Slashdot Mirror
Dan Gillmor Reconsiders Linux on the Desktop
Cyrus writes "Influential San Jose Mercury News tech columnist Dan Gillmore has reconsidered his stance against Linux. He now says it's rapidly converging to a viable desktop OS
for the masses. "While I wasn't paying sufficient attention, the proverbial tortoise has been playing some serious catch-up.""
It's about time people start taking Linux on the desktop seriously. Maybe it's not as elegant or easy as M$ Windows, but it's not that bad. It just takes a little time to get used to it. But after using for a while you realize that it's not so bad afterall!
IMO, Linux hasn't changed that greatly, it's just easier for non-geeks to get ahold of it. There aren't (m)any new resources; it's just that resources that existed before are easier to get ahold of.
yeah its getting their but I want my installation wizards for programs damnit :) As well as having an easy way to remove programs that I've installed. One more thing though, an easier way to install drivers too. And have unknown devices show up as well if there is no driver part of the install yet. Make it graphical and an easy way to do it at the command line. And distro specific packages like rpm don't cut it. I want a way that'll work with all distro's, not just a specific one. You can install the same program on windows 98/2000/xp. MS did it, now its time for linux to do it.
My Gawd WTF...
"Maybe it's not as elegant or easy as M$ Windows"
Elegance and ease is the key to an effective OS for the masses. It needs to become as elegant as M$ and OSX (or better) to go completely mainstream. If it's not then the average user, like my parents, won't give it a second look.
Evolution or ID?
I don't know whether to mod Dan's article as +1 insightful or -1 Redundant.
Change view often.
A well thought out opinion is boring.
Linux has a LONG way to go. Let's face facts. In Linux it's a pain in the arse to install a package, to uninstall packages, to do anything that's simple in Windows basically, it's harder in Linux.
Almost everything has a million dependancies, countless bugs, and security holes everywhere (just look at the security lists, just as many holes in Linux as Windows) and Linux is basically nowhere near ready for the average user. I've tried Lindows and Xandros and both have serious flaws, Linux is atleast a decade off of a Desktop OS.
This isn't bashing Linux, it's facing facts. Windows is miles ahead, the Mac is way ahead, and there isn't anybody else who stands a chance at the moment.
When I've tried Desktop-easy Linux distributions, like Xandros, I've found it to not really be Linux, changing GUI is a pain in the arse, updating the kernal, basically doing anything beyond 'point-and-click'.
While the general use may appear easier, it isn't really Linux in that the distributions are easily changed to suit your needs, you're locked-in far more than even with Windows.
This article reads as nothing more than a Linux-oriented Macintosh advertisement.
From the opinionated comment "if you want to use wireless with a laptop, buy a Mac" to his conclusion, his writing suggests buying a Macintosh to escape desktop troubles and attain nirvana.
I'm not bashing the Macintosh as my first computer was an Apple II+, Macintosh 128K (the original), Macintosh 512K, Macintosh SE, Macintosh Centris 610. I love the ease-of-use of the Macintosh and believe that Apple creates the best interfaces. (The "Dock" notwishstanding!)
He is short on specific elements that are better implemented in other OSes than Linux. That is the key to why Linux will dominate: It gathers the best of all possibilities unto itself.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
What's so hard on "make && make modules_install" and then change ONLY a line in grub.conf or lilo.conf? Linux is easy. My nephew is using it since two years ago. He knows almost NOTHING about how computers work. He DOESN'T NEED A KERNEL RECOMPILE! That's what I'm for...
Maybe it's time for Red Hat to evaluate their current stance on Desktop Linux. Last I heard they were saying it was years away after ditching support for their affordable version.
I just upgraded my desktop from slackware to SuSe and it was very easy. I couldn't see how it would be hard for anyone installing it. The only problem was that I accidently screwed up my windows partition because they made the partitioning aspect to easy. I seemed like it would resize and move my partitions around and allow me to keep my home partition and my windows partition but when I did it, it died, probably by human error. Anyhow, I degress. The point is, if I wasn't trying to do anything fancy, it would of been a simple install.
