Slashdot Mirror
Linus on SCO, and the Desktop Being 10 Years Away
An anonymous reader writes "In this interview from last week's Linux.conf.au in Australia, Linus Torvalds talks about how the SCO lawsuit 'riled' him and led him to spend a week writing an application to archive his email, and how he think Linux will take 5 to 10 years to become mainstream on the desktop."
I've never seen a lawsuit up this close and personal before
This is what the "lucky" 300 must also be thinking. I don't think they will be spending their time writing an e-mail indexing program.
Linus is the only person I've ever heard of taking a lawsuit as an opportunity to write some new code. The world needs more Linuses!!!
Lack of games. The odd FPS game crops up, but dual booting isnt an option for mot point and click users.
I've been linux as my primary desktop for 2 years. Its been working great for me. I write my school papers with abiword, my presentations with open office impress and do all my coding with vim. gnome hardly ever crashes on me and when it does i can typically do one of two things: either login remotely and restart X or cntrl+alt+backspace. Then i can file a bug report and in most cases the problem is solved. Linux just requires patience and an understanding of what and how you plan to use a tool. I think what linus means is it won't be ready for a generic user for a little while longer...
Not at all. Basically, he thinks that in 2004 Linux will really take on in the desktop-market. But that wouldn't mean that Linux would be mainstream in the desktop-market. Let's assume that number of Linux-users doubles in 2004, and that's due to increase in desktop-use. That would give Linx a market-share of around 5%. If that happened, 2004 would be the "year of the desktop" for Linux, but being mainstream would still be several years in the future.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
At the end of the days users want something that works with their existing apps and documents. They don't care whats going on underneath as long as it works
Rus
CPanel + Root from $35/mo - 10% off with discount code SLASHDOT
There are many definitions of "The Desktop"
For many, it doesn't necessarily mean anything to do with beginners, or home users, or kiddie-eyecandy.
Personally, i see it as being a strength on the desktop in a business sense, where an organisation like IBM or Telstra or NTT has 50,000 workers all needing a desktop computer to easily email, browse, collaborate with users, plan their day, type documents, organise stuff etc.
For those users, the whole setup and install thing is irrelevant, and that's the hardest part at the moment. When it comes to actually using say, a good KDE install set up by a company for its own users, Linux is ready for the desktop in the middle of last year.
I think with the lower end of Linus's statement (5 years), the use (and awareness) of Linux will become much more noticeable. I've noticed recently that the SCO lawsuit has made some waves in UK papers, where previously you'd be hard pushed to find a mention of Linux whenever a computer-related article is published (Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft!). Possibly something to do with the fact that the big name of IBM is involved, but surely this is a good thing - getting the Linux name actually recognised!
It's still amazing to see the puzzled look on people's faces when they ask what 'Red Hat Linux' is and when did Microsoft release it.....
Linux cannot become another Microsoft. Microsoft is about monopoly prices, lock-in, proprietary technologies etc. etc. None of those are possible with Linux. If Linux gained 100% market-share, there would still be several distros competing (and several free versions of Linux), the core-systems would be open and free, so moving between different vendors would be easy. And you could fork your own version from existing distros (for example Red Hat ==> Mandrake, Gentoo ==> Zynot)
You mentioned Red Hat trying to make a profit. How would that affect Linux? Easy: Red Hat would have even more money to spend improving Linux.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Im tired of all this .blah hidden config files which has no standard formats except tabs. how about using something more structured. like XML
Why? No reason on earth. foo = bar. Why make it more complicated?
Get your own free personal location tracker
I am not saying that SunOS or IRIX are superior, just that the upgrades come at a more manageable pace, and tend not to break our code base when upgrading compilers. I think the reason Linus thinks five to ten years before really conquering the desktop is based on two things. By then LINUX should have slowed down in its development and will be a beast you can run two to three years before upgrading. Secondly, Windows will probably sink under the weight of it is haphazard code base, which is guided not by what is best for users and cleanest in design, but what makes sense commercially to support and lock-in their other products in as covert way as possible to keep from running afoul of the antitrust laws.
