Slashdot Mirror
Friedman on Linux Desktop Expectations
An anonymous reader writes "SearchEnterpriseLinux.com is featuring an interview with Novell/Ximian's Nat Friedman on the increasing interest about the Linux desktop. Quote from the interview - "A day doesn't go by when I don't talk to a Fortune 1000 customer from the financial services market, automotives or others that are not looking at dipping their feet into the Linux desktop."
And by the way, both Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza's April 12th blog entry have a picture of Miguel and Nat dancing with David Vaskevitch, CTO of Microsoft. Now that's something you don't get to see everyday!"
"A day doesn't go by when I don't talk to a Fortune 1000 customer from the financial services market, automotives or others that are not looking at dipping their feet into the Linux desktop"
No no, not more triple negatives!
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If you're going to do a next generation toolkit system, then do it right: start by creating a network protocol for it.
You heard me right. The right way to do a toolkit is to make it networkable in a client/server fashion. There are a few reasons for doing so:
Speed over the network. Instead of having to transmit low-level graphics primitives, you now only have to transmit higher-level widget information. This should represent an order of magnitude reduction in the amount of network traffic required. It also means the bandwidth between the code that draws the widget and the code that renders it will likely be as high as possible (a local socket or some such).
Consistency. With a client/server widget architecture, all applications running anywhere will have the same look and feel when they're displaying through your widget server. Additionally, changing the theme in use will change the look and feel of all the applications using the widget server (which, ideally, should be all of them).
Abstraction. Because the widgets are implemented on top of a protocol, widget libraries simply have to all talk the same protocol. This means that it doesn't matter what the widget library itself looks like, what language it's implemented in, what object paradigm it uses, or anything else: the look and feel will still be the same. This is markedly different from the current situation with GTK, QT, and all other Unix widget sets, each of which implements its own look and feel. A client/server architecture can, and should, abstract out the look and feel of the widget set.
Do it that way and I think it's likely that you'll finally eliminate the one big problem on the Unix desktop: the disparity in look and feel between applications written for different widget toolkits.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
people will expect things to 'just work'. email, spreadsheet, document editing, and other office functions are all well covered on the desktop.
it's the little things that will get people turned off fast: like browser plugin integration, javascript issues, etc. even though MozillaFirebird(rip), and the like, are great for allowing instant plugin installation, there is yet a large hole for media plugin usage considering all of the formats that microsoft and mac have floating around. this is a current limitation, imo. not necessarily a negative on the linux part, but an obstacle created by microsoft and other companies that continues get in the way of total success. that's potentially a major issue and a lot to overcome. i think it's possible to break the stigma regarding linux on teh desktop. it's come miles in the last few years. on the path it follows now, it will over come the general fear that it just doesn't do what windows can. because it can. time has brough a lot of things closer to completion. hardware compatibilty is no longer an issue if you are running current distributions and licensing is an age old argument but if you're in to function for a small fee then why not?
personally, i'm waiting for the linux desktop that comes loaded with enlightenment (absolutely manadatory!), and all things audio editing, and every funky/odd thing that was available in the rh7.3 stage of development. then i will be satisfied.
So, to rephrase with the first part in the positive: "Every day, I talk to a Fortune 1000 customer who has no interest at all in Linux."
Is that really what he meant to say? It may be true, but y'know, I talk to people who have no interest in various things all the time....
Is it just me or is the world of developers getting younger? No offense to Nat but it looks like he'd have trouble getting into an R16 movie.
Yes! This is so true. A lot of users I've had to support over the years have trouble doing the very basic tasks Mr. Friedman describes. Why would it make any difference which desktop OS they get minimal training on to do these tasks with?
If serious inroads are ever made in the US the argument for staying with Windows for compatibilty with clients or customers would fade pretty quick, weather this happens with Linux- or OS X- or whatever-on-the-desktop.
Even more likely to take off if more people start using Apple's at home. They're less afraid of this when things they make with their computer are as useful at work as they are in their livingrooms.
