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.
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?
Of course Linux* is based on Unix. It may not be derived from the sources of Unix, but the idea and the running of it most certainly is based on Unix.
*I'm prepared to accept arguments from the GNU/Linux crowd here.
Cheers,
Ian
...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
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?
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
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
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.
Support by the mainstream computers' builders.
Therein lies the rub.
Windows XP is difficult to support because it can be configured to any number of different interfaces (standard XP, Windows "Classic", or any combination in between). Do you honestly expect some headset-fast-food-phone-jockey to figure out what beta version of KDE has been installed? I couldn't do it...
Redhat has been criticized for "dumbing down" their distro but I applaud them for it. Only when there is one standard, non-configurable interface should open-source be thrown to the desktop wolves. Open source (I refrain from using the term "Linux" because it doesn't include the GUI) has the opportunity to target what is so very wrong with Windows because it doesn't have to worry about the backward compatibility that makes Windows such crap in so many respects. But nobody seems to care about that right now so we have more crap to come. Everyone seems to love having a choice in crap but I digress.
Short and sweet: wish list
1) Get rid of the application execution shortcuts and put them in one, easy to use location. Windows has the desktop, the start menu (directly off of the start button), the programs submenu off of the start button, the quick-launch and the system tray. Most programs make use of this and flood the user with shortcuts mainly for the sake of advertising. Susie won't forget to run AOL if we give her 6 different locations from which to start it.
There's also no reason that entire submenus need to be created off of the start menu. Applications should simply load a single shortcut to themselves instead of putting readme's, uninstallers and other crap in the start menu. It just adds to the clutter and will eventually require scrolling start menus ala Windows. Create some standards - programs could be grouped. Instead of a game creating gratuitous advertising in the start menu (who cares if the game was made by Sierra?), it should simply install a shortcut into the standard "GAMES" submenu. Utilities, Office, etc. One could probably come up with 6 or so default submenus that programs could utilitize.
2) Use the desktop for something other than the aforementioned annoyance. Maybe build in a tabbed desktop with a control panel on one tab, an extensible calendaring tab on another (I use Palm Desktop and I don't even have a Palm device - calendaring is needed!). Perhaps another "default" tab could be a combination of email, most recently used applications and the calendar. Stick a log-off/shutdown tab in there and maybe a media player, too. Make some freakin' use of this space (besides the pretty wallpaper). Make it all extensible so third parties can make use of it (i.e. - Palm can create a plug-in for the system calendar, third-party media players can embed themselves into the media tab, etc).
3) User data management - give the users ONE FREAKING PLACE to put data. Sure - Windows might *try* to do this but, ultimately, it does nothing to stop uneducated users from doing the wrong thing. If you've ever had to explain to someone that they shouldn't save their Microsoft Office documents in \PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\, then you might know what I am talking about. ONE PLACE... certainly, make it flexible (allow users to share, etc) but for crying out loud.
4) Program installation - Joe Users don't need to see the intricate details of the files on a program installation (either hard or soft media). Program installations should be ONE file. Joe Users don't need to see everything inside. Additionally, the programs should only have ONE FREAKING LOCATION to which they can install (i.e. - PROGRAM FILES). Once installed, Joe Users should *never* be able to go into this folder and poke around. There's no need for it (but certainly provide the functionality for an advanced user to do so).
Argh... I'll be here all day of I go on. Ultimately, if someone can point me to someone who cares, I'd be happy to spend a few hours suggesting improvements. Does anyone need a GUI designer?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
So, I agree with you, but I guess I don't feel like linux could be very far from success in these areas.... IMHO.
philcrissman.com.