Looking forward to the day though!
Letter To Iran
For me, the journey has been more like 20 years. I was running a desktop window system on a UNIX-like OS at home before there was such a thing as X (Smalltalk on LynxOS on a Tektronix Pegasus box).
I have to say that I think the folks who are all over the deficiencies of the Linux Desktop, and how we have to emulate the Windows/Mac/BeOS/Xbox/Sinclair/whatever desktop experience to have a usable desktop are mistaken. I think they underestimate the ability of users to adapt, and overestimate the degree to which familiar = better. For many years I had a PC or Mac sitting on my desktop next to a UNIX/X box. Now I have a Windows box and a Linux box at home. I have always found that I almost exclusively use the UNIX/X box. The monopoly (at best duopoly) is real, and most folks haven't had my experience. I think it's clear that they're going to, and I think it's going to be enlightening for them when they do.
I'm working hard to make the Linux desktop experience better for everyone. But it's pretty darn good now. So good that I finally threw away twm a couple of years ago. :-)
Let's enjoy the ride.
Well, yes and no. Two things to remember when considering how to get Windows users over to Linux:
1) most of them don't care what OS they're running
as long as it works
IP issues don't matter, freedom doesn't matter. What matters is things working, being straightforward, and being able to do what other users are doing. Computing is a social activity - people don't use them in isolation anymore. (Insert ironic geek social misfit comment here.) So falling down in any of these camps is enough to prevent people from switching.
2) Inertia is the most power force in the desktop
computer world.
Ordinary users Don't Like Change. If they take the time to relearn something, it has to be because it's so much better than what they have they can't live without it. That's a very rare condition. OSX is better than Windows, but not enough better that everyone is willing to abandon Windows. A few do, but inertia in computerland is a group effect, and as long as the group inertia is strong in one direction everyone goes that way. This is why Microsoft has a natural monopoly, much more so that telephones or power lines. Technology was able to find new ways to provide telephone service, and things like solar and wind power can generate power independant of power lines. But if people need to expend a lot of effort to learn a tool, THEY WILL NOT THROW AWAY THAT EFFORT. The software market, particularly the OS market, must face this. Change can occur, but very, very slowly. Which leads us to our first two guiding principles:
Taking over the World - Rule #1
Patience is not a virtue - it is a necessity
Taking over the World - Rule #2
There will never be a "Year of the Desktop"
Media and fans like explosive, dramatic changes. But that is not how things happen on a large scale. This is more like a river cutting through rock. So don't build up Linux as "about to take over the world/desktop/White House/whatever" because it won't be so dramatic. Particularly in light of
Taking over the World - Rule #3
"Desktop Ready" is not a well defined target,
and as such "making it" is like chasing a
mirage.
Each person has their own definition of ready for the desktop. Linux met mine years ago, and it's doubtful Windows could meet mine now. But I don't worry about what most users worry about - consistent look and feel aren't an issue for me. So who defines "ready"? For me, ready was a while back. But I'm clearly a geek. For my Dad, it might be close. For my Mom, I doubt it's close. It's a fuzzy thing.
With SCO making as much trouble as humanly possible for Linux and open source, and Microsoft lurking in the background, I know it's hard to remember this last rule. But do try, because it's the only reason we got as far as we have, and it's the only reason we'll go anywhere in the future.
Taking over the World - Rule #4 (The important one)
Have fun!
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Don't kid yourself, a computer simple enough for granny to use will be useless to other people. Face it, the older generation got left out of the whole tech thing, and it's pointless catering to them or the other simpering idiots that find KDE or anything comparable 'difficult'.
/home directory each user has all to themselves is a big leap over Windows. And before the windows trolls flame me..wait I'm at zero, fuck it.
The REAL problem, which is too late to fix, is the dumbass desktop scheme. How many people find Folders, Files and other abstract concepts apply well to computing? All you end up with is a user left scratching his/her head, saying 'now where the fuck did I put that file'. Add to that the logical yet difficult unix system tree, and you've got a mess on your hands.
