Slashdot Mirror
IBM and Its Thoughts on Desktop Linux
Knuckles writes: "According to c|net, IBM will give desktop Linux a thumbs up at the Desktop Linux Conference in Boston on Monday. Sam Docknevich of IBM's Global Services group will give a speech titled, "The Time is Now for Linux on the Desktop." It seems that IBM will not go for the multi-purpose desktop, though, but for machines performing narrowly defined functions (kiosks etc.). However, basic office workstation seem to be included in this definition, according to C|Net" And in a classic case of the right-hand not knowing what the left-hand is doing, Realistic_Dragon adds: "IBM was leading the words of Red Hat's CEO in comments to the UK government last year saying that '...open source was not ready for the desktop'.
There's an opportunity for desktop Linux in "running a fixed-function machine like a kiosk or ATM, a transactional workstation like a bank teller's station, or a basic office workstation that runs applications that drive business processes," the IBM agenda information said.
Bravo! Use it in places that you want to be able to lock down. I'm so tired of people trying to lock down windows boxes! Sure anybody can install anything on a win box... that's why it's bad for public access.
Our hospital records program runs on the web. Linux and any ole browser would save our computer guys tons of time.
Oh, well... Good luck.
As much as I love the "go Linux rah rah rah!" mantra, why not just go to asking "What's the best tool for the job?" For the computer-illiterate home user, Windows is fine (I'd advocate a Mac, but maybe the user LIKES having a zillion games and utilities and viruses available for download). For the corporate desktop where things should be locked down, Linux with OpenOffice may be a good bet at a good price.
If you're a power user, Windows is definitely out, Linux is a good bet, OS X is a good alternative. It seems to me whatever your personality is, one of the options will be your natural best fit.
And isn't it kinda nice that things work out that way?
Murray Todd Williams
So what, IBM said linux wasn't ready for the desktop - last year. That was a year ago! Linux has made quite a few strides on the desktop since then - and MS has dug themselves even deeper into their grave since then, as well. The time is now for linux on the desktop, if there is to be a time. There needs to be positive motion or someone else (Apple) will step in to try and take that market.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
We neither like nor hate IBM, we simply praise them for their support of Linux and other good things that they do and critique their patents of items that already exist and other stupid shit they tend to do.
Zealots like and hate things blindly. Zealots usually turn a blind eye to the flaws of what they support. Don't be a zealot.
The Slashdot community is far more intelligent than this.
Place something witty here
Unless you're a total Linux zealot, you'd see that it's not ready for the business desktop. If it can't inter-op with other Windows desktops with ease (and don't go on about open office, evolution, etc...they're buggy and not proven at all), then it's not ready.
As for the home user, it's definitely not ready. Mom and pop can't go to walmart and buy games for their kids, greeting card software or proven money management software and run it on Linux.
It's frustrating to see this story posted tonight -- there's no reason why this story couldn't have waited until the speech was delivered.
IBM's prefered Linux is Redhat. Being that Redhat is discontinuing their "free" versions of Redhat, how does this make Linux a contender in a cheaper solution? RedHat linux is expensive. I can't believe how much redhat charges for something that is supposed to be 'free'. Can anyone justify Redhat charging for something they're not able to legally charge for?
Our hospital is also an all-MS shop (this is dictated by the national company that owns our hospital)... I know most of the IT guys and they would LOVE to be able to use some linux, particularly in the server room. Alas, policy is policy.
I don't think linux is bad on the desktop... heck, I use it for my desktop about 50% of the time. For what you're talking about (simple web-based apps), linux is just as good a client platform as MS, and probably better, if only for the security concerns you already mentioned.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I think there have been two things keeping Linux from taking the desktop by storm.
The first, and possibly most important, has been the lack of anything like MS Outlook for the Linux platform. Security flaws aside, it's a great way to keep everything organized - from e-mail, to scheduling, to notes, to tasks, etc. I looked at Ximian Evolution, but it doesn't allow public folders. A lot of our customers love those public folders - particularly for scheduling things. That's one of the grievances some of our customers have with Groupwise, too.