Also, my wife uses my computer too and she is hardly computer literate but she's right at home in KDE and Gnome. I made a login for her. She signed onto Aim with Gaim, set up her email and went nuts with the KDE themeing. Also, I have faith that she won't be able to boch the system by pressing the wrong key. She even suggestd to her mom to install Linux.
From an technical viewpoint, where is the fundamental difference? What do we gain by people switching form UNIX to Linux? Who says that switching away from UNIX is unavoidable and if not to Linux it must be WinNT?
To take solaris as an example, but most of the same could be said about AIX and HPUX: almost all open source software running on Linux also runs on UNIX, just the same. It offers the same user environment. And in most cases it offers more mature threading and scaleability. Linux is still trying to catch up with UNIX. It has come close in many areas, but don't try to run it on an E10000.
The only advantage for Linux over UNIX is price (both of the software and of the hardware).
Of course I like switches from UNIX to Linux better than switches from UNIX to WinNT. But I would like switches from WinNT to UNIX or Linux much better. The only thing that counts is UNIX/Linux against WinNT.
Remember, the UNIX world (of which Linux nowadays is a part) suffered because of divisions and internal disagreements. It is important to cooperate and stand united against the enemy now. If this sectarism continues it will damage us all (including Linux). Today it is Linux against UNIX, tomorrow it may be XY-Linux against AB-Linux or whatever.
I don't say all UNIX & Linux variants must assimilate and become the same, but they should strive for the same common goal and together create an attractive platform to fight the real enemy.
I wish your Linux wireless experience had been as painless as mine was.
I bought the $20 Belkin PC-card at surpluscomputers.com. It uses the Atmel wireless Ethernet chip, and there's a well-packaged Linux driver on Atmel's site. I got the "wireless-tools" package for my Linux distribution and dropped Atmel's driver into my kernel, and I have Wi-Fi! Very easy, no blind alleys. This stuff used to be hard. Either I'm getting better or Linux is getting easier.
To the non-geek, here is what this paragraph might mean:
Atmel wireless Ethernet chip: I have to install a chip? Oh great, where do I buy that?
well-packaged Linux driver: Who cares if they send it to you in a nice package? My Windows came in a very colorful box, and I still had troubles with it!
kernel: You mean corn kernel? Or are you spelling Colonel wrong? Huh?
Either I'm getting better or Linux is getting easier: You are stupid because you don't know Linux speak. Keep using MS Windows, it is less intimidating.
Just some thoughts on how far some of the stuff for the Linux desktop still has to go. If you want to beat Microsoft, you are going to have to make things easy for the non-geek (duh). I certainly don't mean to belittle the poster. But is sure does highlight the fact that what we geek types think has become easy is still very, very hard for the average user.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Too much attention has been given to linux on the desktop. In the battle against software oppresion, the first front is destroying the onld UNIX systems. Linux hurts the Windows monopoly more by having people who are switching from UNIX to Linux that from UNIX to the Win NT family. Thats where most of the effort should be applied (because thats where technology can actually be compared).
Ummmm... I'd say it is doing exactly that - witness what's happened to Sun and SCO, both of whom are getting hurt badly by Linux. Microsoft is in a nip-and-tuck battle for server share too - their sales have grown, but not nearly as quickly as Linux has.
Winning the desktop has nothing to do with who has the best technology of user interface. It has all to do with leveraging corporate power. Once many corporations are united with Linux on the server side, their corporate power will allow linux to take over the deskop, regardless of how good the software is. Apple has shown that it doesn't require a Herculian effort to make a usable desktop on a UNIX variant. Why are we wasting our resources?
Understandable, but I think keeping the LotD issue in the forefront is taking a page out of BillG's business strategy book. That is:
- Linux's core market is servers.
- Microsoft trys to muscle in on that market, so Linux says "OK, buddy" and attacks Microsofts core market, the desktop.
- Now, Microsoft must split resources to defend thier core market as well as advance on the new one
- If Microsoft pushes to hard on the server front, they could lose thier huge dominance of the desktop market. Very bad for them.
- if they defend the desktop market too strenuously, they won't make the headway they want on the server market. Still bad for them, as thier share price is predicated on huge growth.