I will admit, however, that having a
I prefer to go the other way, whenever someone asks me to get them a pirated copy of Office, I encourage them to get OO.org instead, or at least try it for a week, and if they need more features, come back and see me.
Only then do I tell them that pirating is illegal and I refuse to partici *yawn* sorry...? er.. oh yeah participate in that sort of thing.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
What is missing is applications (especially games) and to a lesser extent drivers.
The 3d-modelling niche is a very good example on how fast Linux can take over a market when the apps are there.
In the next years, expect other niches to go to Linux, the next being non-US government desktops. When Munich migrates and ports their apps, it gets easier, cheaper and faster for other cities with similar application-needs to follow.
The only problem is that such migrations take a lot of time, that's why it is taking a decade (and it already started).
Which is what's endlessly hanging everybody up in the field of GUI design. They all want to be DIFFERENT from windows, but they fail to realize that windows isn't just decided upon by fiat, but instead is the result of endless focus groups and user surveys to determine exactly what grandma actually works most comfortably with! Microsoft has huge resources and can afford endless focus groups and user surveys to arrive at a smooth, intuitive GUI. We're not asking to emulate Microsoft, but instead emulate (or invent independently) a smooth user interface as defined by the users themselves. Which is apparently such a simple concept that nobody seems able to grok it.
Is it fascism yet?
When you have 50,000 users at all skill levels and none of them geeks, designing a Linux desktop that "just works" for everyone is a difficult problem and by no means solved.
I've done more than my share of teaching total newbies how to use Windows. There's nothing intrinsically logical or sensible about the Windows desktop (95, 2K, XP), Windows' naming schemes, etc. It's extraordinarily difficult for an adult newbie to pick up. -- We tend to think of Windows as "easier-to-use" simply, I think, because of familiarity. Ditto with the Mac interface -- it's easy to use once you've learned how to use it. Come to Mac from a pure Windows or pure newbie background and there's still a learning curve.
Frankly, I don't think there will ever be a desktop that is "simple to use" from a newbie standpoint (at least until the computers can engage in an intelligent dialogue with the user and actually figure out what the user wants to do).
Consequently, I don't think any great re-imaging of the Linux (or any other) desktop is particularly required. Rather, I think the greater value will be in continuing to support a diversity of desktops with some focusing on new-user needs as much as others focus on the needs of sophisticated users.
After wading through four levels of menus on a default KDE install, I wish I had the skills to do some interface design myself. Grin.
"When I grow up, I'll be stable."
that windows isn't just decided upon by fiat, but instead is the result of endless focus groups and user surveys to determine exactly what grandma actually works most comfortably with!
Focus groups suck for determining design.
Rememeber cars in the 80's that had a computerise voice to tell that "You're door is ajar"?
Focus groups *LOVED* the idea of the car taking to them - it really sucked in reality.
Just like Windows XP has that sucky search dog thing - it's cute the first time, buy annoying as hess lafter that.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Microsoft has dominated the desktop for over a decade. Unless something drastic and unexpected happens, it will take a minimum of five years from now for it to lose dominance. Having said that, I do think that 2004 is a watershed year for Linux and for Microsoft. Years from now, we will look back and identify 2004 as the year where the tides bagan to change.
Why do I feel this way? Very few companies in very few industries ever achieve the dominance that Microsoft has in the computing industry. Competition always keeps the underdogs going for the golden ring, and profits like Microsoft enjoys have other companies salivating. History shows us that very few companies can hold onto such an amazing lead over the competition.
Linux and other "free" operating systems hold a unique advantage over Microsoft's offerings. They are free. Microsoft can not afford to compete on price alone. Every day that goes by, the gap between Microsoft's offerings and Linux's offerings narrows the gap in quality. With Novell and IBM in the fray, that gap is sure to close even further. At some point, Linux's offerings will become the most logical choice for everyone. Microsoft's grip will sliip and they will slide. It won't be fast, they will lose by percentage points.