Now, though, I see Kontact/Kolab ramping up as an integrated groupware solution that will be distributed with KDE, already one of the two most popular desktops for X. Once this starts being adopted as a groupware solution by companies, IMO, corporate desktops are going to see a lot more Linux. I also think it will propel KDE ahead of Gnome (because Evolution, again, IMO, doesn't stack up to Kontact).
The other thing, and I haven't looked closely for it, so it may already exist, but that's an easy development tool for X. Visual Basic-style. Make something easy for your run-of-the-mill Joe to code halfway useful applications in, make it integrate well with an Office suite (preferably KOffice, since Kontact will work well with it), and make it free and open-source. Better yet, provide easy ways of migrating legacy VB/VBA code to it. Wham bam thank you ma'am, Linux on the desktop.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
You can't hate IBM for telling the truth - lets face it, Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. I handed my father a computer with Linux/KDE/openoffice installed and told him to do some simple business related things. He's a smart guy and yet simple things like checking his email, opening attachments, things like that - just didn't work properly. Until these things work seemlessly on Linux like they do under windows, people like him will put up with security holes to have a working system.
Let's face it, the vast majority of people are not techno-philes, and don't need/want to deal with vagaries like the command line. Simple things like product installation and uninstallation are almost impossible to do easily in Linux.
Cemil.
This is pretty much and open declaration of War: MS have declared an interest in the Big Iron market (IBMs home turf) and IBM are declaring support for Linux on desktop.
The gloves are off, SCO are irrelevant (OK, even more irrelevant) and even Novell and Red Hat will be only minor players in what is about to come forward.
Anyone noticed the strong ad campaigns for Windows server on TV recently?
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
IBM backing Linux on the desktop, at the same time providing processors for Apple's OS. Playing it safe by supporting both sides. They are doing the same thing right now, producing PPC chips and selling Intel based hardware at the same time.
At present you have KDE and GNOME which set about to rule the entire desktop in 2 entirely different ways. Each of them employs an application toolbox that is so handy and candylike that developers are hooked on one or the other. We have several different sound packages, each mutually exclusive. Printing is a pick and choose proposition. Scripting is a pain because it seems that everyone has a favorite language the requires its own interpreter.
If we put aside our holy wars and worked towards one system we would be better off.
We need a Desktop Czar in the same vein as Linus is to the Kernel. Someone to assemble the application side of OS. One shell. One scripting language (preferably the same interpreter AS the shell). One compile and build system. One package management system. One file layout. One printing system. Some one needs to stick their neck out and say "This is how it is will be done."
And if we don't do it, Bill, IBM, or Novell WILL.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
"Desktop GNU/Linux", that is, Home User not Kiosk mono-function uber-toaster (like a kiosk), will not be viable until all of the following conditions have been met:
- The user can add a new PCI card and install a driver for it
- The user can insert a hotplug device (USB or Firewire or even Bluetooh) and get a fixed, known location in the file system for it, the same one every time
- The user can click on any audio file and it will "just play"
- The user can click on any video file and it will "just play"
- The user can drop a CD into the CDROM drive and play it or rip it
- The user can drop a DVD into the DVD drive and it plays, including the horrible and ungodly menu
- The user can drop a CDR into the CDROM drive and burn a random selection of files to it, with long file names on by default
- The user can hook up a TV Tuner card and be able to play video from a cable box / antenna or a VCR.
And all of the above must be possible WITHOUT the user EVER seeing a command line, and without ever hearing or reading the word "compile."
Some of those are already available with the right distributions, and nearly all are possible in some way or another, but they require violating the two cardinal rules of the Home User: "I can't type" and "compiling is something only developers do". Fixing some of the above issues requires alterations to the kernel itself. Others just require improvements in user-side software, others are an issue of driver distribution and open vs. closed source driver availability.
Whatever, the origin of the problem doesn't matter. The why is not at question. But all of the above MUST be taken care of before GNU/Linux can be considered "ready" for Joe Home Desktop User. Until then, we're just spinning our wheels.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
The list goes on from there. A base model 17" eMac, which is perfectly suited to the average productivity worker, is only $799. Bump the RAM up to 256MB for a few dollars more and you're done, it will all work right out of the box.
Compared to the pain of getting a Linux system up and running and then supporting it, going Apple seems like a no-brainer in enterprise IT environments.