Microsoft has used this strategy before - they almost buried Novell this way. Novell had WordPerfect Office, so Microsoft ramped up Windows NT server development and took on NetWare.
Turn about is fair play. Let's see how Microsoft handles a credible threat to thier core business that they can't just buy, bury or wish away.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
There are very few things keeping my main desktop running windows now. One of them is the VPN client thing. Unfortunately we need some cooperation from vendors who sometimes aren't willing to release a Linux client for their VPNs. A *free* Linux client, at least free to people whose company pays for a Windoze client but want to use the Linux instead.
I'm primarily a network design/security/ops geek, if I can't open a Visio doc I'm screwed. Also, if I can interface with that horrific beast that is our Exchange server with something open source please let me know.
Those are the three things holding me back in the workplace. As Gillmor wrote though, I'm optimistic about the community getting this solved.
Error: No space left on device.
Dude, you're lacking in the "how an OS actually fscking works" department. Also in the "I think KDE = Linux" department. The OS has nothing to do with the applications on it. Don't like it? Sorry, stick to Windows. There's no necessary link between applications and the OS. Consequently, there's no DLL hell, where if you upgrade IE, your other applications die because you hosed some internal HTML rendering library. If your OS (including kernel, system binaries, and libraries) doesn't have the functionality an app requires, YOU NEED TO MAKE THE CHOICE to install it. The app isn't going to do it for you.
Drivers are a completely different beast. Try and use a precompiled driver module on a kernel w/o support for it, or the wrong kernel version, and it dies. How many pre 2000/XP Windows installations got hosed by bad or subtly incompatible drivers?
Linux ain't Windows, nor will it ever be. There are specific design and architecture requirements of each, and they're mutually exclusive. Just because you want it, and it's easy to utter, doesn't make it practical or desirable.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I guess that depends on your definition of elegant.
If you mean elegant as in "refined", then I would agree. But in engineering there is this definition, which is more befitting to Linux:
adj. [common; from mathematical usage] Combining simplicity, power, and a certain ineffable grace of design. Higher praise than `clever', `winning', or even cuspy.
The French aviator, adventurer, and author Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, probably best known for his classic children's book "The Little Prince", was also an aircraft designer. He gave us perhaps the best definition of engineering elegance when he said "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Yet even now, I could take this ThinkPad on the road and, working around the rough spots, get my work done. I would not have said that a year ago. I call this progress. (Gilmore)
Why not? What was missing then that has now suddenly allowed Gilmore to use Linux and on his relatively old Thinkpad? Were the desktop distributions really so horrible one year ago? Were StarOffice 6 and Xandros 1.x so undeveloped that a Thinkpad released in 2000 couldn't handle simple office tasks and networking?
I don't think it's Linux that has suddenly caught up, but Gilmore. He seems to want to make it sound as though he was right both then and now, rather than admitting that his previous appraisal of desktop Linux was lacking.
Windows has the same problem of look and feel. There are many different toolkits for Windows that all use different widgets: MS Office, the Visual Studio theme of the year, Kylix, Qt, Opera, Mozilla, OpenOffice, pre-XP Windows, etc.
All of these toolkits do not use the XP theming engines. X isn't the only platform that has problems with consistent appearance.
Ok, so you say that too much attention is given to Linux on the desktop, and we should focus instead on pushing UNIX out of the market. I have a comment on both of those opinions.
First, pushing others out of the market. Why? I think the main reason for working on open-source software should be to improve that software. Since most developers work without (sometimes even against) commercial incentives, I don't think killing alternatives comes into play anywhere. On the contrary, having competitors means we can learn from them.
As for Linux on the desktop, there are a number of issues to consider here. I am bored by the discussions whether Linux is or isn't ready for the desktop. It's on _my_ desktop, and I welcome any improvements to my desktop experience. That said, I don't think the desktop should be a priority. The beauty of the anarchistic model that open-source enables is that everyone can do his own thing. Some people improve server performance, others write drivers. Everybody wins.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
That's great and all, but the problem is that laptop sales have already outpaced desktop sales, and are set to completely massacre them in the coming years.
