Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the Desktop: More Balls Through Windows
doom writes "There's a story up in the free area of The Economist site about 'Linux on Desktop PCs' called:
More balls through Windows. Pretty much the same old stuff, but if you wanted something new you wouldn't be reading slashdot, eh?" Cynic.
Oooh! Oooh! It's the year that Linux is finally going to take over the desktop... again. Just like 1997 was. And 1998. Oh, and 1999. 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? Sensing a trend?
/. (or even Linux-friendly journalists) assume.
:)
As Bill Gates himself says, we often over-estimate the impact of a given technology will have in 5 years time, but we tend to UNDER-estimate its impact over 10 years. I think that the Linux on the desktop is similar: it will gain marketshare, but MUCH more slowly than people on
Let's stop measuring progress in years, and start measuring it in decades-- only then will we see the impact that Free software is having. Revolutions take time.
Oh... and balls through windows? Could you have come up with a weaker punn?
--- JRJ
jrjBlog
If you want an OS with more balls, try Amiga!
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, I'm hoping that once Microsoft starts losing some of its dominance, it will strike back with its patent portfolio, which will draw increasing public attention to the problems with patents. When a two-bit, one-man operation like PanIP slings lawsuits around at mom-and-pop operations nationwide, that scarcely draws a whisper, but a behemoth like Microsoft using the patent system to unfairly crush competitors and keep alternatives away from the computing public? That, I'm hoping, will draw enough complaints from everyday people that Congress might actually do something at some point. If Linux on the desktop can start to carry the cachet that the Mac does, an attempt by Microsoft to stem the tide by using ill-gotten patent will, I hope, mobilize the general public to fight back and call for broader patent office reform.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Is it just me, or does it seem that there is increasingly more talk about Linux being widely adopted on the desktop? The more sources that report that Linux is comming, the more likely businesses will choose to use it, so even if all of what we've seen lately is hype, it still serves to advance Linux.
--Mike Boos
Is not so much the article itself (Linux: good, Microsoft: bad, yadda yadda yadda) rather than the fact that it is published in The Economist, probably one of the most influential news magazines for PHBs.
Some of the most important managers, CEOs, CFOs, etc all read The Economist. Therefore, this article may be an important introduction to Linux for many of these people.
On the other hand, this is not the first Linux-positive article in The Economist, so everyone should know by know that Linux = good, Microsoft = bad, etc.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Cynic
Best. Editorialization. Ever.
"There is no real market for a consumer-grade Linux desktop," says Martin Fink, HP's Linux boss.
I'm surprised people in charge of any reasonably sized company can still say this classic idiocy:
Yes, there's not real market for consumer-grade Linux desktop, for the good reason that the market doesn't exist yet, and someone needs to create it, and whoever will take the plunge stands a fair chance to reap huge benefits from it.
Remember, investors said the same thing to Jobs when he tried to get backing to produce the Apple.
Mr. Fink, if I was your boss and I really wanted to push Linux, you'd be fired...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Is Microsoft finally about to face real competition in desktop-computer software?
No.
Next article, please.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Who made these announcements? The 1998 article on a Linux "e-zine" is not quite the same thing as an article in The Economist. One audience consists of geeky hobbyists; the other includes the intelligent, wealthy, and powerful. The message might not have changed in all these years, but it is reaching increasingly important people every day.
===--===
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
You mean on Windows I can buy a single use program that enables me to work out my tax returns and browse my digital photography??? Wow, maybe this Windows thing is worth a second look...
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
the article introduces a distinction between "information worker" and "transaction worker", and says the latter is more likely to find a linux box on their desk since it can be locked down more easily.
i find this distinction artificial. in any environment where maintenance of the box is done by dedicated staff (bofh or ilk), what is more easily locked down will be more easily deployed, whether the end user is "information", "transaction", "creative", or whatever oriented. (training costs for unimaginative curmudgeons ceases to be an issue as those people die, retire, or get sacked.)
sure, there will be many hold-outs (and subsequent banter and frivolity on sites like slashdot), but that's fine too. w/o dinosaurs there would be no comfortably large rib cages for the smaller creatures to eviscerate and inhabit. nature is a mother, like they say...
I ran Linux as my primary desktop OS from 1994 until early 2003.
Switched to OSX, now I've got two OSX systems, and a single lone Linux box running my e-mail. That may go the way of the dodo if I can actually move the 300+ meg of e-mail I've got on there into a gmail account and actually find things.
I was a Linux desktop user for nine years not because it was free but because there was nothing better out there. Now there is. It'll be a long time before Linux can regain that spot for what I use computers for.
