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.""
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
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!
While this is probably being heralded as good news (i.e. prominent "news" figure endorses Linux), isn't this really just jumping on the bandwagon while he still can?
The article likens Linux to the proverbial tortoise, and that gets me to thinking that we should update the famous Aesop fable of the tortoise and the hare to reflect today's reality.
How about this...
Just as the tortoise has crossed the finish line, the hare, waking up and realizing he's lost the race as a result of his own indolence and brash overconfidence, files suit against the tortoise for infringing on his intellectual property, foremost of which is the hare's exclusive rights to using one's legs for forward movement.
The tortoise, facing mounting legal bills and declining support from the other animals, nearly all of whom think the hare's claims are overly broad and invalid but are afraid of being similarly targeted by the hare's legal campaign for the use of their own legs, is forced to settle out of court, concede defeat in the race, and to pay a nominal licensing fee to continue using his own legs.
The hare, and his lawyers, win the race after all.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
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).
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?
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.
(and we'll probably have to keep saying it for another three years)
The innovators have spoken, and they like what they saw.
Now the volume will pick up, as more people take notice, and the ease-of-learning continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As businesses start deploying Linux on the workstation for cost competitive advantage and security competitive advantage, there will be more demand of open-source integration - and more open-source programming jobs.
Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
Actually, the name IS correct in the title.
It's wrong in the article text - the man is called Dan Gillmor :-)
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.
Star Office 7.0, the latest and most impressive version of Sun Microsystems' low cost alternative to Microsoft Office.
Okay. I'll believe that things have gradually gotten better and better on the Linux desktop.
So, then, now, how much incentive does Sun have now to push OO.o and Star Office further into this key part of Microsoft's bread and butter business?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
There is no doubt about it: Xandros is good enough to give to people who know nothing at all about the internals of computers. 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.
Xandros is probably the best of breed, and they are starting to make it available at no cost via channels like Linux magazine covers.
But even so it's well worth the money (and my firm has bought dozens of Xandros licenses) and comes highly recommended.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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...
Bruce Springsteen is singing, in the song, to a girlfriend or ex-girlfriend, one whom he accuses of getting her kicks from "driving" him "down." So, logically, I wrote my sig as if there's one specific girl who mods down my posts out of spite.
Hey, are you her?
You BITCH!
I want my records back!
I WANT MY RECORDS BACK!
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
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 know that I, for one, will be switching in May from RH9 to SuSE 9.1 Pro, and will be recommending it to others in place of the other major contenders (RHEL, Fedora, Mandrake, "Java" desktop, etc.)
--
Power to the Peaceful
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
You haven't used a modern distro, it seems. They come with stock kernels. When upgrades happen, a new stock kernel is pushed to you from yum or up2date or apt (systems for keeping software current on different distros). You should only compile your own kernel if: 1) you're running on a specialized box and want to maximize performance (server, number cruncher, etc) 2) You're a hobbiest who wants a tuned system. Note that (1) isn't really necessary. You'll get a kernel that's specialized to your processor after install. And (2), well, just because the geeks do it doesn't mean you have to. The performance increases you get are generally modest.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Yeah. Recompiling the kernel should be easy, just like it is in Windows.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
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.
Fedora Core 2 test 2 works fine will my USB mice, and I've found it overall the easiest to install of the RPM-based systems. (I'm using Fedora Core 2 before its release because I need kernel 2.6.) I had many more problems with Mandrake 10, but I haven't tried the current release of Suse yet.
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.
Installing packages on Debian: apt-get install packagename
Installing packages on Slackware: swaret --install packagename
Installing packages on Gentoo: emerge packagename
Installing on windows:
- go to store
- buy software
- go home
- pop CD in and run installer
- reboot computer
Which is easier?
"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."
Uh, I do it every day on several different distro's. With RH, for example, rpm is NOT that hard to use. Certainly not for removing packages. Debian's apt-get (and Kpackage for gui tool) is easier yet.
"Linux is basically nowhere near ready for the average user."
