Slashdot Mirror
Time to Try a Linux Desktop?
bigbadwlf writes "EWeek has an opinion column, posted yesterday titled, Isn't Now the Time to Try a Linux Desktop? Quote: 'The crackers currently have the whip hand over Windows, and Microsoft's assertion that Internet Explorer is now part of the operating system shows its flawed reasoning. Worried sick about the latest rash of Internet Explorer security problems? I have the perfect solution for you, one that's even better than switching to Mozilla, Firefox or Opera. Switch operating systems: Go to Linux.'"
The people who are constantly getting hit with viruses, spyware, IE holes, etc. are exactly the kind of people who would have a hard time getting used to and accepting Linux. Most of the potential switchers (like me, for instance) already have their Windows boxes well-protected. There needs to be a better reason than just "it's not Windows" to entice me to convert.
No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS.
i agree, linux/macosx is more stable/secure than windows.
having said that, i think this whole article is irrelevant. i don't care if linux is completely rock-solid with absolutely no security flaws, this alone will not persuade windows users to switch to linux for desktop usage.
we've been through these discussions over and over again. linux is NOT a suitable desktop operating system for the majority of users. most users do NOT want to spend a whole lot of time reading documentation on how to setup/configure their system, and most find it fustrating.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
... to be pushing the Linux desktop? I'm a linux user, have been for quite a while, and am trying to get my parents and friend using it. However, Linux STILL has many problems that keep it from being THE OS choice for everyone, even once you get around the user-friendliness issues (having not tried any of the more polished desktop distros, I can't comment on these issues.) Application compatibility: Many people use crummy applications that don't stand a chance for porting to Linux. Pinnacle, my mother's video editor of choice, comes to mind. Also, some people, though there are better pieces of alternative software, still are so stuck on their old apps, they refuse to switch to a superior alternative Hardware Compatibility: Every time I go out to buy a piece of hardware, or even to go drool over the latest pieces of hardware, I find myself thinking first, "Can Linux support this yet?" This creates a problem for the user that wants to go out, buy a peripheral, plug it in, and have it work. I'm not saying Linux won't be ready for the desktop very soon (because I think it will be QUITE soon,) but I just think that perhaps now is a little early to say "Switch to Linux. Like, now."
I don't see the point why we need to convince Slashdot to use Linux. I would see a reason for such a newsstorry on CNN or, even better, MSNBC. Wait, why am I thinking this won't happen? Oh, maybe b/c AOL's software doesn't run on Linux? Or is it b/c MS owns MSNBC? As long as the newsmedia and telecomunication industry is owned by the players that have a stake in sticking to Windows, we will not see Linux in mainstream in the US.
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
USB is still a little fucked up, but the vendor support *is* coming around. The market needs a customer base to get their ass in gear for compatible gadetry, so why not go grab yourself a distro and boot into the 21st century? It doesn't cost anything, and you can always dual-boot to ween yourself off of vendor lock -in. If that's a little scary, then grab Knoppix, or MandrakeMove which boot and run from cdrom without even touching your system.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
It's the OS all your Windows applications and games won't run on...
.NET or Cocoa, instead of these 20 or so different APIs which require that I install all of them since everybody likes to code for different ones instead of coding to a standard.
It's not that easy to just tell someone, "Well, IE had a security exploit so it's time to switch to Linux!" The Linux desktop has usability and infrastructure issues. I don't expect them to remain forever, but it is sure taking a long time, and by then Apple's next version of MacOS will be out along with Windows Longhorn, and it will be another decade of playing catch-up with their new technologies.
I think right now the biggest thing I see keeping away commercial developers is the lack of a single binary installation/uninstallation API integrated into the desktop environment. You just can't be sure your app will still run in 5 years. Can you still run a Red Hat RPM you got in 1997? Windows can still run apps from 1991. In addition, a unified API akin to
I guess that's it, really--you can't expect the Linux desktop to become standard if it doesn't embrace any standards itself. Now, I know a lot of people like that facet of Linux, and that's cool. I'm just saying, don't be surprised if it never takes off in the mainstream as a result. It has a long, long way to go, most of it internal infrastructure issues (the fact we're still using X11 is embarrassing).
You could use Linux and give up your games, and 90% of your other apps...
OR...
Ditch IE and Outlook (together responsible for 99% of Windows problems right now) install Services for UNIX on your Windows XP/2003 box and run all of your Windows apps and games PLUS all of your UNIX apps.
Sorry, but Windows still controls the applications universe.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
To truly compete against Windows, GNU/Linux needs to have a line of hardware, clearly marked, that it will work flawlessly with. Big distros like Suse and Mandrake need to focus on courting hardware companies to prominantly mark their products with Tux. Period.
Not just desktop computers, either. You need to have everything from laptops to USB thumb drives to MP3 players to digital cameras and camcorders. Your computer IS your digital hub.
Linux users need to get in the habit of acting like Mac users. They don't have the hardware support, so they need to make it blatantly obvious what hardware does work with their platform.