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
What is this Bullshit? Why is IBM, Redhat, and every other company going out of their way to make the statement "Linux is not ready for the desktop" Tell us something we all dont already know stupid, of course we know Linux is not ready for the desktop IBM, what is your plan IBM to make Linux ready? This sounds like some bullshit Microsoft would say but why is Linux going out of their way to say this? I'll explain. Its not that Linux is not ready for the desktop, its that IBM is not ready for Linux on the desktop, Redhat is not ready for Linux on the desktop, Suse/Novell is not ready for Linux on the desktop. However we have alot of companies who are, we have Lindows, Mandrake, Xandros, Lycoris all ready for Linux on the desktop, all working to further the cause. IBM does not want these companies to do that because IBM's companies arent ready, if Redhat or Novell suddenly had a desktop product suddenly all these 3 companies would be saying "Linux is ready for the Desktop.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
"For the computer-illiterate home user, Windows is fine"
No, they're the worst ones to have it. They are the ones whose box gets taken over and use to spread worms, and DoS attacks.
There is no reason for the average home user to not use Linux, except that they need to do their work at home. Which is how Microsoft became so wide spread in the first place.
OSX is too expensive. you can put linux on existing Windows box, for OSX you have to upgrade the entire system.
I wonder, how many programs can run on a mac that are over ten years old?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have to admit, he does have a point on font sizes. At least they're not too hard to fix... As for jagged fonts? Hmm. Mine had anti-aliasing turned on by default. I have a Dell Inspiron 1100, and SuSE 8.2 works, but it was a bit hard tweaking everything to be usable, and I'm STILL trying on the Linkshits WiFi card... Looks like I'm going to have to compile a new kernel just to use it (although power management wasn't installed in this kernel, either...) - maybe 2.6.0-test9?
Also, did you think that maybe you were lucky with laptops? The keys to getting things to work right on laptops seems to be: Pick the right laptop (mine was picked for me, or I would have chosen an IBM), pick the right WiFi card (again, picked for me - maybe an orinoco here?), pick the right distro (I got to choose, and I dualboot with Win2K anyway).
It is, if you expect him/her to stay that way. Of course that couldn't be good for the advance of civilization :)
Something that I learned when I was selling computers, PCs and Macs is that most people don't care to learn about what is going on inside of their machines.
They're more concerned with the football game, or with Jr's parent teacher conference. No matter how much you and I wish it was different, you just can't make Joe Sixpack care about technology issues.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Home users use Windows because everyone else uses Windows. There are other reasons, but we all know this is the main one.
Maybe having your dad start with Pine was a bad idea. Must have been, because neither Mozilla Mail or Sylpheed have ever posed a problem saving attachments. Or was your dad unfamiliar with the new desktop software you presented him and he stumbled because it wasn't Outlook? All software requires a period of acclimation. He'd have the same troubles with OS-X.
What do all you people have against X? X rocks: it has network transparency, widget-independence, and has proven incredibly efficient and flexible. I will never give up X, until something with a strict superset of features appears. You can go with a crippled OS X or Windows-like GUI, but I will stay with X.
[ home ]
-
For the corporate desktop where things should be locked down, Linux with OpenOffice may be a good bet at a good price.
More than just a good bet, a great one. One of the major problems with windows machines as corporate desktops (and computer labs in education) is that it's damn near impossible to lock them down enough to prevent users from modifying them (as least knowledgable users), while keeping them useable! When you just want your desktop users to be able to do E-mail, documents, etc. that are business related, it's much much easier to do with Linux and Open Office. It's also easier to administer, since you don't have to physically go to the machine to work on it. I think businesses are starting to see this, and that it'll save money by lowering IT support costs, raising user productivity (since the machines will be up and functional more often), and costing less on the front end to setup (the software's cheaper). Not to mention a desktop can probably last more than three years since Linux makes much better use of resouces than any Windows OS does.Wrong!
Linux is not ready for the desktop? Please, give us a break. I do generic ISP helpdesk support for both dialup and adsl and Microsoft is the one not ready for the Desktop. To us geeks, Microsoft products are simple to use, but I spend a good deal of my time showing people how to use their software. And the other half of the time their software just doesnt work. The Internet Explorer and Outlook Express suite is sickenly buggy right up to the most recent releases, sick I tell you.
