Slashdot Mirror
OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux
Psyke writes "The Australian Financial Review is reporting that 'IBM, Red Hat and a consortium of computer makers backed by the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel will push to move the Linux operating system out of the back office from next year.' and 'Meanwhile, the OSDL, which has largely worked on improving Linux's ability to run large servers, said it would work on improving Linux's performance on ordinary desktop computers.'" The article itself is a little off- those companies are working *through* the OSDL of which they are members - along with a number of additional companies as well.
The only two problems with desktop linux that needs
to be overcomed are
Pre-installation on new PC by default on mainstream computers
Support by the mainstream computers' builders.
..until the product is ready.
Linux needs a lot of work before it is ready to be deployed at large in the home users market.
Blogzine
clifgriffin > blog
Strange I thought Redhat had just abandoned the desktop. If Redhat are going to push Linux out of the back office, where are they going to push it too?
Someone hasn't done their research
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
Anyone want to convince me that *THIS YEAR* things are different? Is this *REALLY* the year that "Desktop Linux" will emerge? Yeah, yeah, yeah, It's "improving" and all that Jazz, but it's the same song and dance every year, and I'll give you three guesses if it was right before.
It strikes me as very strange that Red Hat have made a company-wide move to concentrate on exterprise systems (relegating other stuff to the Fedora project) while at the same time joining a consortium to promote Linux on the desktop and move it away from being an enterprise-only product.
SCO / Microsoft sponsored conspiracies!!!
Oh wait. Wrong article.
You don't mean to tell me that Microsoft was only saying what was in their best interest, are you?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
if the whole world is against microsoft and pro-Linux then microsoft is doomed, hahaha go cry billy borg, your billions of dollars are not going to save you, instead of investing in R&D to produce a decent product to just invested in vendor lock-in and embrace & extend, now nobody likes you anymore, and the world is serously looking for an alternative to your M$-Kludgeware, go cry to yo mamma...
Especially when RedHat was one of the companies backing away from the desktop in favour of enterprise installations. In the coming chaotic times for the desktop, I expect that we'll see lots of mixed signals as companies change directions or move in multiple directions at the same time. (In the last chaotic times, look at Microsoft's sudden shift from OS/2 to Win 3.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Linux needs a tagline for its migration to the desktop. I vote for:
"Out of the back office and in through the front door."
This should be backed up by a marketing campaign whereby a bunch of men dressed as Linus come round to random offices, unplug the servers and wheel them into the reception, then disappear...
Is this the same Redhat that says people should use Windows(tm) on the desktop?
...when the number of Linux desktops reaches the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have no choice but to support linux with drivers, etc. If you'd asked me a year ago I would have told you that that day probably is a decent amount of time into the future. Now, I say we will most likely soon start seeing the signs on the horizon.
Often we hear people talk about how "linux isn't ready for desktop". Bah. Nonsense. I would rather say; Some people aren't ready for the linux desktop. It might not be as easy as Windows or OSX, but nothing really stops you from using linux instead of windows, except for specialized applications only available on that platform.
The only thing needed for success is a distro as easy to set up as Mandrake/Suse/Redhat, with the ease of upgrading of Gentoo or Debian. Maybe Fedora is the choosen one, tho I doubt it.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
Seeing Linux distros as an option pre-installed into major OEMs systems would be great. Desktop linux has all the tools that the average consumer needs (especially those buying from OEMs). Not to mention that consumers might be more willing to use linux if they didn't have to actually buy Windows first.
Other things like, I dunno being able to buy software off the shelf in Best Buy, taking it home and simply running some autorun or one-click installation process, regardless of which distribution of Linux you are using needs to happen...
Easier configuration, better transparency for applications and functions, a common clip-board and many more things...
Even corporate desktops need a more cohesive system to be able to install, then later update individual packages without needing to install a dozen other packages, requiring a dozen other packages to be installed, which require still more packages to be installed.
I have personally run into issues like that when wanting to update things like the version of Mr Project that came with Red Hat 7.3 to the latest release of Mr Project in order to take advantage of some new features. Since there was not a single Red Hat 7.3 Binary package made available, I downloaded the 'generic' RPM and found that I needed to install a dozen things to be able to install it. So... I downloaded the tarbal source and found the SAME problem.
I love Linux, but it just sucks that I am unable to take a piece of recent software and install on an OS that is NEWER then Windows 98SE without having to update dozens of other pieces of software, when I can still take that old Windows 98SE and run MOST every piece of software that has recently become available. That is one of the largest usability issues keeping Linux from taking desktops over very easily.
Not everyone wants to update their ENTIRE OS all of the time. Why should people take a handful of hours to most of a day every 6 months or so in order to migrate to the latest release of their chosen Operating System? They shouldn't have to do that. They should be able to install it and update the pieces they need to and then when and IF, they have the time, then they can upgrade to the latest release. There should also be no major issues with doing so...