I've been looking at linux on the laptop objectively lately, and the situation is really pretty bad from a user-friendliness standpoint. Most of the bits I've gathered for getting peripherals and power conservation features on my laptop to function are scattered to the four winds. It's all arkane little tweaks and twiddles handed down through web forums and kernel mailing lists. None of it is cohesive, and all of it is perfectly opaque to the average end-user.
Additionally, a lot of the tools are simply incomplete. The Longrun utility doesn't support all of the features of the Crusoe chips. ACPID doesn't come with a SysV service script. And while the new laptop_mode project is coming along, it seems to be focussing on kernel tweaks to reduce disk utilization, which in my limited experience isn't the lion's share of wasted power on a laptop (for instance, on my laptop, spinning down the drive only reduces power usage by 5%). It also has no facilities for Crusoe processors as of yet.
I'm actually working on contributions to the respective projects to address my primary concerns, so this isn't a normal case of sour grapes. However, I fear that my improvements may only amount to a drop in a very large bucket. It's a big hill to climb, and it's getting taller with every quirky new laptop model that comes out.
Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
ethereal requires you to have access to my network (physically - the wire). You're probably not going to be able to snoop on my LAN connected to the internet through a firewall unless you break into my house.
With wireless, some guy in his car parked in front of my house could snoop in on everything.
That's what people refer to when they say wireless is unsecured. Get it?
I'm not sure Linux will ever be comfortable to the masses. First off, normal people would find the filesystem layout absolutely confusing, and they wouldn't understand the whole "install multiple files across to multiple directories" thing. They want programs installed into their own folders for easy tracking or deletion.
They also won't understand the "file is a device" thing--strictly a UNIX programmer idea--because they see files as real documents. Complete confusion.
There's more, but I won't go into it--I just worry how far Linux can go with these sorts of problems, coupled with a complete lack of a real GUI installation/uninstallation API (instead relying on crappy RPM managers and such). The day you can grab a CD, stick it in, and run an autostarted installer to install a printer driver will be the day Linux will actually be good enough for desktop use.
Right now, all the nifty graphics are there to make pretty desktop screenshots for the backs of distro box packaging, but when you grab the mouse and use the thing, the interface violations are so flagrant, it's impossible to expect anyone to use it for extended periods of time. At the least, Windows retains a little more sanity in this regard, enough to be somewhat consistent. And, obviously, OS X would be king in this department (ignoring Adobe apps, of course...).
Thanks for identifying yourself as a dumbass for the world, equating wireless security with LAN security
Yes, wired ethernet is not a guarantee of security, but considering you'll have to break into my house and tap into the physical cables, then leave a hardware device behind, I'd have far bigger privacy concerns if you had violated my security to that degree.
Theres XP home and XP pro....
I'd say the same applies to linux. If you want a standardized version that's easy to use with a defined upgrade schedule use Xandros, Lindows, Lycoris.If you are knowledgeable and want more options use Debian, Slackware, Redhat, SUSE, Gentoo, whatever.
There will always be the lack a unified desktop,packaging system, look & fell, etc among "pro" distros. If you want that go with the home version"
Don't complain that it's hard to change the GUI in Xandros, because it's not aimed at you. I'd say the majority of windows users have the default desktop minus say the wallpaper.
Linux on Joe User's desktop won't become a reality unless there's one look, one place for configs, etc. I don't think the average Slashdot user want's that...
How bout a default desktop install that is the same across all distros. Power users will always be able to change their desktop to icewm,fluxbox,gnome,kde. The vast majority of users will get a nice desktop that looks and ACTS the same at their house, their parent's house, and their friends house.
2. Do not use Linux as a weapon to beat Microsoft about the head with. If you're not happy with Windows or Microsoft, then email Microsoft about it, don't migrate to Linux as some kind of "rebellion". Use Linux because you want freedom to run the software you want when you want, use it because you want to control your own access to your data, use it because you quite like the way KDE or Gnome looks or use it simply because it might be a lot more fun than Windows. These are all good reasons but if you're not happy to spend some time learning a new OS and it's associated tools, then don't bother.