Its about two things -- apps and polish. OSX's interface disappears when you really know it. Its totally consistent, and becomes nothing but an interface to the tools you're using. Linux's UI's are too inconsistent, and the best apps in each category use too many different UI toolkits. Its a distraction to have to switch from one UI to another when switching between applications.
Until *all* the applications I need on a day-to-day basis use the same toolkits, have identical hotkeys, consistent menu organization then those applications waste my time.
Free software is good in concept and ideals, but its really got a LONG way to go to get people to use it for its quality not its price. Companies think of switching because of their bottom line, not because its going to make their employees jobs easier.
In many respects, Linux is already much, much, much better than Windows. The polish, look and feel, stability, functionality all far surpass Windows. You could say that applications will follow, and I hope they do, but most great applications still come out for Windows even if they started out as Linux only apps.
Right now what is needed is a number of great applications that have no equivalents on Windows. This does not refer to Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc. Most of those can come. Imagine if a Napster and Netscape both came out at the same time, and the ONLY place you could get it was on Linux. I don't know how long that could last before MS created a copy on Windows, but even then it would be in the reverse position that Linux is in now.
In my estimation Linux may need several rounds of applications like that. Then, Windows application developers will start writing to WINE as a compatibility layer and will actually improve WINE themselves to be able to have their Windows legacy apps supported, and MS is absolutely sunk at that point. Still, it's not just parity with Windows applications. It's the perception that the best and greatest new applications are only available on Linux, even if they eventually show up on Windows.
...at least according to some posters here. Let's face it, whatever Linux does, it will never be good enough for some people. They'll always find the stupidest things to complain about (look! the windows are a different shade of grey on Linux, the users are confuuuused!) The rest of us will simply enjoy all the things we have and realise that Linux might never be everything to all people, but it is a damn fine desktop for some people right now.
I got into Linux late (1999), because I was scared by the voodoo magic and demon sacrifices I was assured were necessary for such a step. What I found out after a (somewhat tedious) installation, is a KDE 1.1.2 desktop which looked much like Windows, much software that did the basic things, and a completely usable system which replaced windows on my computer from that point on. I had a browser (NS 4.7), a word processor (WP 8), and MP3 player, I was go. Much of the criticism aimed at it was correct, but it was a usable system nonetheless.
Fast forward a few years. We have two killer browser engines, each one kicking the crap out of MS's offering. We have an amazing (let's face it) office suit in Open Office 1.1, which is an excellent solution even for business use. In 1999 you could forget multimedia, now we have the two BEST video players out there, period (MPlayer and XineLib). Burning DVDs? Graphical frontends. Watching DVDs? Check. It's amazing how far we've come, but the same people keep repeating the same silly arguments (the button has the wrong shape! The users will be confused!) based on 4-year old Linux experience.
Linux might never be the ultimate desktop for all users. Hell, I don't think it should be. But it's ready for many users right now. I don't buy the 'average joe' arguments, here's a real example. I have a guest user set up for people who use my computer when I'm gone. I showed my girlfriend where the important programs were and left for work. While I was gone, she browsed the web, wrote emails, played some games, watched DVDs, listented to some of my MP3s. Then she (wait for this!) downloaded the images from her digital camera and transferred them to her portable hard disk and organised them in separate directories, based on the date they were taken. She had never used Linux before. Too difficult my ass.
Linux is ready for many users right now. It might never be ready for the 'typical' users some self-proclaimed experts always bring up in their condescending tone, but maybe it shouldn't be. It's ready for me, thank you very much.
Ah.. the Linux desktop again. Isn't it weird that these discussions always seem to focus on the question wether Linux has a good desktop, whilst this is not really the issue? Linux _has_ a good desktop. In fact, it has two excellent desktops. The thing is lacks is top quality applications.
I'd go as far as to say that Linux is about 95% there in terms of 'ordinary' desktop things like browsing, e-mailing and chatting, typing a letter, clipping a photo, playing an mp3, etc. The problems start when you are a professional that needs the last 5%:
- Open Office is great for plain text and layout, but it messes up horribly if you have a document with fields or tables. This is not something you use everyday, but people that use it for their work need to be able to fill out a form without having to deal with an address field that runs off the window for some reason.
- The Gimp is phenomenal, but how about those fonts? Sure, you can do lots and lots of cool things with just images, but graphics pros _need_ those slick fonts.
- Pro audio: sure, Ardour looks like a nice digital audio workstation on paper, but in practice you have to deal with a segfault every ten minutes and quite a few usability issues. Same thing for Muse (great sequencer, sloppy timing), Glame (nice, impractical GUI), Jack (fantastic idea, too bad it still locks up systems), etc.
- Your profession here.