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
He doesn't talk about how Fortune 1000 see the Mono initiative, that would be interesting.
"A day doesn't go by when I don't talk to a Fortune 1000 customer..."
Not *exactly* true.
We had Nat scheduled to show up and he blew us off. I was left standing in a conference room for nearly 1/2 hour telling participants that I was sorry that Ximian bailed on us.
I had to apologize for their no-show. Not a great feeling.
Guess a national laboratory isn't the market segment Ximian was interested in.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
"We're developing a Windows migration program to make it easier to move to the Linux desktop with training and documentation and migration tools that automate tasks"
t ion-sig n.html
l
Migration Tool #1: fdisk - delete Windowz partition.
Sinicism aside, it would expedite things if Linux had an emulation package that supported a greater number of Windowz appz. Wine and Win4Lin just don't seem to cut it.
Novell is being very smart by aligning its business model with Linux.
Although, I hope they don't UnixWare it to SCO this time.
Time for some of the major apps to start porting over.
Adobe and Macromedia Petition for Linux
http://www.petitiononline.com/adMaLin/peti
(Take out the space after the dash, Slashdot has a bug sometimes in "Plain Old Text" posting of html items that wrap)
I'm *not* much of an Adobe fan though.
They make bad software IMO, save for the satisfactory Photoshop CS.
Macromedia is good but could be better.
They are supposedly going to begin testing on Linux.
http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5170061.htm
Starry Night Pro would be great on Linux.
At least there are some good freebies for now like KStars.
Applications may start to take the Web route also.
Accounting for example.
I'd love to pair up with some geeks on here to start up a company to develop a full web based accounting system in LAMP, seriously lacking in the Linux community.
Also, hardware vendors are going to have to jump on the bandwagon in bigger numbers.
Otherwise, we are going to have to wait for all those legacy scanners, printers cameras and other accessories to expire before typical users take the plunge.
So that just leaves games.
Well DirectX is not something I see on Linux in the near future.
Regardless, businesses thinking to migrate won't shed a tear because Barbie Pet Rescue can't be installed.
In summary, the big migration is coming.
The challenge will be converting those tight ass business folk clinging to win 3.11/95/98/ME because they don't want to move forward or rub two nickels together.
Same problem that plagues Micro$oft to this day.
They're trying to use the Linux desktop with their feet??? Maybe that's why it's not working for anyone yet.
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
"A day doesn't go by when I don't talk to a Fortune 1000 customer from the financial services market, automotives or others that are not looking at dipping their feet into the Linux desktop." With all the tools, utilities and applications currently available, why isn't Linux on the desktop happening already, or why aren't they jumping in rather than just "dipping their feet"? Is there something missing? Do we need THE killer app to be created which would run solely on Linux (which would basically require it to be closed source to stay on top, and difficult/involved enough to duplicate it on Windows to wait around for a port/clone)? Is it perhaps that larger companies are contractually obligated to fulfill order quotas for equipment or application licenses (MS Licensing v6 anyone?) that breaching the contract would be too financially devastating to make a conversion worthwhile or financially sound?
I have 1 million monkeys on a million year contract to make me a better sig.
One of the key problems that "desktop Linux" seems to be facing is that it's hard to make money as a distro maker. Unless you build your distro to be tied to your mothership for patches, what other models are there?
- Pay-per-seat? No way, the GPL lets you get undercut by "Free" if you do that.
- Pay-for-support? Double edged sword. Means your user interface has to suck, otherwise they'll keep using it without the needing to pay for the contract.
- Selling-add-ons? That's a risky play, not likely to cash-in.
And without the money... just where is the business-friendly distro going to come from? GPL projects have a bad habit of going programmer-friendly instead of user-friendly when left unpaid...
You best not don't complan about sthe spalling, grammer and what not here at ./ It always never helps and you usualy don't not get modded in the non negative way which isn't never bad so to speak.
They have some Linux around. Little utility type functions.
At a company > 10,000 people, there is a difference between "interested" & "using" and in "we are using it for critical systems and rely on it and recommend it and tell our partners to use it."