The other big thing Linux needs to survive (other than Quicken and TurboTax) is Office VBA compatibility. In the Enterprise, this is essential. There are plenty of BASICs out there, why hasn't OO.org incorporated one of them?
...but those who could use Linux (i.e. using a limited set of common applications that are also available for Linux) simply aren't persons to "try out" anything.
Here, I set up a Linux desktop for my parents (actually, it was more of a Linux server for me, we simply added keyboard/mouse/screen), and it turns out they use it more than Windows. Properly set up with a cron job to update itself, it should be nearly maintenance-free.
Personally, I run Windows on my main machine (+ X server to run Linux apps) because there are simply so much I'm not ready to let go of, and emulation in Linux.... well, in my experience it's either a) very slow (typically VM solution) or b) difficult and buggy (emulation / system call translation ).
Linux is making big inroads in the corporate market. Don't expect to see any serious migration on the desktop until that has happened. After all, that is where most non-computer interested people get their computer experience and knowledge.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And the year before that? This is a tired old argument that never goes nowhere. Why do people think they can keep writing the same article over and over and because of it, people will start converting to Linux in droves?
When I can connect my ATI All-in-Wonder capture card and use it's abilities 100%, sync and download apps to my Blackberry, sync my iPod to my MP3 collection reliably, print DVDs flawlessly with my Epson printer, I'll think about Linux. Someday.
I'm probably leaving some other cool things I do with my computer too.
We've got a problem with open source products - they're hard to "market." A significant reason that Linux hasn't overtaken Windows is that its hard for a consumer to purchase (try going to your local Best Buy or Radio Shack to buy a Linux O/S machine). Compare to Windows, which is everywhere. Since my mom or sister are no more likely to re-format their hard drives than swap out their car's transmissions, they'll remain in the Windows camp by default. A second prob is that "Linux" doesn't exist as a single product line like Windows XP and XP Home - instead, we've got countless distros that confuse people. Brands are hard things to build, and I see this as a serious problem for mainstream adoption of open source.
With linux pretty much anything beyond installation off of the CD you have to know what you're doing. Fair enough. With windows you don't have to know much at all. In which case you'll likely do stupid things like get infected with spyware, trojans, worms and who knows what. If you just barely know what you're doing with windows, you won't be infected. Unless of course you're trusting another dumbass who doesn't who know what he's doing to use your network.
Should people succeed on their crusade to lure all the idiots to linux there will be no Rapture. Instead the idiots will learn just enough to be dangerous. Things like those Mozilla arbitrary code exploits? You think the lazy morons who won't use Microsoft update to fix windows are going to hustle right over and get the latest patch for the big green browsing machine? Think the linux administrators are going to be as proactive rolling those security fixes out as all the windows admins? I do. They'll do it after the next round of Xtrek. Promise.
Wine HQ
TransGaming Technologies
How about in practice? I switched my parents to linux. They had no problems using it. And believe me, my parents are far from computer savvy (my mother couldn't figure out how to install new fonts in windows). My girlfriend was curious as to what linux was like - I gave her a knoppix CD, and she figured everything else out herself.
Have your mom go buy a new printer and scanner and try to install it. Have them try to install an application themselves.
We always hear about people who have switched their non-computer-savvy relatives to Linux, but that doesn't mean anything. It's the computer-savvy people you need to target. People who do nothing else but write e-mail, surf eBay, and keep family photos can use pretty much anything from OS X to Windows 95 to KDE. It's not saying much to brag that Linux can use a printer or surf the net. It's when people want to install a new video card, or perhaps a new DVD burner, or perhaps they want to hook up a microphone and try some recording, or maybe they want to play The Sims 2, or maybe they want to install (or better yet, uninstall) an application. Perhaps they'd like to switch from dialup to DSL.
There are a million different possibilities that go beyond someone's grandma who just uses Linux to browse MSN and check their e-mail. I mean, big deal. There's more to a desktop than that.
I use Linux desktop. Sometimes OS X, but Linux most of the time. And I am very happy with it. I create computer graphics for money with it, and I use it for all my everyday tasks. There were issues (winmodem, 3d acceleration, tablet support) but now it is ok. Ok, I am techie. But i installed it on my girlfriends computer, and on my mothers computer, and they are using it too. My mother never used Windows before. There were some problems (she was not able to use mouse and so on) but not Linux specific. I had more troubles with my girlfriend as she was used to Windows, but everything is ok now. So, users can switch to Linux desktop if someone helps them. The only imporatnt thing is that those users use computers for purposes which Linux can support. I wouldnt recommend Linux to someone who wants to play lots of commercial games.
SHE does throw dice.
Personally, I'd rather have new stuff come out, fixing the bugs (which is what the articles about) and providing new features not available in Windows-land, instead of having my OS sit around in a pile of its own security-weaknesses and have old, buggy, cranky, obselete programs from '91.
Personally, I find that Windows XP has serious issues running anything that needs DOS emulation, while there are sometimes no modern alternatives. On the other hand, linux hackers release new apps almost as quick as the kernel hackers, so we're alright. Sure, this may not suit a corporation, but hey, for the moment it's alright for the user.
im in ur
Ask yourself this--what do you think someone is going to say when you tell them they have to run a Windows API simulator to run their Windows applications? They'll just ask you with a smirk, "Then why don't I just run actual Windows?"