3. Don't sit back and wait for Linux to "come to you". "Readiness for the desktop" is a personal opinion based on what applications you use in Windows and what their equivalents are in Linux. Do some research, trawl Sourceforge to find out what kind of software there is and try it, read what's included in boxed distros and, again as a dual-boot system, compare Linux software to the Windows stuff you already know. Migrate gradually and spend time learning.
4. Try some of the Open Source apps in Windows first, see how they run there - Mozilla, The GIMP, OpenOffice.org, etc. Find out whether your favourite web sites render correctly in Mozilla, find out whether OpenOffice can import your word documents, find out if The GIMP gives you the functionality you were used to having in Paintshop Pro or Photoshop.
5. Research your hardware. Will your scanner, printer, camera, etc. all work under Linux? If not, are you happy to use Windows for some work still until Linux catches up?
The idea that Linux is "ready" or "not ready" is subjective and rubbish. It's just about giving it a try and either ditching it or working with it and possibly showing some perseverence.
It's all about getting out what you put in, nothing more...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"I consider myslef generally technically able (I can troll around on a Unix term), but it is a bit intimidating for a first timer. How do you suppose Windows would be received if the install required editing config files in a DOS shell and hacking the registry?"
Repeat after me until you understand it thoroughly. OEM, OEM, OEM. Setting up some make-believe condition that Linux has to meet that Microsoft, nor even Macs have to meet is disingenious.
And to drive things even more deeply. In all my years of MS. I've never heard anyone once say "Damn I had to edit CONFIG.SYS or the registry. Guess this whole MS thing will never last"
So yes let's hold Linux up to high standards(1), but let us never forget that Windows didn't get were it was by meeting high standards.
(1) Reminds me of the way we treat women. Meet higher standards than men in order to come out even.
Debian
apt-get install packagename
apt-get remove packagename
Gentoo
emerge packagename
emerge --unmerge packagename
Fedora
yum install packagename
yum remove packagename
Redhat
up2date packagename
rpm -e packagename
In all of the install cases here, the packaging system installs the software package along with any of the dependencies that are required. In the case of debian and especially gentoo, almost every package you need is available through the packaging system. Apple and Windows aren't even close to providing that level of packaging support. Although fink is probably the first thing i install on a virgin os x machine.
A totally paradoxical statement.
Closed source implies that you are limited to use only the "interfaces" programmed by the owner of the source.
Open source means that anyone can take the code and program in whatever "interfaces" they see fit to add.
I'm not sure what you mean by "interfaces" but if you mean the "look and feel" of software, then that is governed purely by the programming libraries that exist in desktop environments - be they Windows, Gnome, KDE etc.
Otherwise, you would have a far fewer number of applications around because programmers would have to spend much more time programming their own GUIs also, all of which would probably look completely different anyway.
Your statement, assuming I have read it right, is entirely self-defeating...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...but there's a hell of a lot of a way to go. I have side by side a Mandrake 9.2 box (still a 2.4.x kernel) and a Mac running OS X 10.3.3 so I'm constantly seeing The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
I can't see using the Mac as a server (though it does have apache and postfix), and I can't see using the linux box as a desktop. I can't think of one area in which the linux box is superior to the Mac for desktop use (leaving licensing aside; I'm no free software nazi).
I fire up yon KDE (slightly less offensive than Gnome to me) and shake my head and the crudity and the awkwardness. My overall impression is it's the worst part of imitating Windows without any of the "I'm going to make using this easier for you" benefits it gives.
One of the reasons why the linux kernel is so good compared to everything else is there's someone (with good judgment) who can and will say "that's stupid, we're not going to do that." The KDE and Gnome teams need to do the same thing, as do the CUPS team, etc, etc, etc.
You gotta play to your strengths and while this is a long way from KDE 1.0 that I first used with MKLinux 7 years ago, there sure hasn't been 7 years of evolution from the user end (yeah, I know under the hood is wayyy changed). Maybe 1 year done 7 times....
Linux install.. do an emerge, apt-get, swaret, etc, sit back and wait.
emerge what? where do I type this? I just type "emerge" and my program on my CD installs? What tells me how to do this? I put the CD in, then I type emerge, or do I type emerge then put the CD in?