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
IBM should release specs for a reference G5 motherboard that you can run linux on.
I can dream, can I not?
--
Red Hat: "Use Red Hat! It's the best Linux desktop, bar-none!"
Red Hat proceeds to remove itself from the desktop Linux market.
Red Hat: Forget what we said. Stick with Windows.
The OSDL, in cooperation with (among others) Red Hat, pushes to incorporate Linux into the desktop.
Red Hat's left hand: "RIGHT HAND? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"
What happened with IBM telling the UK gov that Linux wasnt ready for the desktop?
Also will the choose a certain linux distributing? Or just linux in general. Cause normal consumers would be able to choose for themselfs you know! They've going to have to have a list of suitable linux distros cause some of them are no wear near usable for newbies... And i assume thats what they are trying to do when they say they are pushing it for the desktop?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Maybe we'll finally get a reliable copy/paste. Year or two... what the heck. We can wait. Its not like Longhorn is any kind of competition, is it?!
this is all almost like a movie. all you need to do is replace those involved with some more exciting entity, and you got the next billion dollar blockbuster:
Sco: liken to sauron, but with no real power
torvalds: some kinda of wizard
red hat: that land of humand you are sure you can trust
bsd: the dwarves that can kick anyone's ass but are more content with chillin in the mountains
Ibm: the elves that youre pretty sure are on your side...
and so on
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
You are standing in front of a house. There is a sign in door. The sign reads "YHBT. YHL. HAND.".
You're saying that today you expect to see Linux on the desktop sooner than you thought a year ago? That doesn't really make any sense a few days following Redhat's little announcement. Of course, I believe that Betamax is going to make a comeback any day now. Now, if I just click my heels together three times...
"Red Hat, the leading supplier of Linux to business, also said it would produce major enhancements to its distribution of Linux, which would make it easier to use the operating system on corporate desktops."
Because i swear i read a couple of days ago that RedaHat will stop its RedHat Linux line, and stick with the RedHat Advanced server
The lunatic is in my head
Apple successfully brought Unix to the desktop with MacOS X. It's a very pleasing and easy-to-use GUI on top of unix.
It gives you the easy usability Joe Sixpack needs ("It just works."), yet still gives you access to a console (Terminal) and developer tools for technical people to do technical things with it.
If some group out there could slap on an OS X-like GUI on top of Linux that looks, runs, and plays as well as OS X does ontop of Unix (for non technical people and technical people alike), and have the OS be free, Windows would be done for.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
It is difficult and wasteful to try to market products at too large a market. So, "Linux for the Desktop" is probably an unattainable and moving goal.
:-). Value: 20%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.
This is how I see the real market segments for desktop computers, their percentage value, and how well Linux fits. I apologise in advance for doing zero research and just basing this on my experience of the field, but... hey... this is Slashdot, exactly the place for uninformed opinion.
Here goes.
1. "Small Office" use. Value: 20%. Requirements: edit/print documents, spreadsheets, graphics. Web. Email. Music. Linux: perfect. Windows: perfect.
2. "Medium Office" use. As above, but add support for exotic hardware such as notebooks, scanners, DVD burners, whatever. Value: 10%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.
3. "Large Office" use. As above, but add integration with enterprise information systems, currently done mainly through Exchange and Office macros
4. "Cybershop" use. Value 10%. Requirements: web, chat, email, office, VoIP, p2p, trivial (re)installation, efficiency on cheap, old systems. Linux: perfect. Windows: too expensive and complex.
5. "Game boy" use. Value 15%. Requirements: support for latest video, audio, and large software library. Linux: needs work. Windows: perfect.
6. "Serious home user". Value: 10%. Requirements: as for Small Office, but more solid, tighter on the budgets, slightly hackable, and with loads of free software. Linux: perfect. Windows: slightly too expensive, but otherwise perfect.
7. "Naive home user", Value: 15%. Requirements: as for cybershop, but with ability to plug in digital camera to download snaps of baby. Linux: perfect, with some limitations on range of exotic hardware. Windows: perfect, except for security.
Overall analysis: Linux can cover 60-70% of the market with nothing more than some good marketing.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
kid: Is that first fix for free as in "free beer", or "free speech"?
pusher: Huh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
From the article:
Historically, Linux has been more difficult to install and use than Windows.
Linux has been as easy to use as Windows for quite some time now. It is still, however, a b**** to install and maintain.
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
All it takes is some glue around the pieces. Granted it hasnt happened yet on all the dists but if a big push gets rolling towards the desktop i have no doubt that it is an easy task once in motion.