But then, lots of large fortune 100 wall st companies have had "the future" of desktop unix years ago. They just forget the part where I could fix problems around the world without moving my chair. When admins cost more, but you needed half as many.
based on his picture, i'd guess your meeting was scheduled past his beddy-bye sleepy-time.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Adobe's probably a lost cause, but Macromedia would do well to port its projects over. Dreamweaver, Flash, Freehand, Fireworks...
If anyone can make this happen it is Novell. They understand the corporate market better than anyone and can deliver corporate desktop solutions that work and have a name that people trust.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I dont seem to be having much in the way of bandwidth problems running 150 desktops off of a single server. It takes about 150 k sustained bandwidth to suppor that. Now come back when you know what you are talking about.
Got Code?
...about Miguel and Nat dancing with a MS CTO? Aren't they MS employees?
In a vacum, this is not impressive. Is the interest in Desktop Linux due to quality of the platform, available technologies, developer friendly environment, ease of integration, or is it simply based on cost.
If its simply cost then, well, where is the pride in that? As a true propeller-head, I find winning on price, well, cheap.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
Nat is always very interested in National labs.
Then I guess he's going to have a hard sell to make. After pulling a no-show with nearly 100 participants planned (most of whom are in a position to make purchasing decisions), we are certainly going to be taking any claims regarding customer service with a sizable grain of salt.
Had we given Microsoft's representative a similar opportunity, they would have crawled over broken glass with a killer fever to make the meeting.
Determination to meet the client on their terms and on their time is what makes a sale. Having a superior technology with crappy customer service will not make it.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
It's appropriate that you put quote marks around "easy" and "intuitive" because Windows really isn't as easy or intuitive as most people think. It's just that most people haven't used (or even know of) anything else. If anyone has problems, they can usually find someone else that can help them with Windows or can at least sympathize with them (most computer-illiterates will blame themselves rather than MS or Windows). Then you have the business types that reason Microsoft must make better software than everyone else simply because they make the most money.
If anything this just goes to show how much the average consumer cares about usability. Most consumers don't really care how usable their software is. Usability and $0.50 will get you a Snickers bar. Don't get me wrong. I think that Apple really does have the edge when it comes to making usable systems. Especially if you don't have to share documents and files with Windows users. However, when push comes to shove, consumers want "usable enough" at the lowest price, and that's not Apple.
Ten were put at a Windows PC, 10 at a Linux PC and they were given a list of simple tasks like sending an e-mail, surfing to a Web page and the usability results were pretty much the same.
That doesn't make any sense at all! Sending email and surfing a web page are tasks one does through an application. You don't send an email using Windows or Linux, you send it using Outlook, Mozilla, Eudora, etc. Whoever tries to judge the usability of an entire OS by throwing around test results for unnamed applications is a total moron.
With ever increasing Windows problems, it may be more of a hope for Linux Desktops to finally be useable enough for enterprise users, rather than genuine interest. How many non-geeks even know what the various linux desktop systems are, besides not Windows. Linux geeks know that Linux is the kernel, and nothing more, so what desktop is the Linux Desktop?
Today's Linux desktops fall over themselves trying to act similar to Windows, while having the unfortunate problem of not being even as consistent as Windows. This problem is rooted in the whole X11+Gnome+GTK+KDE+Qt+Ximian+Lestif+kitchen sink quagmire that is required to supply the pieces of this quite disjointed user experience.
In my not so humble opinion, the interest for the Linux desktop is the hope of Microsoft liberation, without scrapping existing hardware. This is quite silly, as the cost of the disruption in retraining all of the users, will far outweigh the cost of either switching to a useable, coherent UNIX desktop like Mac OS X, or staying on the MS Treadmill. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix here, as the bazaar is not willing to collaborate on a unified, coherent Linux Desktop.
-- Len
Hey man, it was a school night!