And as far as Linux is concerned, yes, it is ready for the desktop. I have a Debian variant(Libranet) installed on various family members computers and they have no problem whatsoever. They can surf, send mail, print, play their favourite games, burn cds' you name it. Sure, there was a learning curve, but now they are beter off for it.
Linux is very much ready for the desktop. Once more people start realizing this, the better off we all will be.
And as far as Linux not being easy to set up, well thats a load of shit. Many distros are very basic out of the box. And besides, it's not the responsibilty of Joe sixpack to be able to set his box up from scratch. Thats the responsibilty of his computer vendor. Most people couldn't set up or administer a Windows box, OR Linux.
The average user just wants a machine that works once they recieve it. Linux can meet that need. And I see it daily with Debian/Libranet.
So, when's Microsoft releasing Office for Linux?
Can't point the blame at the operating system for not having particular software available for it. Point it at the producers of the non-ported software.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
This "we need one unified desktop" argument always puzzles me. It is impossible.
"Get rid of all the little windows managers..." It's impossible.
"Get rid of all the different text editors." It's impossible.
"Get rid of all the different shells." It's impossible.
GNU/Linux is about choice. Because it is about choice, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of the choices. No one person owns all of this. No one person can ban any of this. It's like saying, "let's just get all people to agree on one idea and one path for the future." It doesn't work; it is impossible.
This is because it is not compatible with the fundamental rule that people can make choices in their lives. The Free Software World works by the same priciple. That is why it's impossible.
So let's start working with what we CAN do.
People are not stupid. They do not need everything to look precisely the same to figure it out. They figured XP out even though it was blue and the control panel had a different layout.
Look at http://www.freedesktop.org. THAT is a good idea. Have the distributions put some pressure on the desktop systems to conform more fully to that. Put some pressure on them yourself.
The people who have some authority in other areas, like printer configuration and on the available printing systems, should make similar guidelines. We should then support those guidelines.
And these guidelines can be collaboratively developed, as freedesktop's are.
Distributed systems can be as effective as controled ones -- they just run under different rules. The key is collaboration and respect. If the developers feel they are being respected and that they have a say in how a standard is developed then a third party can develop a standard that all concerned parties can appreciate, respect, and follow. The fourth party, the community, can contribute by support such efforts at dialogue.
So let us think about what IS possible, rather than wish for something that is not. Option number two will not die, so let us find a new way of thinking so that it doesn't have to and that is is BETTER that it doesn't. Poison into medicine.
Tata.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
> "For the computer-illiterate home user, Windows is
...)
> fine"
> No, they're the worst ones to have it. They are
> the ones whose box gets taken over and use to
> spread worms, and DoS attacks.
Yes, yes, yes! Despite rumors to the contrary, there are plenty of people who use PCs at home, don't know a lot about them, and who don't have a requirement to play the latest and greatest games.
Their apps typically consist of:
- a Web browser
- email client, which may be a Web browser that they use for Web mail
- something to write documents with (could be MS Word, could be MS Works, could be Wordpad, could be Notepad,
- maybe a spreadsheet, if they're really advanced
If they're really high-tech, they might also have:
- something to download pictures from a digital camera
- a scanner to scan old pictures
- graphic software to manipulate pictures
A Linux distribution that had *just* these features would be ideal for this class of user. They don't download virus updates, or configure firewall software - a well-built Linux distribution would eliminate the need to do these things.
If this was on the market now, I'd get it and put it on my parents' two PCs as quickly as I could.
RE Mozilla: font sizes are not an "irrelevant" detail. I've found webpages on which the fonts are so bad the page is unreadable. While some of this problem surely comes from the fact that many pages are optimized for IE - the average Home user doesn't care about that - if they can't read the page, its broken, and if their friend running IE can read it, then mozilla sux. Thats just how non-techies treat these things.
OpenOffice is slow to start and often slows up inexplicably while in use. Don't even get me started on printing. Good god, setting up a printer can be hell at the best of times in Linux. Certainly for basic WP OpenOffice works, but so does notepad (or vim, emacs, whatever). For advanced features, Word (sorry to say) is usually better.