At least this is what I hope. I have no crysal ball. They have quite a war chest and they have a lot of lawyers. Maybe one of these hair-brained lawsuits from the likes of SCO will work. I don't know, and I sure hope not.
Linus is probably right but I hope that it is 5 years and not 10.
We're not asking to emulate Microsoft, but instead emulate (or invent independently) a smooth user interface as defined by the users themselves. Which is apparently such a simple concept that nobody seems able to grok it.
/. readers) to describe properly what they're seeing, and how it's something different from what they encountered last night, when they last checked their email.
It may not be as simple as all that. Yesterday I went to my aunt's house to help her, since her AOL wasn't working right, and the three printed pages of instructions that tech support gave her may as well have been written in Phoenician.
She showed me how the startup was normal, but the "pictures" on the desktop seemed bigger, and when she fired up AOL, the background (default clouds) went "psychedelic." I took ten seconds to go into display settings, up her resolution, and bump the colours up from 256.
The point is, a smooth user interface is not some point to be reached where we can sit back and say "yes, this is it." These concepts of resolution and palettes are so nebulous that it can be very difficult for "normal" people (i.e. not
I think I understand what you're getting at, and I agree that there needs to be an evolution towards better user interfaces, but I'm not sure that a one-size-fits-all smooth, intuitive GUI can even exist. Some people like KDE, and turn everything on. Some people go straight to Blackbox. I use KMail; others swear by Mutt.
Until we get to a point where programs can ask "Do you want more options or fewer? Do you want clicky stuff, or do you consider a pointer to be the method for switching between xterms?" we'll continue to muddle along trying to balance the needs of the people who want to "do email" and those who want 3D overlapping alpha-transparent Everything, with sound.
There really are no simple answers. There are certainly better options than others, but determining what constitutes the perfect GUI is a pipe dream, because all users are different, and there are too (damn) many of them (grumble grumble).
Haida Manga
Windows doesn't "just work" for everyone either. That hasn't kept people from using it.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
"I'd love to have an easy to use system that I could handle without much difficulty while still having the power of Unix at hand should I want it.
This is not Linux."
But it IS Linux. I know this will come as a shock to Apple fans, but OS X isn't the be all end all of Unix desktops. I like many Linux users don't want a pc equiv of OS X. OS X does many things right, but it also does a lot wrong. OS X for x86 would be a real threat to Microsoft and would no doubt get more users using a semi-Unix but it's not what I'm looking for.
The only thing missing from Mandrake, Red Hat etc is real support from software and hardware makers. Documented hardware IS truly plug and play. Getting software installed/uninstalled IS moron proof provided that its packaged correctly. Like you said installation is easy as pie.
Imagine a distro running the 2.6 kernel with full oem hardware support, KDE 3.2, and the support of all the big software ISV's. At this point you have an OS that is easily as good as OS X and XP. So your right that we are indeed waiting, but not for OS X to come to the PC. We are in fact just waiting for Hardware and Software OEM's to fully support Linux. Maybe that won't ever happen, but if it does then you can rest assured that there will be no reason to pine for OS X on the PC.
The way I see it you have 3 options. 1) Buy an expensive Mac, thus putting yourself under the thumb of Apple and in a situation which is NOT an improvement over running XP. 2) Wait for OS X to come to the PC. 3) Wait for hardware and software makers to get off their asses and finally support Linux. It has been a long road, but I'm sticking with number 3. Number 1 is not and never will be an appealing option to me and most others.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
My dad hasn't been able to use a computer effectively since we replaced our old Amstrad 1512 complete with command line and text-mode, key-combination operated word processor with a more modern PC with windows and mouse.
:/
:)
He could remember the keys to press, but for the icons and GUI he must refer to the picture instructions I printed out. That means changing his glasses every 10 seconds. Imagine taking longer to do your work on a top-of-the-range PC than on an ancient rust-bucket
But hey, he thinks clippy is fun!
If Linux desktops mimic Windows, then not only will *I* find it harder to work effectively, so will my dad - For me, the argument is over. Especially that for the last 5 years or so, tech-support to my dad has been provided over the phone.