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Neither my wife nor my SIL know how to mount stuff, wife would be aghast at the thought of having to type unrepresentative mumbo-jumbo into an unresponsive black window (or, heaven help us, a text screen - which she calls "dos"). It Just Works(tm). The coloured bar graph in K3B is a lifesaver when SWMBO is building CDs to go, the raw numbers would only be confusing. As an artist or musician, she excels, but sit her in front of a command prompt and terror reigns supreme.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Please remind me, what major benefit does it bring us (the Linux community) if there are big companies involved with Linux? Seems to me we did a pretty good job with hobby programmers and academics for a long time... of course IBM did help, oops but then there's that SCO crap... but what I'm getting at is, why do we need to impress anyone?
I had a workmate come up today and start explaining what his issues were with Linux. This guy is a network engineer, who recognises the usefulness of having a free unix system to use on his spare pc's.
His beef was that he had installed Mandrake 9.2 on his system, and went to setup NTP. NTP was not installed. So he started looking for an RPM (he knew what they were!) for NTP for Mandrake. He said that he found one (probably from rpmsearch), but that when he downloaded it - it had additional dependencies that he couldn't find.
Now if it was me, I would've first tried rpmdrake (the distribution's own package management tool), and failing that, built it from source. But this guy was looking at Linux like a tool to be used. He wanted to do something simple (setup NTP), and the software wasn't installed. He found the software package for NTP online. This however required additional packages that were not immediately available. In the end he threw up his hands in disgust and stopped working on his new Linux box.
I ended up showing him a freebsd box I had here, and the ports mechanism for software installation. I then also discussed apt and the problem of too many ways of managing software installations, and none (that he could find) that accomplished the job for him.
So I'm going to bring in a copy of Mandrake 10 community edition for him to try out. In the meantime, I'm waiting for him to wander over one day and say "gosh Linux is great, I installed it and setup NTP in a few button clicks..."
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
Hmmm, 2 open source guys dancing with the microsoft cto, am i the only one afraid? IIRC, they are the ones working on the mono project, i won't be surprised if microsoft crushes them if they finally catch up.
Please, prove me pessemistic
Their stupid Exchange connector broke down and he didn't get the pop-up for the meeting from Evolution. Should have used Outlook
Bill Gates
> Windows users pull their hair out. Many of them
> ay "damn it, this is just too hard" and go buy a
> Mac. Many Windows users say "good riddance".
Windows users try Linux and pull their hair out. Many of them say, "Damn it, this is just too hard" and go back to Windows. Many Linux users say "good riddance."
Many first-time Windows (in Asia, Latin America, etc.) try Windows and pull their hair our. Many of them say, "Damn it, this is just too expensive" and switch to Linux. Bill Gates does NOT say "good riddance."
There are people who should not be allowed to touch a computer (or a firearm, or much of anything else as well). You cannot judge an operating system's usability by these people.
The other issue is training and habit. People trained in and used to running one OS will ALWAYS have trouble using one that is not what they are used to. I am used to Windows 98 and to a lesser degree Windows 2000 Explorer - I find Windows XP Explorer to be confusing with its moving screens and whatnot. In fact, I'm used to using PowerDesk on Windows 98 and 2000 - not Explorer at all, so I find Explorer confusing to use on any version of Windows.
But I CAN learn to use any OS given a certain amount of time playing with it. So can any reasonably intelligent user. And that does not necessarily translate into training expense, either - especially since most corporate "training" is a fucking joke. You don't want to spend money training people to use Linux? Don't bother training them. Just give them the product and tell them to learn to use it. Maybe give them just enough training to point out the differences. Then sit back and stop worrying about a couple months of 15% less productivity - you'll get it back later when you don't need to pay the Microsoft licenses and retrain everyone every X years for a new version of Windows that screws with the eye candy just to be an "upgrade".
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Nobody "uses a total OS" - you use applications that are built on top of an OS.
Only when you have to CONFIGURE the OS - for hardware or software installation or user maintenance or some other ADMINISTRATIVE task - or when the OS PERFORMANCE is an issue - do you need to worry about an OS's "usability".