We have new 'average users,' small kids, non-tech folks, etc, using Linux, AND LIKING IT, daily. This statement is patently untrue when compared to observable fact. Mepis Linux is an excellent distro for new users, and many 'newbies' like it better than they ever liked Windows.
"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."
First of all, you might want to try more distros before you condemn the entire 'family.' DistroWatch
IMO, Linux is A LOT closer than than you think.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
I find package management far easier in Linux than Windows, let's compare:
Win:
Searching the web or finding a cd with an exe-file, no quality-testing, no testing of stability with the rest of your system, no control on where it put its files, no way to know if the uninstaller removes it all afterwards.
Linux (Debian, could just as easily been any other decent distro.)
apt-get install package, then apt-get --purge remove pacakge when you want to remove it, too hard for you?
And why do linux-security boards lists tons of bugs? Because they also keep track of bugs/holes in ALL the software available via their package system, you don't see microsoft publishing "local exploit in cuteftp" do you?
To sum it up, you don't have a clue, please go away.
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.
I think Linux has come a long way.
When I bought my home computer (about 3 years ago), I tried to get into Linux on the advice of my friend. I bought the $45 book-and-CD with the Penguin on the cover, but it was just too overwhelming (command-line what?!?) and I never gave it a fair shot.
Fast-forward 3 years: While trying to get an old (12MB-hard-drive old) laptop going, I heard that Linux was good for older hardware and went to the local LUG meeting where somebody gave me a copy of Knoppix (Psst... over here...Yeah, you... Try it, you'll like it!...The first one's free... all the cool kids are doing it...You wanna be cool, don't you?!?!). Less than six-months later, I use Linux almost exclusively at home.
Critical factors for the Linux switch made by my non-technical ass:
That's my experience. Every day Linux becomes not only a truly viable option for more people, but also a truly attractive option for more people.
The Dalai Llama
keep your damn command line - I want pretty colors, lots of nifty boxes, and everthing should be accessed through pretty little buttons that look like shiny pieces of candy...
My sig could be your sig!
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.
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.
Personally, I'm sick of these "Linux is too hard to use comments". People keep saying Linux won't be ready for the desktop until it is as easy to use as Windows. Do you even know any "Joe Users"? I'll tell ya this, my parents can't install new hardware or fix what I would call simple issues in WinXP. If a program is acting funny, they're lost. They have to call me or the PC manufactuer for help. Want to know how proficient the "average" or "slightly geeky" user is? Watch Screen Savers or Call for Help on TechTV. Most people can't figure out the simplest of issues. Whenever someone writes a "Linux still isn't there" article they assume that the average user is an expert in all things Windows. The truth is , they're not. So what makes Linux so much harder to learn/use than Windows?
Here's what I think about linux:
1. Installing a program isn't any harder. Windows install.. insert CD, click OK and Next a bunch of times and it's done. Linux install.. do an emerge, apt-get, swaret, etc, sit back and wait. Yeah, Linux is hard. One command to me is easier than navigating to a webpage, filling in some stupid personal info questions, downloading an executable, navigating to that executable then double clicking.
2. Something doesn't work right? Windows way... call your manufacturer or a geeky friend to help out. Linux way.. search on linuxquestions.org or your distro's forums. 99% of the time your answer is already in those forums. Some program throwing out some weird error? Search online, you'll find a ton of fixes. Yeah, Linux is hard.
3. Recompiling a kernel? It's really not that hard. There are a ton of walkthroughs on the internet.
4. Hardware support. Windows has plug and play which is really great... when it works. How many times have you tried to install a piece of hardware where Windows didn't correctly recognize it, or didn't recognize it at all? Me, probably at least a dozen times. In Linux every stock kernel I've seen a distro supply has just about everything compiled as a module. The only reason I've ever had hardware not be autodetected and set up is when that manufacturer explicitly wouldn't allow for OSS support (D-Link + series wireless cards with the TI chip).