Many of us who now uses GNU/linux WANT to have complete control. Because of that there are maybe not that much incentive for developers today to put that much effort in doing things as simple as possible . They know most of the userbase today is perfectly fine with some tweaking. If the userbase changes i have no doubt developers will start making more effort towards easy applications, after all many developers problably want as large userbase as possible (not all).
HTTP/1.1 400
In my opinion, the current state of Linux is still not going to match what Windows 2000/XP now supports.
For Linux to succeed in the desktop/laptop market on a large scale, they need to do the following:
1. Standardize on the programs installed. That means no more KDE-vs-Gnome wars, Mozilla Thunderbird/Firebird Internet access programs as standard, and most likely OpenOffice as standard. I hope the Linux Standards Base project will aim for such a standard for "base install" of Linux.
2. It MUST have widespread hardware support. That means it supports the latest graphics cards, sound cards, network cards and I/O cards at full functionality of the device.
3. We need the equivalent of Microsoft DirectX on Linux to make it easier to program and access multimedia devices. Hopefully, the SDL project will fulfill this need.
4. It really needs support for the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) for truly automated system configuration and the ability to easily hot-dock devices through the USB and IEEE-1394 ports.
If Linux succeeds in these four goals, then I can see its adoption by everyone become much more widespread.
AT&T is like Sauron: they created The One Ring (Unix), tried to use it to exert a hold over thousands of licensees, but lost it inadvertently (to the public domain and the valiant Berkeley).
SCO is more like Gollum: they got a hold of the Ring, they're convinced it's "My Preciousss..." and will make their lives wonderful, yet they are essentially unable to do anything powerful with it. They are also schizophrenic, having one happy Caldera personality that wants to be friends with Linux users and one evil The SCO Group personality that wants to kill them all.
Windows: perfect, except for security.
perfect: being entirely without fault or defect
hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")
an ill wind that blows no good
I think multimedia support and device drivers are at the top of the list. The UI's are pretty good. Distro installs are getting pretty good.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
but but but Desktop Linux is DEAD!?!?
'IBM, Red Hat and a consortium of computer makers backed by the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel will push to move the Linux operating system out of the back office from next year.'
So when Redhat moves linux out of the back office do they recommend we move Window in?
I'd be aiming more for the enterprise and business desktop. Better defined hardware configuration issues, productivity tools for Linux are already out there and it could be bundled with back-end services in a very attractive end-to-end package, both in terms of price and function.
This is really an exciting time in Linux development. It's fun to watch it coming together.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
...wouldn't it fall off the desk?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This isn't a troll, it's an honest question.
I'm looking at switching to Linux because Windows SUCKS. But Linux can't really be very good; I mean, almost all of the Slashdot editors (Slashdot being owned, of course by "the sinister OSDN keiretsu") admit that they use Mac OS X. If OSDN themselves don't use it, why should I? Why should I go out of my way to use something that even these guys don't think is worth the trouble? Why help code/debug/improve/write docs for/ my own operating system when I can have someone else do all the work for me, all I lose is a little freedom?
I noticed that Doc Searls, editor of Linux Magazine, uses a Mac running OS X, and he raves about it daily in his blog. The EDITOR of Linux Magazine doesn't use it! Why should I?
No, Linux may be TECHNICALLY ready for the desktop, but if even Linux' biggest supporters (save RMS, of course) use alternate (proprietary, prebuilt, corporate-made, 'Cathedral') systems, it really can't be that good. You don't see Steve Jobs running WindowsXP or Bill Gates toting a PowerBook. Why do the Linux gurus alone refuse to "eat their own dogfood"?
I just don't get it.
Desktop GNU/Linux needs something like that to ultimately survive -- it has to keep improving or it will stagnate. IBM and others already pay programmers to work on Free/OSS, but we need a good group of fulltime desktop engineers. IBM needs them too, if it is going to roll out 30k Linux desktops internally in the next year. The other companies also need to invest in their future.
Is the whole point of the "game" to beat microsoft, or bring linux to the desktop?
1. "Perfect" is not literal, this is IT after all. By this I mean "tolerable", or even "better the Devil you know."
2. In all cases I assume that some expert help is available for installation and configuration. This is how Linux gets 'perfect' for naive home users: quick installation from Knoppix, Xandros, Lindows, and no phone calls or 'domestic help desk'. I speak from experience.
3. The two markets where Linux lacks applications are games and enterprise desktops. But these account for perhaps 35% (my estimates, feel free to provide better ones) of the desktop market. As far as I can see, 65% is "perfectly" well served by the existing applications.
4. Yes, Windows is "perfect" for most of these markets. It would be quite stunning if this were not the case.
5. There are further markets one can define but they are not significant. For instance: professional media workers, photographers, graphical designers, DJs, etc. I suspect here that Mac is the best platform for them, neither Windows nor Linux get a high score.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
In case you aren't trolling:
How to handle a
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
What too many hard core Linux folks forget is that diversity and choice in the desktop isn't what most of the market wants. The vast majority of users see a computer as a tool and don't care about all the nuances of GNOME versus KDE. They want an integrated package with a few tweaking options and are happy to have a vendor pick a single stack and deliver it.