. Linux way.. search on linuxquestions.org or your distro's forums.
How do I find linuxquestions if I can't connect to the Internet? What's a distro? What's a forum? Where do I find distro forums?
. Recompiling a kernel? It's really not that hard. There are a ton of walkthroughs on the internet.
A kernel of corn? I thought we were talking about computers? What's "recompiling"? Why do I have to do this? Where do I find instructions? How often do I do this?
You are 100% out of touch. Leave your parents' basement and talk to a real person. They'll have no clue what you're talking about.
You know, based exclusively on your comments, I'd have to say that Windows is much easier. Fortunately, I know better.
1. Installing a program is much harder. "emerge"? "apt-get"? You left out a critical component there: the command line. I would much rather send a link than go through the whole "e as in echo, m as in Mary, e as in echo - yeah, again, there's another one coming up later - r as in radio..." bullshit.
2. "Search" for your answer? What if you don't even know the question? "I can't connect to the internet" is what Joe Blow will query, and how much help is that going to be? At least a call to the manufacturer may get you going in the right direction (and, sometimes, very occasionally - the right answer the first time)
3. Gawdz. I won't even touch this one. This is so wrong for Joe Blow it isn't even funny, until they get configuring the kernel to be a lot more automatic (with better dependency checking, etc).
4. Sorry you've had such problems with Plug and Play. I can't say that I've shared them. I can't say that Mom or Dad or Grandmother or any of a half-dozen other people consider me "tech support" has had much of a problem getting things installed. I should note that they're all on Win2K Pro or WinXP - since I refuse to help anyone on the Win9x series (and not because of hardware, because of software).
Frankly, neither Linux, nor Windows, nor even Macs are that easy to use. "Easy", to me, means not thinking about what I'm doing, just doing it. I'm pretty sure that's what it means to most people, and the bar is much higher for those who have no desire to learn a single acronym about their machine.
If Linux (or Windows, or BeOS, or anything) is so easy, why do I have to learn so much in order to do something new? The knobs and switches available in any OS, if consolidated, would make the cockpit of a 747 look like a Fisher-Price toy.
I for one hope to never see the end of "this desktop sucks" articles. Because they do. Everybody criticizes Microsoft's efforts to have the OS "figure out" what you want. I have no objection to it figuring me out, I just object to how horribly wrong the implementations have been. If I could count on my desktop (and apps) accurately judging my preferences with minimal input from me (and fewer inane questions, please), then that's what I would call "easy".
Couple things wrong here.
"Bingo!! If our parents can't use it and be confortable with it then it won't gain acceptance with the masses."
1-Everyone assumes that their parents (Aunt Tillie) is the "Masses" which brings me to my second point.
2-There is no such thing as an average person. Are your parents an average white person? Are they an average black person? Are they an average jewish person? How about people with average hair? Or an average walk? Do they hop on average legs, and talk an average talk? Average is something that exists in a statistical database buried in Marketing Mountain, and should be treated with the suspicion it deserves.
"I would like to use Linux on all my CPU's but sadly I'm still teathered to MS because of both software and hardware support (software that only only comes in a MS flavor and hardware that is not 100% supported by Linux)."
And this is Linux's fault how, exactly. We ask nicely and the manufacturers say no. We ask the software makes, and they say no. Now how is this our fault? At least unlike other operating systems we sweat and slave to reverse-engineer a driver, all the while the legal noose closing around us. We write our own software and get accused of "chasing taillights", and "not being innovative".
"Though my firewall and servers are Linux, my desktop OS remain MS."
That's fine, just remember no one put you there, and no one is keeping you there.
reasonable amount of eye candy.
Average users want an interface that is consistent so they don't have to re-learn things constantly. They want simplicity so they don't have to struggle with figuring out how to accomplish simple tasks. They want a little bit of eye candy to make using their computer pleasing to the eye and enjoyable. They also want tools for basic functions like email, internet, word processing, a little gamage, chatting.
Linux has all of these elements, but the plethora of choices in each category is, in itself, a source of confusion (see simplicity).