So in summation, stop with the whiny articles about Linux isn't ready for the desktop. It is. Many people use it for both home and production machines. If it's not ready for people to use then why are there 78,919 projects hosted on sourceforge.net? That's an awful lot of software for such an unusable OS. If you want to complain that Linux isn't ready for the mass desktop to be used by Joe Doesn't_know_jack_about_PCs_user then I say neither is Windows.
You sound like someone who had a bad experience with .rpms. Guess what? So did I.
.rpms like the plague.
One of the main difference between distros is their package management so I avoid
Stick with apt-get, swaret, and emerge and see how easy software installation CAN BE.
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...).
Your computer is broadcasting an IP address. This allows...
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.
Installing packages on Debian: apt-get install packagename
:)
Installing packages on Slackware: swaret --install packagename
Installing packages on Gentoo: emerge packagename
Installing on windows:
- go to store
- buy software
- go home
- pop CD in and run installer
- reboot computer
I'm not sure what side you are taking here
Everybody knows how to do each of the individual steps you list to install a Windows program. Most would perceive that as easier than learning how to bring up an xterm, type in su, update the package database, guess what the package name is (or dig through thousands of choices), and type in apt-get or whatever. And with Gentoo, waiting for the compiler (unless they set it to use binary packages).
Think of it this way - which would your mother rather do: 1) relearn how to integrate a simple equation 2) go to the store and buy a calculator? The first takes less time, but requires more overall effort. The second is brainless.
Go read Clayton Christensens book Innovators Dilemma about disruptive Technologies and you will realize that the Improvement trajectory of Linux is much steeper than Windows.
As a matter of fact this is the crux of the problem for Microsoft.
They WILL loose even on the desktop as they are can only move up but at a slow rate. Linux and their MS' predatory practices has foiled them on the lower end, like Handheld and Mobile phones. Sony has then checked on the Entertainment / Game avenue. They have nowhere to go
Help fight continental drift.
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.
From the article...
I could have installed Windows XP, the current (and, I will acknowledge, far and away the best) Windows operating system to date, plus new applications. But that would be expensive.
This more expensive claim is bogus. Dan says he installed Xandros Desktop OS Version 2 - Deluxe Edition which costs $89, the same price that Windows XP Home Upgrade costs.
The recommended system requirements for Xandros and XP are almost identical.
So why hassle with Xandros when he could have just upgraded to XP and he would not have had to reinstall any applications, plus Star Office (not free) runs on XP. He could have avoided the hardware problems too.
Of course this would not have made for such an interesting article and this is must be Dan's true motivation...
Besides, it would feed a beast I'd rather not make any bulkier.
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.
Just today, I was bashing my head against the wall, trying to make Linux do what I want, and I am a technical person. I was using a home computer at work for a few weeks, and had installed RedHat 9 on it. It worked beautifully and with no problems. A couple of weeks ago the computer came back home, and I've only used the Windows partition to play games, and install a wireless network card.
/mnt/floppy" command, so I could at least write them to disk.
This morning, I needed some files off the Linux partition, so I booted to Linux. Only, when gdm attempts to start X on the box, my LCD display at home can't handle it (the settings weren't right for it). Is there a way to correct this? Does it drop down to the lowest common denominator so I can fix the problem? Nope! Being a geek, I fortunately KNOW that Ctrl-Alt-F1 will switch me to a console... I'd hate to think what Grandma would do.
I tried modifying XF86Config (being the geek I am) to put in more reasonable sync values. This didn't seem to work though. Redhat also conveniently got rid of xf86config, and the data file containing sync settings for most monitors.
All this, so I could go in and use the GUI to set up my new wireless network card (sorry, I never learned the command-line commands and files to edit to set this up manually).
I never did get that to work. Fortunately, I know the "mount
And this system is supposed to replace Windows and OS X for the masses? Don't get me started on setting up dual-headed displays under Linux at work...
I love Linux, especially developing under it. However, it is NOT ready as a Windows replacement. Gnome and KDE are fine, but some of the lower-levels such as X are still an issue.
John
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....
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?
George Carlin would love this. There is no proverb involving a tortoise or a hare. There's a fable, but no proverb. As such, there is no "proverbial tortoise".