Point being: I think and hope that Linux will be all that on our desktops someday, but 'good' is not good enough when it comes to application software. For Linux to take off on the desktop, it needs to have 'excellent' apps. Apps that, at the very least, should be as good as their commercial counterparts, preferably better. For some reason, we see a lot of this quality in server type apps, we see this quality in the actual desktops (KDE and Gnome are prettier than windows XP if you ask me), but the applications are still lacking.
See, this is exactly the kind of squibble people use to put Linux down. "Yes, Linux can organise digital photos, AND touch them up AND interface with your digital camera, but instead of having one program do it, you have THREE! Linux is not ready for the desktop!". I mean, seriously, if that's the last thing holding Linux back, I say we've arrived already.
>>On the other hand, despite improvements Linux faces real obstacles. It can still be a nightmare for home users to install and, unless bought as part of a commercial package such as Sun's, it does not come with a help-desk. Worse, there are still too few applications. Fewer than 1% of all computer games, for instance, work on Linux. Software to manage personal finances or organise digital photos is also missing. In theory these programs could all be written but, without a huge increase in users, code-writers will not bother.
First of all, linux is EASIER to install than windows. Newbie friendly distributions boast things like installs in 3 steps. That whole "difficult to install" argument is bullshit. If most Windows users had to install windows themselves and partion their hard drives, we'd hear arguments of windows being hard to install. This will become a non-issue when More OEM's offer sub 500 dollar pc's with linux on them.
>unless bought as part of a commercial package such as Sun's, it does not come with a help-desk.
Ok, and how is that any different than windows? If you buy an OEM copy of windows or a bootleg copy, you're not going to get any official support. So how is downloading an iso off of linuxiso and not getting official/phone support any different? If you want support, you buy the official product from someone like SuSe or redhat.
>Worse, there are still too few applications. Fewer than 1% of all computer games, for instance, work on Linux.
That is a moot point. The only reason is because linux doesn't have enough market share. As the market share increases so do the number of applications. The two will slowly rise together. People don't complain Solaris has a limited number of applications, so why do they complain about Linux?
>Software to manage personal finances or organise digital photos is also missing.
BS. Check freshmeat.
Many of the arguments made against linux on the desktop are 5 year old stereotypes. It's like some of these stories aren't even researched. There was a recent study done that took a group of people whom had never used computers before. One group was assigned to learn how to use Windows and another group Linux. The findings were they both had a very similiar experience. Most of these articles make the argument "Linux isn't good because I'm not used to it and I don't know it". They complain about the things windows has and it doesn't have. But as a linux user, I look at all the things Linux has that Windows doesn't.
That's the first time I've seen the words "balls" and "Windows" in the same sentence.
SSDD, folks. Every major news source and all the minor ones from InternetWeek to Kumquat Digest are speculating on what Linux will do. You know what? I have a new revelation. Linux will come to the desktop when and if it feels like it, when and if it wants to, and you WILL NOT NOTICE IT. You know how I know this? Linux appeared on the scene in the first damn place in a manner so quiet that very few read the newsgroup posting. It grew and distributions started so subtly that most people didn't hear about them until several versions later.
The Angel of the Lord(tm) did NOT appear to me with RedHat install CDs one evening. I got a small email from my roommate saying, "Hey, you ever heard of this Linux thing?"
Linux has never been and, I suspect, will never be the sort of software and/or community to burst into a room, prancing on a stage like a monkey on crack, and shouting to the audience because he "loves this company". We'll be the dude in the back, sippin' a cup of java and poring over the light board while talking to the theatre technician. 'Cause you see, we're not all about fanfare, but we're still running the show. Someday you'll look down and you'll have been running Linux for a year and go, "Now, where in the hell did THAT come from?"
Blog,Twitter
From what I understand, those files, .DS_Store and ._filename, hold metadata. Why OSX insists on creating these files on network shares is mind boggling. That's like walking in mud and not wiping your feet before entering someone else's house.
Anyway, for some reason, OSX creates these files, obtains a lock, and for some reason over samba NEVER RELEASES those locks. So often when one user edits a file, then closes it, other OSX clients can't access the file because they can't obtain a lock on the goddam metadata files. Yay!
$ smbstatus -L | wc -l
1679
All ._ and .DS_Store files.
I have googled up no solution so far, just thousands of other people who have the same problem.
That is just the most irksome of the numerous riduculous problems OSX has at the moment.