Microsoft does this and has 90+% of the market. Apple tightly controls their stack, including tight hardware control, and while their share isn't growing, they've tuned to their users and hold their base. But most Linux folks are developers or hobbysists. Many care passionately about what are inconsequential differences between KDE and GNOME.
Each technical point about everything is debated and the choice is usually no choice but another splinter project or variation. So much god work, but also a tremendous amount of wasted energy. MS and Apple are businesses. They look at alternatives and make choices and compromises to meet market needs. Linux is a hobby. The purpose os to tweak, customize and change, not to have the same Linux as everyone else.
The Enterprise / back office stuff is different. There the IT staffs are customers. They do want to tweak and customize the stack. Even though most of the time they really don't need to, they have the skills and time and $$ to do this so that they get the kind of custom IT shop environment they want.
These folks are not the home user / desktop user. They are geeks just like the folks who make Linux. They speak the same language and often care passionately about the same minor and irrelevant issues. And since this is where the $$ are for Linux (Red Hat's recent announcements confirm this)this is where the paid Linux folks will spend their energies. A different Linux is worth $$ here.
Why can't people accept that Linux on the desktop is just like APple. There is a niche market, geeks/hobbyists, and they want Linux on their desktop. The rest of the world doesn't care. Windows is just fine for them.
RedHat, make up your f*cking minds. Either you play in the desktop world or you don't. What I read from the above quote is this: "We can't make money on the linux desktop now but as soon as someone helps us figure out how we can we'll get back into it".
I hope IBM is the ones to successfully bring the linux desktop to the mainstream. They at least seem more genuine and frank about their intentions and when they decide to do something they can hold the though long enough to execute against it.
You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
"I like my women like I like my coffee......bitter."
:( It must be noted that the first three adjectives did indeed describe J quite well.
I was once at a bar with a friend, his girlfriend (R), and *her* friend (J), whom I quite fancied. It was winter, so I had a pint of Greene King Christmas Ale.
R: Rupert likes his women like he likes his beer.
J: You mean dark and strong?
R: No, flat and expensive.
No more dates
--
E_NOSIG
Did you know that, on Linux, you can make an icon do anything you damn well please? Including run the eject command? Although I prefer to simply press the computer's button -- why clutter the desktop?
:-)
PS: A much more useful icon for me is one I made to force the screen off... because I don't want to wait for it to go to sleep before I do
The Register has a cheery article Asian first-timers prefer Linux to Windows worth reading.
From the article:
So there. So what's all this about it being too hard?
Yes, this is very true, and my bad for forgetting it. There are many DOS, VB, Delphi, Access, etc. applications out there used, as you say for accounting, stock control, etc.
But most such users are very conservative with their equipment and upgrades, and don't form an important market for (new) Windows sales, nor for migrations to Linux.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
They're talking about corporate desktops. Linux is arguably better suited to that desktop environment than Windows is. Not to say there isn't the occasional thing which needs careful consideration.
I'm currently managing several hundred Gnome desktops on Solaris for engineers at the moment but there's absolutely no reason it couldn't be Linux instead. Using the right architecture and using the workstation edition of redhat for the login servers and execution nodes you can scale to thousands of concurrent sessions fairly easily on very modest hardware indeed and with a significant saving in support and licensing costs.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I have a server running Red Hat 7.3, because some of the software we NEED to run is only supported on Red Hat 7.3.
It is also used as a remote application server, with Cygwin installed on several machines on the network a GUI is provided to users to take care of some tasks that aren't possible on Windows without spending a significant amount of money.
The Mr Project debacle is incredibly recent and Redhat Linux 7.3 is also fairly young as Operating Systems go. I believe that it was released sometime in 2001 or 2002, right? (BTW, the reason I thought of MR Project in the first place is that I had used the release that came with Redhat 9 and was quite impressed. Unfortunately, the version that came with Redhat 7.3 was missing a handful of features and it crashed a few times when performing 'basic' actions.)
So tell me, when was the issue I experienced fixed? How could I have avoided needing to update 90 or so other packages with Redhat 7.3?
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
IF - and that's a big if in the linux world - you're a "Linux desktop for the rest of us" fan, you're in for a real treat.
:-)))
You'll have the pleasure of handling with a lot of gripes and user requests that you suddenly have to take serious.
The moment you say "Whip out Terminal" you'll have lost 90% of your user-base. Compare with W95 "Go to DOS" comments. Yeah, right, that's why users like GUI's, so that they can give commands.