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
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.
I had never used Linux before about 2 weeks ago, when I purchased a copy of Xandros 2.0, deluxe edition ($89). I was sick of system crashes, spyware, and viruses with Windows, so decided to give Linux a try.
Here is my experience, so far:
1) Install was very easy. Answer a few wizards, and off you go. I chose to install as a dual boot with my Windows 98 system, which is very easy with the Xandros installer. It recognized almost all of my hardware, right off the bat. Easier than installing Windows, if you ask me. It found but didn't utilize my Comcast Surfboard modem, which is connected via USB, rather than Ethernet card(long story). I found the fix for this in the Xandros forums, which was a _one line_ addition to a configuration file. Worked perfectly after that.
Using the system has gone pretty smoothly. I can use Open Office to open and edit my Microsoft Office files (have only tried spreadsheet so far), and the preinstalled Mozilla browser works fine.
On the downside, the fonts are pretty darn ugly, and I am constantly having to increase the font size in Mozilla, as it defaults to too small of a font on some web sites. Not sure why. Also, a good portion of web pages print out really tiny. Not sure why.
To increase the size of the fonts in Mozilla, I tried monkeying with the video card settings and the font sizes in Mozilla, but I didn't have much luck. Pretty confusing.
The system has been *very* stable, and no spyware or viruses in sight. The included media player is much more stable than the Windows Media Player or Divx, which were constantly crashing under Windows 98. The file browser is brilliant--I can see my Linux partition and my Windows partition.
Overall, I have to say the system performance is about 30% less slower than Windows 98. It's just a lot less snappy to browse the web or open the Open Office programs (maybe 20-30 seconds in Linux).
I should mention my system is an old Dell 5100e laptop, 600 MHz, so that plays in here. May not matter much on a modern machine.
Another downside is the availability of software. It may be sacrilege around Slashdot, but I don't mind paying for a decent user interface, a proper manual, and software support for things like accounting software, etc. Packaged software seems like it's a non-starter for Linux--I just don't see any.
On the other hand, for most users, Xandros includes Open Office, and email reader, and a web browser, so this may fulfill some user's needs.
I intend to keep my dual boot setup, in those rare cases I need to run software that isn't available for Linux. Quickbooks and Kazaa, for example.
Xandros makes setting up a dual boot system quite easy for non-technical users, and it's very stable. I can imagine that for a lot of home users, this will be all they need.
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.
I can be reached at my junk mail account, gregory underscore close at hotmail.
Cheers,
Gregory
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
yeah, i've run into that problem before. I was working on my computer on a good 17" monitor that could do some high resolutions. Then i brought my computer up to the office for a bit and completely forgot about the desktop res being set so high. Well I hooked it up to an older 15" I had at the office and whaaaam crazy lines every where. Forunate enough for me Remote Desktop saved my ass. This was an XP box BTW
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
No, I don't hate Linux/open source at all. In fact, I used Linux for about 3 years in the mid 90's, then moved on to FreeBSD. I still have a FreeBSD machine that works as a server. I like to think I know a lot about the strengths and WEAKNESSES of Linux/open source software. I use a Windows desktop because after all the years of using Linux, despite knowing all these subtle little nuances, I found it more trouble than it's worth to use Linux/FreeBSD as my desktop when it's a lot less hassle to just use Windows. Recently I've just been trying to knock a little sense into these rabid pro-Linux zealots who refuse to acknowledge some of the real shortcomings of Linux. You know how they say "use the best tool for the job"? I believe that there are situations where Linux is DEFINITELY not the best tool for the job, and Windows is a much better tool. This kind of thinking seems hopelessly lost on the Slashdot crowd, of course.
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.
And patronizing.
How would you explain to the same person to fix their Windows registry?
Or that a printer does not work for a lack of a new driver?
Or that they need to upgrade the firmware of a hard disk or a computer motherboard?
The lingo of the profession is complicated and arcane, any attempts to make this appear as a feature of Linux is dishonest and disingenious.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.