just an ambiguous text-passing system. It should be more convenient to write a configuration system through a graphical widget window then through a text editor. Basically, I think code should move away from the simple text config file, and more into a database-style concept of a header that defines widgets. So, the configuration simply becomes an onscreen list of widgets - with no text file to get confused by. Sure, if the coder leaves out the doctext then this thing is confusing - but at least widgets will give you a vague idea what the control does.
The problem is that all major OS's are gradually evolutionary growths from the 80's. None are actually "designed".
You actually detail some of Linux's problems quite well. Let's see:
/dev/null. Until then continuing to use the same old crap will be cheaper in man hours and dollars. And as always management can almost always be convinced to keep using the same old thing if it worked well enough that they didn't get blamed.
"I don't run Windows anymore unless I want to play Carmageddon II at home". I don't recall ever walking into Wal-Mart and buying a Linux game. Consumers want to be told what to buy. Such as: Get Armagetron here! 3D! Multiplayer! New, new, new! (No, really check it out). Windows has better games because Windows games have better advertising because Windows has a bigger market share. It'll be a long time until you hear some ten-year-old say, "I had to install Linux so I could play Doom 6.66. It just isn't the same on Windows."
"at work I only get into Windows if I need to use the custom workorder system that ties into Novell and MS Access." Legacy software, hardware, and geeks will eventually fade into
"We need to start new-to-computers people with non-MS operating systems." Great idea. But have you ever looked at the books or web sites these people try to learn from? You know the ones where there is a chapter on the mouse complete with blow-by-blow steps for double clicking? Try finding something like that for any distro. Your standard Linux distro has hundreds of powerful, Ghz using, bandwidth blasting apps that new-to-computers" people can live their entire lives without using. The community is great as long as you know that hard drive storage is different than system memory. If your knowledge isn't that advanced (like 90% of users) you'll be lucky to get any help at all.
With all the incredible advances the community has contributed to Linux sometimes Windows is still necessary.
Counter point away...
I've been using Wintel for over 15 years and have just recently installed Red Hat 9 on an older K6-2 550. Here are a couple of points I think are worth mentioning (ubergeeks can exclude themselves from the classifications below):
1. Linux is ready for *some* desktops only, namely ones where users won't be constantly tweaking and installing new software and hardware. You want a computer for grandma to browse the web, send email and view a few grandkid photos? Linux is great! You want to roll out corporate desktops where employees don't really need to be able to download and install the latest version of KaZaA? Linux is a godsend (provided the business software you need is supported).
2. Linux is *not* ready for the average user desktop. The average user wants to do everything grandma wants to do, but they also want to be able to install or upgrade software and hardware *easily*. In addition, they want a fully functional GUI, with no *necessity* of dropping to a CLI for everyday tasks. They want to be able to go to a third party software/driver website, follow the 'click here for Linux version' hyperlink, download the file, then double-click to install it.
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments. I just think you can't have your cake (freedom/diversity) and eat it too (Linux on average desktop).
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
I tend to agree with him. Starting everything with a k or a g is annoying as hell. Everytime I used to boot up the 'konqueror', I started thinking about how much I hate the Mortal 'Kombat' where you use 'Koins' to unlock 'Koffins' in the 'Krypt'. IT'S FUCKING ANNOYING TO HAVE EVERY PROGRAM START WITH THE SAME LETTER. The g's in gnome are still annoying, but as much to me because i dont get reminded of the whole 'kombat' thing. I mean, say what you will about microsoft, at least it isn't Microsoft mOffice that comes with mExcel and mOutlook and mWord. That's why I use enlightenment, no omnipresent prefixes there, no-siree. Now let me go fire up ETerm..... Oh dear god no, what have they done???? And in the new version, E17, they have about ten more built in apps on the way that all begin with E. Jesus christ it felt good to get that rant out though....
"they expect adoption of desktop Linux to increase over the next few years"
That's what they said a few years ago. And that's probably what they'll be saying a few years from now. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux. But it's just not for mom and pop and I doubt it ever will be given who is working on it and what they've been doing.
You've nailed it here. It's not that Linux can't compete with Windows in areas like ease of use and prettiness. It's that the people doing the grunt work on the OS don't care (or at least haven't cared until recently) about those things. This has been a real problem.
Fortunately (for me, if nobody else), I am a bit more optimistic than you are. Even 3 years ago I would have never even considered running Linux on my home machine - I would have literally laughed if you'd suggested it. Not because I thought Linux was a bad OS, but because I saw it as kludgy, crotchety, cranky, geeky, difficult to use, difficult to look at, impossible to set up, and a bear to run. Today, I am running that same Linux on two PC's in my home and I am looking forward to the day that I can ditch Windows completely.
Linux has come a long way in the past few years in the desktop area. Yes, I still had to buy my Linux for Dummies to get everything working right, and I've read more than my share of how-to's, usenet postings and other helpful articles around the net to get me out of jams. This is very different from Windows XP, which more or less works right and looks nice out of the box for 99% of people, with no configuration whatsoever. But it's at least at the point now that I can do it, which, as someone with very little technical knowledge (software-wise) and an attention span of a gnat, is a major milestone to me. It will only continue to get better, especially now that the focus is clearly shifting to desktop users (the server stuff seems pretty well in hand).
Install apt-get (which is an application whose importance I don't think has been fully realized yet) and Linux is nearly as easy to use as Windows. In fact, with apt-get in some ways it's easier - download and setup wrapped into one, no worries about missing dependencies, and if you want an app you just pick it from the list (in Synaptic, if you have it installed) and apt-get goes out and gets everything you need. apt-get with the Synaptic graphical interface really needs to be installed and configured by default in every Linux distro. This is the kind of thing desktop users need and expect, and it's the kind of thing Linux developers are finally picking up on.
Aesthetically, I think you pick your poison, really, and at this point it's up to the distro makers how aesthetically pleasing they can/want to make their interface. Red Hat, I think, is doing a really good job of it - everything in RH9 looks consistent and professional, at least to the level of Windows 2000. No, it's not at the eye candy level of XP or the insane Mac OSX (which I honestly find distracting after an hour or so of use - it's too much), but it's fine, and it's not far behind. Other distro makers are making a go of it, but I haven't seen anyone else really integrate the look as well as Red Hat yet. They will all get there eventually, though.
I'm not worried, and in fact I'm confident that with all this attention now being paid to desktop Linux, it'll catch up fast. The developers just need to give desktop ease of use and interface issues some attention, and they are.
What Linux does need is more professional graphic designers and interface designers donating their time - development is still dominated by programmers and programmers alone are not going to build a desktop OS to truly compete with Windows. Real attention is going to need to be paid to integrating the interface both functionally and visually, and it's going to need to be paid by those that know what they're doing in those areas. But we're getting there... KDE and Gnome have both come a long way recently along with Linux itself, and hairy but important issues like font rendering are in the process of being worked out as well. All of these are things that need to be done to attract desktop users, and they are now finally getting done.