Furthermore, you'll have the pleasure of contemplating a shitheap of philosophical and usability issues, resort to real-world testing, redesigns and what not ALL FOR SOME STUPID BUTTONS!
And this is only the enterprise desktop we're looking at. These people can still be trained (although after 20 years of mass computing we finally know training is the worst waste of your time and money since you could have put the effort in making a better application...).
As for manuals... I want to see the IT geek who for the first time explains to a group of account executives they should read the MAN pages.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
I guess this is tangentially on-topic, here (my story submission got nixed, oh well).
Sun is going to sell StarOffice through traditional retailers.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
This is actually a real problem with many linux apps, both on desktops and servers. I just experienced it while trying to get perl-suid installed on a server, with deb (which is generally easier on install than RPM in my experience)...
.deb and .rpm to handle most common distros, as well as maybe source available.
So... base/stable version of perl-suid wasn't compatible with my newer Perl, so dipping into unstable I go, but then I also need to update Perl since unstable/testing perl-suid are newer than my Perl. So perl gets updated, which requires a new libc6...
This breaks the ogg/vorbis packages I have installed, so they have to get updated too... in total about 32 packages to install, 21MB.
Now, realistically this would be a HUGE pain in the butt for somebody with little experience to install for a single progam, on a regular basis. However, at 21MB you can probably fit most common updates on an install disc, and have your system automatically update on install as needed (windows does it with DLL's). The big thing is you'll probably need both
So really, a common package format would be really nice. It would also be great if I could update my "unstable" packages, without moving entirely to unstable (I'm hybrid, and my servers stay as far in "stable" as possible).
For deb, maybe an updater that gives the option of "upgrade to "stable" if current "unstable" package installed is = available stable, or keep "unstable" packages at current "unstable" version. Most games, etc, nowadays have online updaters, so it shouldn't be a huge problem to have something similar to keep the required packages up-to-date, without mucking the rest of the system
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Step 5 needs a disclaimer...
Will not work with OpenOffice/StarOffice and will not work if you want to replace a chunk of text, as highlighting "to-be-replaced" text will place it into the copy buffer, flushing out what you copied in Step 3. Futhermore, highlighting and middle clicking may or may not work in conjunction with pressing CTRL-C, CTRL-V.
Meh.
the masses will follow.
Make fluxbox the default gui. KDE and GNOME are too caught up in chasing the coattails of the windows Way Of Doing Things.
Fluxbox (and blackbox) are different, and they looking really f-ing cool when you add transparency to windows, lots of flashing dockapps with useful info, and fast looking background pics.
look at these freakingcoolscreenshots.
I want my winamp-like OS. No windows look and feel.
Oo, neon lights...drool, drool, eye candy, flashy things, neat
And yet there it is, on half the desktops where I work. Including the presidents.
Ditto, except a different distro
My recomendation: get linux on an x86 box if price is a big issue to you, and/or if you already have an x86 box. If you want to get a whole new computer that is as nifty as possible go for a high-end Mac with OS X (latest release).
Little Brother, watching the watchers
hay dood, can i bring a raft?
Linux will not only be ready for the desktop but take a much larger share of the market as soon as it can come pre-installed from hardware retailers. If not for the fact that it's a better choice, but simply for the fact that it is cheaper; often the bottom line for many consumers. I could see the following on many online dealers making a big impact...
Select your operating system (help?):
Microsoft Windows 2000 Pro : $150
Microsoft Windows XP Home : $150
Microsoft Windows XP Pro : $200
Mandrake Linux 9.2 : $15
Of course mandrake could be substituted with other distro's or many more could be included, etc. But just that would make a HUGE impact.
Wow, this answers my long time confusion with x's seemingly inconsistent copy'n'paste. I can't believe I didn't know about primary/clipboard before.
Meh.
teh creator r0x!!!!!!!1
For the last 2 months I am trying to convert my desktop in the office to linux.
I am currently almost there, but the biggest problem that is holding me back at the moment is that certain business software is not available under Linux. The GUI for my accounting software package does not run under linux (it might under WINE, but not nativly). My Order Management System does not run under Linux, My Billing Application does not run under linux.
All the rest works via open office, outlook web access and other applications, but the biggest problem is that unless the core applications of your company are available for Linux, you can not switch.
So all this talk about hardware should be supported, USB should plug and play etc etc means nothing when my software does not work.
Rigolo
Photoshop.
Oh well, I have Photoshop running under wine on my laptop, and more importantly, I have GIMP that does the same job in a similar fashion. But realistically how many home users know that Linux desktop can offer what they want/need? Average users gets information primarily from media outlets, from advertising and reviews in particular. Unless they get to know what Linux is, average users will keep using what they are offered by retailers.