I too think a desktop isn't necessarly defined by kiddie-eyecandy and all that stuff. I think the defination of desktop is a little skewed too. We have a few office suites, we have many many email programs, fast reliable browsers, Instant Messaging,Calendars, etc. etc. What's the problem? You'd think if you told most people that they could have a desktop that didn't crash every 5 minutes and set them up with 5 desktop icons of the stuff they use the most they'd be more than happy to use it. Nope! The problem is people are so stubborn. I think if you did the same for someone on Mac OSX very few would switch even though the GUI is far superior to Windows. I don't think it's about usability and all that stuff, I think it's people are just too stubborn to use anything else.
I think it's the fact people _think_ they know a lot about computers because they know a lot about windows. When they get onto anything else, they feel like an infant again and they hate it. They will spew out things like "it's too hard to use. It can't do this. It can't do that." etc. etc. You could take a windows user and put them on THE perfect operating system, and they probably wouldn't use it because it's different.
I've personally been using linux on the desktop almost exclusivly for about 4 years now. I can't stand to go back onto windows computers. They are just so slow and crash way too much and why deal with all that when I can use something superior.
I mean look at all the things Windows doesn't have. It doesn't even come with a ram disk driver!! And the one MS lets you download it utter crap. Let's see... no 64-bit chip support, no ability to run windows without a GUI (why should the whole OS crash if the GUI crashes), very weak ssl support (netbios stuff not encrypted), office can't export to PDF's, there's almost no basic scripting ability, updating your OS is a chore and much more complicated than emerge -U World, lack of a decent plain non formatted text editor. You get the picture. It's about perspective.
Actually I don't think that is how MS works. MS gui is an evolution of what they had for win3.1/95 and most gui changes have been mostly cosmetic or coppied from Mac. I personally think that the MS gui is a piece of shit but when people are asked how a gui should work, they say it should work like that of MS but ONLY because that is the way they learned and expect it to work. In essence because most people are too "short sighted" to imagine something better.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Nobody except a developer goes near the environment settings dialog. That's left over from WinNT. I expect they just forgot about it.
I really don't understand what they were thinking about with the new services box. As far as I can see "advanced" is only called that because the left hand edge is completely blank meaning you have to squeeze the useful info into less space.
I think the file sharing idea is to make it harder to do stupid things. In the default "simple" mode you have to move the files you want to share to a special folder. This contrasts with the old way where as soon as anybody discovered sharing they immediately shared the whole "C" drive read/write to anybody on the whole Internet.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
It would be simple.
Put all the apps that they would use for work in a folder on their desktop.
Also, have all those apps open when they first log in.
When they log out, save all the information about those apps so they will appear EXACTLY THE SAME when the user logs in again.
Then, have the items that the user is ALLOWED to change in a different folder. Like backgrounds and themes and sounds and junk like that.
Everything else is locked down.
The user info is saved to a server so any machine that the user logs into will have the exact same desktop as the last machine.
This is VERY hard with Windows (unless you're running a Citrix desktop). But it should be very easy with Linux (all apps served from the servers).
I important part is getting them connected to the apps they need, seemlessly and reliably. Every time, every machine.
All the end user should NEED to know about the computer is how to turn it on and where the blinken lights are that show that it IS turned on.
Everything else should be covered by training on the applications that the company uses.
I don't. The GUI design is at best inconsistant - they may be trying to play catch up now - but a lot of what is happening is based on behaviour that was thrown together years ago and can't / won't be fixed. I don't actually believe they test usability with their focus groups - they probably concentrate on what eye-candy looks best.
A perfect example of how non-user friendly Windows is the way your keyboard focus gets stolen. I touch type - I don't spend a lot of time looking at the screen - i end up get very, very irritated because some window/dialog has decided to open and steal the keyboard focus - at best, my keystrokes end up in a black hole, at worst - they're invoking some action that I don't want to do.
The Amiga got this right 15 years ago - the programmer guidelines stated that you don't steal focus - Microsoft would do well to re-think a lot of their GUI guidelines (or at least follow their existing ones - they tend not to do that for their own apps anyways).