Since UNIX still runs most of the world's servers, I'd say it's still an open issue as to which OS is more usable FOR ADMINISTRATORS.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Funny but true!
Miguel and Nat both met at Microsoft for the first time. Nat was an intern working on IIS and Miguel was interviewing for a job.
See here on Miguels own site: http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/ and check the Ximian history page
Roaming user profiles controled by logons is also something that Windows does well but Linux doesn't do out of the box.
/home is already there. (the only downside is that being far from home can mean slightly slow NFS access, but its fine for running a GNOME desktop from, it's more noticeable from the shell.).
..., but not Windows) does "do it" out of the box, with just a quick twiddle of the RedHat (or other) GUI configuration tool or, for lots of installs, with a few lines in a kickstart config.
RedHat Linux (and hence now Fedora) have done this out of the box for *ages*. Run authconfig and you are given a choice of several Network directory systems to use for account information (NIS, LDAP and/or Hesiod), and a choice of several authentication services (LDAP, Kerberos and even SMB). Then run autofs to automatically pick up the appropriate network volumes..
All of this presumes you actually have some kind of directory service in place, which is not trivial to setup be it on windows or unix. On unix one might use the 'directory administrator' GTK LDAP tool to manage user accounts, or the more level (but still graphical and user-friendly) 'gq' GTK LDAP frontend. There used to be a nice GTK kadmin app included with GNOME 1.2 or so, to administer Kerberos, but it appears defunct and dead. (the command line kadmin still works obviously, and can be run from anywhere, kadmin has its own network protocol).
I regularly use a large, global, corporate Unix network. No matter where I go on this network (ie access it from), I can always just sit in front of any arbitrary computer and just login. My home directory and my files are always there, so my browser's config and bookmarks are there, my email client's config files are there, the config files for my desktop are there, my custom background is there, etc.. I log in and its all just there, as it always is and just works the same no matter where I am. Wherever I lay my hat, my
I have never seen or even heard of any decently sized Windows network having such transparent and wide-ranging roaming support for its users. Indeed, I suspect the reason windows requires this intricate "roaming user profiles" support and such is because of its idiocy in not confining users to a "home directory".
Anyway, I suspect you never actually have seen a large corporate network, never mind a large Unix or heterogenous network. If ever you do, you'll probably find Linux (and solaris, and IRIX, and
The difficult part is, by far, in setting up and administering the infrastructure required, not the clients, unless the clients are Windows.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Interesting that you mention this. I do not know whether to believe you or not. So lets say I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The reason why I mention this is because I had the same thing happen to me with Netscape. In 1996 when Netscape held their first conference I was blown off by Netscape. We wanted to initally buy about 4000 client licenses. In the end what happened was that we were too small for their tastes (I was working for a major Swiss Bank at that time).
While attending their conference I saw that Netscape's days were numbered. BTW the meeting blow off happened after the conference. I could not exactly put a finger on it, but the buzz at the Netscape conference seemed wrong.
Tying this back to Ximian leads to me believe that maybe this is "Netscape" all over again. Hmmm.... Interesting, not sure, something to think about no doubt...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
My predictions for Linux reaching critical mass in germany haven't changed. Right now it'd be roughly another 12 months for it to happen. And I still _do_ expect germany to be the first. I'm starting to meet more people somehow involved in Linux than I can count.
Once Linux is rolling in that direction I also expect things to go very fast. Remember how fast Windows95 gained critical mass when all of us were saying 'Who the heck needs an OS that uses 50 MB of diskspace?' and 'Gee, look at Geos on PTS DOS, this is the future of PC operating systems'.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Most X performance is about latency rather than bandwidth. If you're on a LAN, straight X is a much nicer proposition than the compressed protocols because the latency is lower, imperceptible even.
So, if you're running it over a high latency link like ADSL or god forbid a modem then go for it with the protcol compressors.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The perception of the performance of any GUI depends on the *latency* of the GUI. If you compare X with RDP, X has a significantly better latency response than RDP does so when there is sufficient bandwidth it is a faster option than RDP.