What Linux needs to become more popular actually is advertisement and marketing. Average users should be informed of presence and benefit of Linux. At this moment, Linux has little-to-none presence in media, except for IT news. But things are changing finally, and it is happening rapidly (have you seen IBM spot?).
With all big names standing behind, the penguin may fly in the air in the very near future.
I've always had a problem with the idea of competing to get into desktop usage. Not in that we shouldn't be able to, but that the goal seems to be to compete with microsoft by copying them. Both parts of that seem wrong. This article http://news.google.com/url?ntc=04SL0&q=http://www. onlamp.com/pub/wlg/3971 talks about some of the ideas I've been thinking
I think there should be a new definition of desktop, and in true Linux fashion, it should support multiple definitions! one might be the way MS defines it, but everyone (including MS, look at how they are handling Longhorn)) don't agree the current one is very good. Linux and X-win is so flexible, I hate seeing projects like gnone and KDE shorting out all that flexibility to force every app to work with thier definition.
Me, I think of a desktop like a real desk: it's always there and I put things on it to use them. I don't need a desktop to use them though...In terms of apps, I'd like to be able to put a document on the desktop to work on it, but not have the document tied to to the dektop/PC I was using to work on it. X-win allows for this kind of idea already, but there's just no apps/setupsd to take advanatage of it. KDE and gnome are fine, but they assume that every app is only running under thier framework and thier framework can't do it all.
OK, done with the rant....for now....
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Suse, redhat, IBM and the like just keeps benefiting off your (open source community's) hard work -- they will eventually pursue there true intentions (making money) --- without a second taught --- charging you for something that they couldn't possible had created without your hard work
Don't post if you dont understand, jesus. All versions of redhat are free software, open source, publically available, get it? All you pay for is *support*. They decided that *right now* there is no money in support for home users in a boxed product, and they are probably right. --- http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/ Q: You mentioned licensing - what does this mean? I thought Linux was free. A: Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have free access to the source code. In fact you can download it from our FTP servers at any time. However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and these, combined with an annual subscription to Red Hat Network, access to upgrades, and a selected support services, are the components that Red Hat bundles into each Red Hat Enterprise Linux solution. Since every Red Hat Enterprise Linux product includes support for the system on which it is installed, Red Hat supplies the products with a per-system usage/support subscription. This simple model ensures that systems which useRed Hat Enterprise Linux are able to access the maintenance, services and product upgrades to which they are entitled. Of course, as mentioned before, this has no impact on your access to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code.
tasty electronic music vittles
(sorry bout the formating on the other post...)
Don't post if you dont understand, jesus. All versions of redhat are free software, open source, publically available, get it? All you pay for is *support*.
They decided that *right now* there is no money in support for home users in a boxed product, and they are probably right.
---
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/
Q: You mentioned licensing - what does this mean? I thought Linux was free.
A: Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have free access to the source code. In fact you can download it from our FTP servers at any time. However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and these, combined with an annual subscription to Red Hat Network, access to upgrades, and a selected support services, are the components that Red Hat bundles into each Red Hat Enterprise Linux solution. Since every Red Hat Enterprise Linux product includes support for the system on which it is installed, Red Hat supplies the products with a per-system usage/support subscription. This simple model ensures that systems which useRed Hat Enterprise Linux are able to access the maintenance, services and product upgrades to which they are entitled. Of course, as mentioned before, this has no impact on your access to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code.
tasty electronic music vittles
Ok, I call bullshit. When is the last time you installed a version of Windows? I've recently installed Win98 and WinXP Home, neither of which was a text mode install. Both came up with graphical 640x480 installer screens, with mouse support, and went through the install process.
Agreed that Linux installs have become easier. RH 9 and Mandrake 9.1 installs were wonderful, however I ended up installing and running Gentoo, because hey, I'm a sucker for torture :)
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
I was asking how you would update to a latest piece of software, Mr Project, that isn't supported through Up2date, without having to deal with hunting down what could be dozens of RPMs.
My servers stay up2date with up2date and cron as well. But...
How do I upgrade to the latest GIMP? (You have to update/replace MANUALLY a decent number of libraries, which will 'break' up2date for that box.)
How do I upgrade to the latest Mr Project? (You have to update/replace MANUALLY a decent number of libraries, which will 'break' up2date for that box.)
How is that 'fixed'?
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
All's true that is mistrusted
I read this and found out that X has a completely adequate clipboard - it is just that applications too often clobber it. Apparently the latest version of pure desktops do it right though.
(I always thought that ctrl-c ctrl-v in X apps was just an ugly hack using the same selection as select and middle-click (apparently because old KDE did it wrong).)
Yet Another Post From Someone Who Actually Knows Nothing About X
"GNU/Linux with X is slower than Windows, and way slower than OS X."