The one huge issue that keeps me from tossing XP is the hardware driver/compatibility issues that are ever-present with Linux. If we could just see some more headway in that department then the barn doors will be open for the desktop assault.
Linux needs supporting software like Quicken, Adobe Photoshop, DVD playback software (not the hack-and-crack DECSS you can download), and other titles for sale in Best Buy and Walmart next to the boxes of Linux OS.
Really people don't care what OS they use to interface with their computer, but they do care how easy it is to use and what they can easily do with it. Windows just happens to have won the title of "McDonalds of the OS world". Give the masses another similar choice for cheaper and they will flock to it (assuming all things mentioned in the 1st couple paragraphs above being relatively equal to the Windows world).
***this is just my attempt to provide helpful insight into average folks' expectations for a desktop experience***
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Linux readiness for the desktop is very relative, IMHO. It very much depends on which type of user we are talking about:
... provided it is setup for her by a knowlegble person with all shortcuts right there.
... I don't see how we could use Linux on the desktop. Our server is NT4 and I have been working to switch it to Linux, but with little success.
Total Novice: Like my mom (who actually used to operate a punch card computer for the NAVY), who only uses computers to look for a couple recipies and may be check e-mail can very easily use Linux
Novice: People who only recently bought a computer and are just getting used to how Windows works. These users could easily use Xandros. All they need is easy setup with basic applications right there and good support when required.
Power Users (as MS calls them): This is a type of user who has been with Windows since 3.11 days and only knows how to "work" Windows and Windows only. This type of user does more advanced tasks him/herself and doing similar things on Linux is both very different and often much more complicated.
Science/Edu: Most scientific/edu users could easily use Linux and never look back. They have no ties to regular Windows applications and anything they write in house to scientific reseach can be easily ported to Linux.
Corporate/Business: Perhaps, the most difficult group to deal with. This is the area where MS is strongest with MS Office (especially Excel and Access), MS Echange etc. Also a lot of software used in coporate world is built in house (for security and narrow specification purposes) and porting it to Linux may be diffiult or very expesive. The compnay I work for uses a lot of in house software + Excel/Access
Desktop Publishing/Design/Photo: In this area Linux is years behind! A lot of people mention Gimp whenever this comes up. Gimp (aka Photoshop replacement) is only a very small part of the deal. It is much better then it used to be, but is still lacking. Professional grade applications such as Quark/InDesign, good color management, argg Linux handling of fonts are still missing.
NineNine, First off, being this is the /. crowd I skipped the particulars. Let's assume we're talking joe clueless then:
.exe? Ok. It's asking me where to install it to, what's a "cee colon slash Program Files?"...
I put the CD in, now what? Oh, I have to click My Computer? Ok. Ooh, I have to double-click? Open my CD-ROM, what's that? Double click on setup.exe, what's an
My point is using linux not hard or even harder. There's learning curve involved just like any other piece of software. These authors seem to want to bash on Linux because they equate different with harder. I'm saying it's not.
And yeah, the average person wouldn't understand kernel compiling. You know what? I know jack shit about registry hacking. Never needed to learn how to do it, so I don't know how. Joe User would be using a major distro's kernel and doesn't really need to recompile a kernel.
I put it on an old Dell last month, gave it to my mother, and she did not say anything; the thing got onto the Net, let her edit her documents and send email and browse, print out her papers, and generally did a nice job, well.
And you won't hear anything until your mother either receives some cute Windows-only program in her email from one of her friends or attempts to run some off-the-shelf software, like a Genealogy program (old people love them), or Turbo Tax or something like that.
"Son, why can't I run this program? I put in the CD and it doesn't do anything! What's the matter with my computer? Is it broken? Do I need to buy a new one?"
"No mother, your computer is fine. The software is for Windows, and your computer only runs Linux. I installed Linux on your computer because I wanted to impose my software ideology upon you without your consent. I didn't think you'd actually try to run store-bought software. Just stick to writing emails and browing the net, your computer will be fine."
"Fine? What's fine about my computer, I can't run Family Tree Maker on it! What's Windows? Can you put it on my computer? I want to run this program I bought!"
Have fun explaining what you did to her computer...