The bandwidth required to run X is cheap. It was designed for shared 10Mbps local area networks and on today's 100mbps switched networks it absolutely flies. I run several hundred engineers using full screen Gnome (yes, that was a mistake) X sessions on a couple of login servers and the burst rate doesn't flatten the interfaces even when they log in. It peaks at around 4Mbps for a few seconds during login and then dies off to bugger all. It doesn't get anywhere near 10mbps, never mind 100mbps or 1000mpbs.
The "run it over a modem" set is a very limited subset of the population who use remote GUIs. The vast majority of people who use X and RDP, do so over a local area network. So the statement that X must be replaced because it doesn't run on a 300 baud modem (or whatever) is bullshit. Especially when there are protocol compressors which you can plug into the architecture to improve low bandwidth performance (at the expense of interactive latency BTW).
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
1. Hardware WORKS in windows. You download the driver, doubleclick, next, next, finish, reboot, it works. Full stop. Now compare to linux. Download driver. rpm -Uvh *.rpm, perhaps a --force in there, notice the errors because the bin package is not compatible with your distro. Download tgz. Make, make install. depmod, vim modules.conf. Reboot. Pray. It works UNLESS you upgrade your kernel (and have suse). Now THAT is a good user experience. I cannot understand how you can say Linux is superior in this matter, but anyway... And don't you dare say apt-get or emerge are superior. They are not. Once you go outside the approved .deb or whatever depositories, you are treading on dangerous ground. And you WILL need to go there if you want multimedia support.
2. "Look, there is plenty of downloaded Windows software that fucks up when you install it."... Big huge hairy bollocks. Unless you are doing something really wrong like messing with the registry or installing seriously buggy applications it's not really normal that something like that happens. For the normal user who has 10-20 apps installed and doesn't install/uninstall things, it just works. How about when you do a rpm -i --force (which you HAVE to do sometimes) and it just completely fucks up your system? Oh, I'm sorry, it really is my fault, I shouldn't have "forced" the installation.
3. "The only problem Linux has that is significant is when new hardware needs to be installed that is not directly supported by the kernel and for which there are no drivers. The solution? Don't buy that hardware". Really? So I should buy what I consider an inferior and overpriced nvidia card rather than an ati for playing games in my Windows partition because nvidia drivers are easier to install? Or I should buy a via mobo rather than a nforce one because via nic drivers are pre-compiled in the kernel? Do you think that hardware companies do not support Linux as well as windows because there are more windows users out there than Linux users and it doesn't make economic sense? No. They don't support Linux as much because the linux userbase is fragmented as hell and there is no "Linux Driver Model". They develop one driver for Windows and they package, I don't know, 5 plus a src.tgz for Linux. Whose fault is that? Is it the Microsoft monopoly or the pigheaded Linux developers that have been resisting the push to standardised binary kernel modules?
4. People want stuff that is standard, user-friendly and just work. Standard, contrary to /.'s opinion does not mean "approved by an international standards body". It's what everyone uses. Can oo or staroffice or hancomoffice or kwhatever open the excel-macro-ridden xls documents I use at work? No? Can I open, manipulate .psd files in a color-calibrated environment? No? Then, my dear friend Linux is not ready, full stop, however much you might think that Linux is a superior solution to Windows - which it isn't, it's a different, more elegant philosophy. Accept it.
Linux has its places. It's my desktop, it's your desktop but it is NOT grandma's desktop. If you make people choose whether to use a free OS that would make them work twice as hard or even 10% as hard or to spend 100 euros and use a troublefree and standard OS, guess what they would choose. Why do I use Linux? I like the challenge. Not everyone does. And I STILL use Windows for the things that are impossible to do in Linux.
So please kindly stop trolling your uninformed views, it gets truly annoying to see such blatant zealotry even in a forum as unbalanced as slashdot is.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
...and it runs on fast machines.
That's the easy part. The difficult part is to scale down.
I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife