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/
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.
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
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.
I think linux is pretty good for the desktop. My only real compaint is not really the lack of support for newer hardware, but more the difficulty in getting this hardware to work properly.
For example, if I could just install linux and have it autodetect my wireless nic and work properly with my scanner then I would be all for it.
I am pretty sure this will come in time.
(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.
Trying is believing. I had been approaching Linux as a curiousity, a sort of hobbyist tinkering OS for people who had a lot of time to invest in learning and deploying the systems. And then I got charged with building a mail server. One Gentoo server later (complete with all the goodies needed to make Horde work properly), I've seen the light, that it's NOT hard to use, and that it's very simple to learn. The level of documentation is also far and away the best of any OS I've experienced. (I did find that it takes a little while to learn how to find and read documentation.) It is a far cry from my first attempt at Linux on a 486 almost 8 years ago.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I've been looking at different Linux desktops lately, and I've come to the conclusion that there is only *one* viable GNOME desktop out there. When I considered which Linux to install, I realized that my current choices were thus:
RedHat Fedora
Mandrake
Suse
Java Desktop System
I actually tried the most recent Fedora and found it to be useless. They refuse to ship NTFS support, MP3 support, or NVidia support. On top of that, my MS Intellimouse keeps locking up. That problem has been there since RedHat 8! What have these people been up to?
That leaves Mandrake, Suse and JDS. Of those three, only JDS is GNOME based (actually quite nicely GNOME based). Thus KDE seems to have won the day.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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...
In the battle against software oppresion, the first front is destroying the onld UNIX systems.
:) to program and test. Think 128-cpu scalability, hot-swap CPU...
What's wrong with the old UNIX systems? Solaris still boasts of some functionality that Linux will probably take a few months
Linux is just as capable of becoming corpulent and lazy as the dominant OS provider. And competition also keeps our security stance strong. There's a place for Solaris, and AIX, and yes, even Windows in the computing market.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
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...
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'm a bit of a Linux newbie (been playing around with it for years, but never for more than a day or two, here and there), but I've found Fedora to be a pretty good distro. I've always gone with Mandrake in the past for the eye candy and ease of config, but Fedora is a snap. And yes, I did have to take the 30 minutes to download the NTFS kernel driver and the version of XMMS with MP3 support (available from the Dag APT repository), but since then I've found it a piece of cake to use. Even wireless was super easy to setup - with multiple configs and security keys for home and for work. And stable...my Thinkpad has been up for 14 days without a reboot.
Just sayin'. One man's "useless" is another's treasure....
seriouslyexcited.net
Seriously, that's why people use Windows. It's UI is tight. All the apps work the same and look the same. After learning one application, you can use any of them. Unfortunately that's not the same on linux. Lots of various different ways to make graphical apps means not every app looks and behaves the same. That lack of consistency turns people away.
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!
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
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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