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.""

12 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well duh. by vivek7006 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's not as elegant or easy as M$ Windows, but it's not that bad

    Have you seen KDE3.2? It is more elegant and much easier to use than any versiion of windows IMHO

  2. LINUX hasn't changed... by ThetaKestrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. linux on the desktop by xpyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:linux on the desktop by kollivier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but it's only solved in Debian. Have you noticed that people's choice of distribution is usually *heavily* based around the packaging system the distribution uses? Think about that for a minute. All of these distros are not very different at all if you take away their unique packaging systems.

      I see that as sad, personally. The ability to install software easily has become the #1 differentiator between distros. As long as everyone picks the same distro, this works great. Otherwise, it makes software developers' lives hell. Joe wants a RPM, Jack wants a DEB, Jill wants an Emerge, and others want an autoconf-based tarball that includes all the dependencies for easy source installs. Cripes.

      So while you marvel at Debian's simplicity, I'll pull my hair out learning several different packaging formats and trying to maintain them all. Furthermore, to make binaries, I need to have access to each of those distros! There is supposedly some LSB-compliant binary builder, but I haven't figured that out yet... And yet people expect developers to make more effort to support Linux while Linux vendors (and OSS developers) just keep adding more complexity to the whole thing? It just seems like a case of continually re-inventing the wheel rather than getting together and coming to a solution.

      When distribution vendors can get out of the software packaging business (except for the core OS), it will be a great day for developers and users alike. Standards need to be adhered to, and people need to realize that a filesystem designed for optimizing command-line use (i.e. everything on the Path or in "special" folders, easy-to-type folder names vs. easy-to-understand) is no longer a very good choice for today's increasingly complex GUI applications, some of which can have hundreds or thousands of files. Linux has some solutions, but nothing is self-contained, and NOTHING is easy to understand without reading a bunch of docs scattered around the web. I don't need to read 50 pages of documentation to learn where to put my files on Windows/Mac.

      If Debian's packaging system is somehow going to resolve all this, let me know. Otherwise, I'll probably stick to Windows and Mac packages at the moment, both of which are simple to put together and just work.

  4. Elegant and ease is the key by millahtime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Elegant and ease is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo!! If our parents can't use it and be confortable with it then it won't gain acceptance with the masses. 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). Though my firewall and servers are Linux, my desktop OS remain MS.

  5. How should I mod Dan? by Erore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know whether to mod Dan's article as +1 insightful or -1 Redundant.

  6. Re:Well duh. by OneFix+at+Work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the contrary. I use Linux on the desktop at work and home...the only use for windoze that I have are Photoshop, my photo printer, and games...the Photoshop thing is quickly changing, as GIMP is getting better and hollywood studios are pushing Wine to 100% Photoshop compatability. The printer is a Canon, which has no support in CUPS outside of TurboPrint...and Games are well, games...they don't matter as much in the grand scheme of things, considering that I have a PS2 already...

    But, with my experience, Linux on the desktop is MUCH more elegant than Windoze in every way. Under Linux, I have fewer crashes, better performance, and my choice of window managers. On Windoze, I have Windoze and a series of for-pay "hacks" to make my system look different.

    As far as ease of use, that's coming. With my system (Fedora Core 1 + Apt-RPM using Synaptic) I can install new software and upgrades at the click of a button. No downloads, no need to check dependencies, not even a need to uninstall the old versions of the software. Under Linux it just works...

    There's a quote in someones signature that goes something like "To really screw up Linux you have to work at it...To really screw up Windoze, you have to work ON it..." I think that sums up Linux on the desktop pretty well...

  7. Re:Well duh. by SmilingBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All the MS apps work the same and look the same you wanted to say.

    But all the KDE tools work the same and look the same as well!

    It's just non-KDE programs that look differently, but so do non-MS programs.

  8. Re:Well duh. by avdp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On Windows all the apps do not look or work the same by a mile. Not even all Microsoft apps look and work the same, i.e. Microsoft Office (XP and above) has its own look and feel that no other Microsoft app has.

    If anything, KDE does a better job there.

  9. Re:Well duh. by Kethinov · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They [Fedora] refuse to ship NTFS support, MP3 support, or NVidia support.
    Here's why:
    The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software.
    When the GPL talks about free software, they're talking about 1. open source and 2. free from restrictions. It ships with no NTFS support because NTFS is not free software (nonfree filesystem).

    They ship with no MP3 support because MP3 format is also not free software. You have to pay a royalty or something retarded to write programs to decode it. Granted most programs we use that decode them never payed such royalty, the law is still there. Even if everyone refuses to obey the law, it still exists.

    Finally, they ship with no nvidia support because the nvidia driver from the company is not open source and therefore does not fit the GPL's definition of free software. You can still use your nvidia card using the nv driver, sans opengl.

    Call this open source zealotry if you wish, but that's why they do it.
    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  10. Look, Here's The Deal... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. If you use Windows and are thinking of trying Linux, you should keep your Windows installation going and either have Linux as a dual-boot system or run it from a bootable CD. This takes away any risk that you'll end up with an unusable PC and you can take your time deciding if you like Linux or not. It does not matter what everyone else thinks - software is a tool for you and you use the best tool for the job, whether or not Microsoft make it.

    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.