I would have thought this a valid point had I not run into the same problem with Windows 2000 (I don't know how well XP handles this). Long story short I changed the monitor on a computer with win2k on it and the "new" monitor wasn't able to handle the resolution refresh rate combo. The screen was blank and the LED flashing.
Luckily I had VNC set up on that comp so I could change the resolution that way. Alternatively I think I could've pressed F8 during windows start up to bring it up in safe mode, I'm not sure. The point is, not even Windows 2000 offers a simple way out of your problem. All in all I think ctrl-alt-f1 in linux or vnc/f8 in wi2k adds up to the same level of obscurity when it comes to the "masses" you apeak of.
No hay banda
In my own personal experience, the driver support on Linux has been better than on Windows.. The Linux drivers seem to be more generalized. I have two CompactFlash WiFi cards that I can use in my Zaurus or use in my laptop with a PCMCIA adapter. in Linux, I pop the card in, and the driver loads.. no problems. The dmesg output claims a different vendor than it actually says on the card, but it works fine.
Then, I put it in the laptop while booted into Win2K, and it goes through that damn hardware wizard. I try a half dozen drivers, from the card vendor, the chipset OEM, and other similar cards.. and none load. The cards are officially supported on WinCE devices, but there is no reason they shouldn't work on Win2K. I eventually get it working in one laptop, I'm still not sure how. But, I never did get it working in my Sony VAIO. Like most Windows things, I can't get any low level information about why it's failing.. it just doesn't work.
BUT.. Once a card is working in Windows, the software is generally pretty good. I can see available Access Points, configure them - and the software remembers WEP keys, etc.
On Linux, it's a highly manual process, entering WEP keys on the command line.. using seperate tools to scan for access points.. This part totally sucks in Linux today.
The Zaurus has some half decent GUI tools for setting keys & stuff like that, but it is nowhere near as good as WinXP, WinCE, or MacOS X. This is what's needed to have a usable wireless connection.
If you're fed up with spyware and viruses, and don't want your data locked in the Microsoft Office file format dungeon, nor want to be locked into the constant upgrades that are a part of the Windows world, then Xandros has what you need.
Sounds like you're locked into those upgrades from the Windows world pretty bad, considering you are comparing Xandros to Windows 98, eh?
My United States and EU customers are accountants and finance types who are Windows business users. I can assure you that pretty much all they care about is running Excel, Word, PowerPoint, and Outlook.
In order to be credible to business users like these people, a Linux desktop has to support those core products. That won't ever happen, at least to anyone's complete satisfaction, because Microsoft will make sure that it is as difficult as possible to run its Office products on anything other than a Windows platform. Whether they use licensing, "undocumented" API tricks, or some other mechanism to make this true, is just a detail. Pick one.
Converting to Star Office or Open Office isn't an option for the business user, because the macro languages and the products aren't compatible enough. These are power users. They use ALL the Excel features -- macros, VBA, pivot tables, etc. You can't just ask them to convert to something much less capable (and potentially incompatible with models that have years of effort invested in them).
The bottom line is that Microsoft has to be split up before their stranglehold on the business user can be broken. The Office products division needs to be an independent company. What independent Office products company, looking at a crystal ball right now, wouldn't produce a Linux version? Only one owned by Microsoft. So as long as Microsoft controls the business application user, Linux can't supplant Windows on the business desktop.
To my mind, this is the most important reason why Microsoft needs to be broken into pieces. Perhaps someday an appeals court will agree.
Innovators? This is your next door neighbor, joe six packs, talking. Free and open software are not just cheaper and better, they are now easier to get. What you are seeing is the water flooding down stream. The innovators cracked the damb, comerical softoware companies slipped through the cracks and the Microsoft monopoly damb broke. Big companies and private contractors have been making big $$$ with free software. Now it's hitting the desktop and you ain't seen nothing yet.
Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.
The people who need to be ready for this are the VARs and others who service them. Microsoft fanboys have been so busy keeping up with anti-virus tools that don't work and crap like Norton Ghost they have some catching up to do. Don't worry, they did the same thing when Windoze hit the big time too. It's going to work better and make more money this time.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.