If anyone has a solution, please let me know. Is it something obvious? Am I just stupid? I don't fucking care, I just want this shit to work goddammit! I have spent hours googling, and if somehow I have just missed the blindingly obvious solution, then I'm sorry, but please let me know :)
Note, I don't _really_ hate OSX, it's more of a love/hate thing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
> Most home users just want to click on the little :-)
> "E" and go on the interent. They can't be bothered
> with config files, man pages etc. If,and when
> Linux gets to that level of ease of use, maybe
> we'll see a Penguin in every pot
Agree that most home users just want to "get on the Internet", but why is Linux a bad choice for those users today? I've set up Mepis for users with this experience level in the past, and they work with it just fine; I'm sure there's other distributions that work just about as well.
There are several Linux desktop distributions now that make "getting on the Internet" as easy as it is on Windows. In functionality terms, one browser is pretty much like another these days; Mozilla or Konqueror are perfectly worthy substitutes for IE for both "power users" and novices.
Ditto for email clients. Evolution looks and acts almost identical to Outlook, and Thunderbird (my personal choice) is extremely capable as well. If you put Outlook on a pedestal as THE email client for the home user, then I'd claim Evolution is its equal in every way.
OpenOffice is a perfectly good substitute for MS Office; remember that we're talking specifically about home users here, so the lack of compatibility with Excel macros doesn't really enter into it.
An experienced user (i.e. the family techo, or even a worldly Linux desktop distributor/vendor) can lock down the Linux desktop to the point that your typical dumb user problems can't occur. It's far easier to lock down a Linux desktop than a Windows desktop. That's a big deal when it comes to supporting home users - stop them from being able to hurt themselves.
And that's before I play my 2 anti-Windows trump cards - viruses/security and cost of software purchase.
In all seriousness, I can't see why Grandma and Grandpa couldn't use Linux to get on the Internet just as easily as they use Windows. My parents, both in their mid-60s, use Mepis just fine; they can deal with Firebird/fox and Thunderbird, and it took almost no effort for them to switch from Windows. They don't get virus infections, despite opening every email they receive, and simply use their computers as tools in much the same way they use the phone and car - they don't know how it works, but don't care and have no reason to care. There's no reason for them to use man pages and config files, any more than they would use the Windows equivalents; a well-structured desktop pretty much eliminates the need for those mechanisms for the average home user. Yep, you could build a case that maybe they couldn't run a 100-user business entirely on Linux desktops, but a home user Linux desktop is perfectly viable and has been for a couple of years at least.
A lot of the trouble I have with MS Windows falls into two categories.
Many programs were designed and built by people who took "personal computer" to heart and never bothered to learn to think in terms of a computer that might be used by several different people, perhaps even concurrently. These ignore security, don't handle separation of user and system storage or configuration gracefully, etc. Let's do better this time.
Other products suffer from the fallacy that computer==desktop. They assume that they're always run by someone who can just barely find the power button, and that they're always guided manually by someone sitting right there ready to respond to trouble. It ain't so; some of us actually care enough to spend time thinking about how best to use computers, and some of us want to script regular processes and get away from all that manual drudgery (which is what we made computers for in the first place).
If "the rise of Linux on the desktop" means I don't have to fight so hard for a non-MS solution in the server room or the laboratory, hooray. If it means I'm stuck with a choice between MS Windows and something that's just like MS Windows only not from MS, then in my view there's been no improvement -- in fact, an improvement we had for a while will have been taken from us.
We have a chance to do it right this time. Let's seize that chance and run with it. All computers should not be alike, because all computerists are not alike.
Why can't these people just explain what it does and maybe show a few screenshots of KDE or Gnome in action?
Linux is not, repeat NOT, competing with Windows. Microsoft consider Linux as a threat to their penetration and revenue but that is a purely Microsoft facet, not a Linux one.
Linux is an alternative way of doing things, a free way of doing things, and does some things better and other things worse that Windows does. It does what it does despite Microsoft and will continue to do it whether or not MS exists in the future.
The media should take a responsibility to make the general populace aware of the Linux alternative rather than using Linux as a weapon to make MS do what they want them to do.
I'd love to reach the day when I can ditch all my MS products because I personally do not like to support companies that have bad business practices - in the same way I don't eat Macdonalds (or Burger King) burgers or wear Nike sports shoes - and I guess today I'm about 75% there with Linux.
But I'm certainly not going to "cut my nose off to spite my face" and do without certain apps and games purely because I consider myself in a (non-existent) Windows v Linux war.
Just give people the facts and let them use their own intelligence to decide what they like.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Seriously, installing apps in Linux is actually easier than Windows. It just doesn't behave like Windows, so people get frustrated because they foolishly try and do all the work themselves.
The model you use in linux is different in that your distro provides a whole library of programs for you to download and you go through them. If you do, it should work flawlessly the way you describe. It's just a shift in mindset from the download.com way of doing things.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."