Unfortunately I come across as a MS zealot when I'm not trying to. I use Linux and WinXP depending on the task at hand. The fact is that Linux is very difficult to change. If I set up a box perfectly for a home user, then they can probably use it, as long as they don't want to change anything. On the other hand, if I hand someone a CD holder with XP, Office and a few other CDs in it, they'll figure out how to install, use and probably print. Good luck handing someone a RH9 CD and telling them to do all that. Of course Linux crashes less - no doubt. That is due to the kernel and better separation between OS and GUI/Programs, everyone agrees with that.
About uninstalling: Imagine a clean install of some Linux distro, say RH9. Then imagine installing a package requiring some 10-20 other packages thru dependencies. If you try to uninstall said package, why don't the dependencies uninstall (as long as nothing else depends on them)? This, at least, works on Windows and would be great on Linux. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me - I'd love to know how to do that properly.
Cemil.
This is like a proposal to take down all those ugly, messy websites, and recode them to comply with the most strict interpretations of the very latest W3C standards, and everybody will live happily ever after.
It's nonsense. Because the messiness and ugliness follows directly from the ease with which people can (try to) fill a niche. Take away the messiness and ugliness, and you take away half to three-quarters of the software. And with that all the vibrancy.
To get back to the World Wide Web analogy: if HTML had been more formal, there would be fewer junk. But there also wouldn't have been a Web as we know it. The Web as well as Linux have been successful because they are extremely open and free. Not because they provide "one way of doing things".
And if we don't do it, Bill, IBM, or Novell WILL.
So what? We're not in the same race as them. "We" don't have the same goals.
IBM has always pursued a LARGE number of patents, and has largely used them defensively. Until it uses a patent against a linux user, I'd let the jury stay out. Companies LOVE getting IP in patents, it gives them options. Then they can decide to use them or not.
IBM has poured an enormous amount of money into linux development, and this has already benefited all linux users.
On the desktop, there is no reason why not. Mac built a good desktop over Unix is just a few years - in linux most of the tools are already in place. A well packaged solution is not far away at all - it would just take a concerted effort to provide consistency to the users - this would mean far reaching attention to detail across all packaging for the linux solution.
And this is really what separates something like OS X from something like RedHat. OS X attempts to provide consistency and attention to detail across everything they package, RedHat and other linux distros just throw in the kitchen sink and leave it to the users to sort out the inconsistencies.
It won't take long.
Simple question:
Are they saying "home desktop" or "business desktop"?
The business desktop doesn't requires easy administration of new hardware or software -- the configuration is standardized and the software is imaged. Adding new software involves approval from the gods of IT, or it's unsupported or (worse) a major policy violation; software installs aren't something end users do.
The business desktop doesn't require support for little USB puppets that dance to music the user plays.
The business desktop doesn't need the latest 3D games to run out-of-the-box.
The business desktop needs to have a low cost-per-unit and be secure and easy to remotely administer.
Linux is very, very ready for the business desktop -- because the typical "it's not ready for the desktop" arguments just don't apply there. Not only that, but it's actively in use as a business desktop environment in a great many places, from Ernie Ball to the software development startup where I work to municipal governments and all the places where IBM and SuSE have been doing massive rollouts.
Do you think IBM sells to (or is talking to) home users? Of course not. When they say Linux is ready for the desktop, they mean the business desktop, and that's exactly where it is ready, now.
No troll here, I use Linux and love it, but for the average user, only in a business environment.
The issues are clear and have been the same for years, some of this issues might be cleared up in the future now that the two major desktops work together more than they did before.
a) Drivers, the whole Linux driver model is problematic, give it or take it, but a home user expects that he plugs in hardware and has the driver loaded or the driver installs itself from a CD.
b) Application interoperability. I don't talk about the Look and Feel here, but the Applications must work together, compound documents are a good idea and work, but not if you fire up two applications with two different compount document models and a third with a third one.
The Look and Feel is not that much of an issue as long as the applications don't behave as weird as Emacs.
c) Installation of new programs, this is a major issue, Debian has solved it more or less, but others don't.
A "kiosk" is an example of a desktop OS implementation? Sheesh, who knew?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.