See here is where you so wrong its not even funny. X in itself is not slower than any of the above. In fact X running something live XFCE, WindowMaker etc etc is MUCH faster then Windows or Aqua will ever be. The fact that you even tried to throw out a blanket statement about "X" being slower again shows how little you understand it.
So what exactly are you basing your opinion on? On modern hardware, ie 1GHz 256MB running say KDE is about the same as running XP. Even if XP was say slightly faster, that doesn't mean X itself is "slower" than Windows. It just proves that a particular Window Manager and Desktop environment is can be more resource intensive. Try running XP on P200 with 32MB ram versus X running a lightweight WM. I'd love to hear you call X bloated then.
"So it seems to me that X is either too complicated, or not sufficiently optimized. I think that we need a complete X replacement"
Again sufficiently optimized has nothing to do wtih it. The process by which X gains new features and drivers needs to be streamlined, but these calls for "ditch X because its holding us back" are completely ignorant and show a total lack of understanding on the subject.
btw most people would consider OS X up till panther to be about as slow as it gets. Those that have ditched it in favor for OS's like Yellow Dog almost always reported on how much more responsive the Linux environment was.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
That's only a small part of the install (disk partitioning and copying setup files over). The rest is graphical. I'm curious as to how you invoked a completely text-based Windows install.
Anyway, it does start text only install. As does a Gentoo install. I'd say one of the main things keeping Linux down as destop...is the initial set up of many devices. Getting a CDRW to work the first time is a nightmare of wading through Howto's and posts of different ages on the forums. I myself am just bright enough to know how to hunt down info well to get things working...but, for the avg. user, stuff like this is just impossible.
I love Linux...and use it at home and work...one of the few at work, but, who cares if it isn't the desktop of choice for all? If someone wants to use it and needs it....then what is wrong with asking that person to give the effort to learn a little about computers...some lower level stuff? Sure helps when it comes time to fix something. I don't think everything NEEDS to be dumbed down to the lowest common demominator.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
not warez, its free software you jackass.
No, that's the entire install. You're thinking of that "configure wizard" that happens after you reboot. The OS is already installed at that point; you're just configuring the timezone, networking, etc.
All's true that is mistrusted
its fucking gpl'd, download it, build it, share it. period. if you want redhat logos and support, but it from them.
[nt]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I dont believe anyone has mentioned this, but lets not forget that a considerable chunk of linux users are tech savvy, or at least tech savvy enough to learn how to enjoy the many merits of linux itself, most of us dont notice or report the things that Joe Sixpack finds frustrating with linux.
Many people seem to be making comments as to the effect that linux will not be ready for the desktop until this, or that happens. Mostly reffering to the kind of point and click , hand holding nature of Win32 and MacOS.
Its just another evolutionary step, as more and more less savvy linux users try out the OS, the more our techy OSS developers will begin to hear about the things Joe Sixpack wants. In order for Joe Sixpack to start telling the community what he or she wants weve got to get them using Linux in the first place.
We have got to start somewhere and this new initiative is a step in the right direction. Stop bitching and lets support it!
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
"VA Software, parent company of OSDN and Slashdot is a member of OSDL."
no further comment
So tell me how I get this 'Synaptic' to install on Redhat 7.3. Show me how this 'Synaptic' will install the latest Mr Project, along with all required dependencies and not hose other applications that are dependent upon those libraries that were updated for the latest Mr Project to run.
Then do the same thing with The GIMP.
Again, I am not talking about Fedora 1, I am not talking about Redhat 9. I am talking about a Redhat OS that is the ONLY version supported by a few critical pieces of software and is also supported by an external vendor we use for when I am out of town. This is Redhat 7.3, this is an OS that is barely 3 years old.
Running Up2date on this apparently now 'archaic' Linux didn't fix the dependency issues for installing the latest Mr Project or the latest The GIMP. All it did was update packages to fix security issues without breaking 7.3 compatibility.
Besides, you brought up ONE example where it could be a pain in dealing with getting ONE aspect of performance out of Windows. I mentioned two, recent to me. There has been MANY more in the past. For instance, updating GNOME or updating KDE or updating other applications that came with Redhat 7.3.
Sure, these issues have existed on Windows, but for the most part, those issues have long been resolved, meaning since the release of Windows 95b. There are FEW applications made today for MS Windows that you would be unable to install on Windows 95b. There are even fewer that you would be unable to install on Windows 98FE/SE and even fewer for Win2K (NT4.0 is a seperate and special case).
Few applications from when Windows 95b was released until today demand MAJOR overhauls of a Windows 98SE in order to be installed. However, in the time that Win98SE has existed there has been something akin to 4 different point releases of Redhat Linux, from 5.2 all the way to Redhat 9 and if you are using a Redhat Linux older then that latest release and you want to upgrade to a newer version of ONE application, you may find yourself needing to update dozens of libraries and most likely a handful of other applications that won't work with the new libraries you just installed.