I actually belive that that is an excellent question, and I'll be happy to provide the answer:
Because 90% of all computer users are used to Windows
(The rest of the following rant is essentially a repost, so I apologize if you have already read it.)
You can feel that it shouldn't be like that, and you can make hundreds of snide and clever remarks to the effect that Windows users are too stupid to recognize their own best interests, but you can't change the facts: at least 90% of the people who are using a computer today are using Windows.
It is not every day that a court of law makes an official market survey and releases it freely on the net, in line with the finest traditions of the Open Source movement. Yet it seems that the very people who really believe the most in the benefits of free and open information, are remarkably reluctant to use it when it's available. Think what you will in private, but please please listen to judge Jackson: if Linux is going to have any impact at all in the desktop market, it is Windows users that will have to be converted.
There are a number of good reasons to make the switch to Open Source --- open file formats, control over future license costs, etc., etc. --- but if it means that you have to spend six months cursing all the little things that are different, so that you can't focus on what you're supposed to be doing because you have to relearn all your automatic reflexes, how many people will decide that it's worth the effort?
A lawyer might perhaps consider switching from MS Word to StarOffice simply to make sure that all the files that he creates today can be opened and read on another computer ten years from now, when the case has finally reached the Supreme Court or whatever. But how may chargeable hours is he prepared to let it cost him in the first six months?
It somehow seems that a lot of the people who develop Open Source applications take a special pride in inventing amusing little pitfalls for the Windows user who might be prepared to switch camps. In StarOffice, the keyboard combination to insert a non-breaking space is "Ctrl-Space", rather than Word's "Ctrl-Shift-Space". Please, somebody, why? Of course this is something that one can relearn if one has to, but what's the point of it? The first time a would-be convert, who has been using non-breaking spaces in Word, tries to insert one in a text in StarOffice, it won't work. Whether he decides that non-breaking spaces are not available and that the product does not fulfill his needs, or interrupts what he was originally trying to achieve and starts exploring the help system to find out what it is that he has to do, he will not feel more favorably disposed towards Open Source programs for having tried one. And so unnecessarily.
I could recite any number of examples: if you type "Ctrl-A Ctrl-Return" to mark all posts in a newsgroup as read, Mozilla will instead choose to open a couple of hundred windows (one for each post in the newsgroup), which will cause the system to freeze, so that it has to be rebooted. Excellent marketing ploy.
To change some settings in Mozilla you should of course look under "Edit" in the menu system, and not under "Tools" like in all other programs in the Windows world. Brilliant. How could you possibly fail when you make it so convenient for the user?
And please, don't come and say "RTFM" now. Why the **** should someone who has been using a computer for years have to consult the FM (provided there actually is one, of course, but that's a separate issue in its own right) to perform a so completely trivial standard task as the ones mentioned here?
And please don't come and say "but you can change that if you spend a couple of days learning how to reconfigure the program from the bottom up" either. Pe
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
Your mother isn't YOUR grandmother. I think that's an important distinction to make here as it determines her age and therefore her generation. I agree with AC here, if you dumb something down too much, it becomes useless to the average computer user. Just take a look at WebTV. My grandfather (no not my dad, my actual grandfather) does better with a pc than he ever did with WebTV. He isn't stupid, but he's technophobic to a certain extent.
I just wonder if making the computer more physical isn't better for older people. Everything is so virtual..I think if we gave them more buttons to push and meters, switches and gauges they'd like it better. You shouldn't have to click start > shut down > shut down to turn off your computer anyway, that's what the power switch is for. One press should shut it down on ANY pc.
The technological revolution took the physical and turned it all into the abstract. The world of computing is 75% software (and to the end user, much more). It's all theory and code and electrons, none of it is things you can touch and manipulate by hand. My grandfather's generation is one very much aligned with the physical; men who can fix cars and build homes or extensions to them. They're lost on a pc, just as most of us would be lost with a leaky pipe and a pipe wrench.