Granted, the major point releases of Redhat signify a breaking of binary compatibility, but that's beside the point. The point is that in order to use the latest software you may have to upgrade your ENTIRE Redhat (or other) Linux OS every 6 months.
I am not suggesting that adding new features and progress is a bad thing. What I am saying is that, at least, Redhat Linux is constantly a moving target and that should be stopped. It shouldn't be a moving target every 6 months, if it MUST move it should happen every 2 to 4 years and even then attempt to keep compatibility, unless security is at issue, with at least two FULL point releases back. That will pretty much guarantee that someone 'stuck' on an older release could still access more modern software without having to 'gut' their entire system, possibly even losing that component that a mission critical app depends upon.
Microsoft does that. Sometimes it turns out to be a significant pain. However, that is what helps them keep the strangehold on the desktop market that they have. Once the greater OSS community can open their eyes, see that and DO something about it, Linux will indeed start to become ready for the desktop. (Thus ready for the 'Joe Sixpacks' of the world.)
For me, Linux is ready for the desktop. For 95% of the regular users out there, it isn't. You can stand on a train track and disbelieve that a train is actually bearing down on you all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the train will run you down.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
No, that's not the entire install. The text mode part is simply for disk partioning and copying the REST of the install to disk. After you reboot it copies the rest of the OS (didn't you notice the part in the GUI install where it said "copying files"?) and does some configuration. Even if you want to play the "that's not the installer" BS it's still part of the install process, and the longest part at that.
What users want to see on the desktop is the ability to buy a game at the store, install it, and play it. If you go to a computer store, the majority of the software that sits on the shelves are games. Linux has the desktop applications that are available to Windows users. Although Loki Games attempted, Linux still has inadequate game support - even through WINE enviornments.
The best way to spread the features, flexibility and freedom of Linux is by word of mouth or on-hands exposure. But without the games, their visits to Linux as their Desktop environment of choice may not be as frequent.
Ayup
I'm getting a little tired of all leet desktop gurus here on Slashdot who every time, as /. posts a new story on Linux Desktop, whine about better clipboard support or some other feature that is in their opinion a must-have in order to gain competitive advantage and ease of use over Windows.
:) G'day.
Why don't you fellas just shut up and go participate in OSS projects (such as GNOME & KDE) that are trying to achieve creating the best Linux Desktop experience for users. Write that damn clippy thingy instead of whining on Slashdot discussions. Participate in testing, file bug reports and really, I mean really, push those projects forward. Even a smallest contribution gets us a step closer to the goal: useable, friendly, engaging Linux desktop.
If you are like me and have puny C/C++ coding skills, there's a ton of work to do in QA, documentation and such. Get out there and involved!
All right, that's enough rant.
I want to thank you for all the insightful comments in regards to my posting about my suggestions for making desktop Linux more user friendly. =)
The reason why I want ACPI as standard on Linux desktop variants is the fact when you hot dock any storage device to the USB or IEEE-1394 port Linux should automatically recognize it like a disk drive and "mount" the drive so it can be read by the OS. This is where Windows 2000/XP works great because it recognizes the storage device connected through these ports like a disk drive and you can read it using standard Windows file copy processes.
I know everyone is kind of throwing virtual brickbats at me for my suggesting a limited install of programs in a default Linux install but I think it's a good idea because it saves on IT manager support issues and users only need to learn one set of programs.
Do I think Linux as a desktop OS is viable? Definitely. But I do think there is much room for improvements so it becomes less intimidating to use for less-experienced users.
Segmentation as in granular as in chipping away at the big picture as in market creep is how Linux *IS* gaining ground. Even though the "Linux: perfect, Windows: otherwise perfect" analysis was off in a lot of respects, the term segmentation is right on.
What I never really understood is why there is no such thing as an enduser gcc-frontend.
It might just be a small app where you drag&drop your tar.gz. The app then asks "Do you want me to install this package?" The beast could then run the "./configure && make && make install" stuff.
In case of trouble it would just fire up the console, so nothings lost, but a lot is won. I know it wouldn't work with any file but with quite a lot of the latest source-packages it would work fine and help desktop users to install software without even seeing the console that scares them oh so much.
Maybe I should start this project although I'm a lousy programmer. What do you think?
cu,
Lispy
apt-get on Debian Linux solves these problems, for the most part. The available software is a problem for linux, however. Debian has many thousands of packages, etc. but I looked and looked and could not find a "tomb raider demo" of some sort. Those are available for windows, of course, and I enjoy fooling around with them.
The LindowsOS is based on Debian, and they have their rather expensive Click and Run Warehouse, which I suppose has a bunch of nice games. One of these days, when I get an extra $50.00 or so, I might order a Lindows CD and give it a try. (I want a Knobbix live cd first, however.)