The rest of the world doesn't share the anti-Microsoft, almost religious viewpoint that Linux is the better operating system just because it's open source and UNIX-like. They'll want actual reasons to switch. At most, they'll just use Firefox on Windows if you try to bring up IE insecurities.
I sensed a few months ago that Linux was getting to be more feasible for desktop use by non-geeks. When I saw that Mankdrake 10 Official had been released, I downloaded the ISOs, formatted my hard drive, and installed Linux in place of Win2k. It lasted about a month.
It's not that Mandrake wasn't good, but the overall experience just wasn't as hassle-free as Windows. I figured out how to install RPMs and build programs from source, and was generally able to troubleshoot when things when wrong. My digital camera and CD burner worked without trouble. But I couldn't get GIMP 2.0 to install properly (and I certainly tried). And configuring Wine to run some of the Windows programs that I need for work and recreation (Garmin MapSource, for example), proved impossible. Spurred by a few other annoyances, I decided to move back to Windows.
No doubt I could have tried harder. I'm probably in the top 2% of the US population in terms of competence with computers and surely, given the time, I could have made most everything work. But why would I want to invest the hours in Linux when Windows almost never gives me problems? The Windows installer works great, 2k is pretty stable, and I've never had any security issues (I patch regularly and use Firefox and Thunderbird).
Yeah, Linux is pretty good--far better than the last time that I tried it (Red Hat, five or six years ago). It's Free. But Windows works better for me, and with less hassle.
Now, I will concede this: setting up Linux as a "grandma box" might work great. Grandma would be able to surf the web, use e-mail, and manage her digital photos easily, and without having to worry too much about viruses, spyware, and adware. But I'm not grandma... I know how to avoid such nasties.
Anyway, maybe I'll feel motivated to try Linux again in a few years.
and spend the enire week trying to find out how to get your printer to work
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The problem with switching people over to Linux is that Linux is largely unusable by 99% of the population. I know there's plenty of geeks out there who's knee-jerk reaction is to disagree but it's true! Most people are neophytes when it comes to computers. Go up to an average individual and ask them what brand their computer is. Many won't be able to tell you. Ask them what version of Windows their running. Blank stare. They don't know. Now, just try to image, TRY to imagine those people installing a new program under Linux. It's laughable. They're not even going to be able to start. Sure Linux has some good qualities but EASE OF USE is NOT one of them. Yes, it might be easy for YOU but it's not going to be easy for MOST PEOPLE.
Mac OS X, on the other hand, is terrifically easy to use. Want an alternative to Windows that most people can use? Mac OS X is the only game in town.
But if he mentions those applications, doesn't he already have them installed on Windows? You specifically state that those applications run on both Windows and Linux, which leads me to believe you mean "computer program" when you write application, and not the more general meaning of it. It's a bit confusing, really. Otherwise, it's an interesting post.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Installing, sure... but maintaining? That's where it always got me, and that's why I don't have it running now.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
It's not like it used to be. Check out Knoppix (from www.knoppix.org). It's a bootable distro that you can install. It will support almost anything you want (everything on my laptop works!)
Agile Artisans
We always hear about people who have switched their non-computer-savvy relatives to Linux, but that doesn't mean anything. It's the computer-savvy people you need to target. People who do nothing else but write e-mail, surf eBay, and keep family photos can use pretty much anything from OS X to Windows 95 to KDE.
Um, that was my point. The original post said complained that it was the unaware computer-phobic people that are being asked to switch (due to all the viruses, spyware and the like), but such people are incapable of using Linux. All I said was that that was quite possibly rubbish. You are here agreeing with me. I agree entirely that the computer savvy windows user is much less likely to change. So what? You say "It's the computer-savvy people you need to target", but I don't need to do anything. I switched my parents to linux because, quite frankly, it is easier for them to use. I have no aims for linux global domination, or the destruction of the windows empire - I just want to make my parents computing experience a little less painful.
Have your mom go buy a new printer and scanner and try to install it. Have them try to install an application themselves.
Actually they've done both already. I bought a nice boxed distribution for them complete with a little manual. They read that, and followed the instructions.
Perhaps they'd like to switch from dialup to DSL.
They're planning on doing that eventually actually. Then again, with the distribution they're using that is no harder to do than it is on windows (there's a nice setup wizard that you just step through).
Sure, there are still issues that they'll run into occasionally, but then they ran into plenty of issues on windows too. In general linux has been easier for them to use, not harder. Yes, that's largely because they aren't very computer savvy, and will struggle with basic administration tasks regardless of what they are using, but THAT'S THE POINT. For them it is easier, and that's all I'm worried about.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
"the fact we're still using X11 is embarrassing."
In what way? The only embarresment going around here is you talking out of your ass. Next time read up on the subject before you diss something.
Konqueror ( the web browser for the K Desktop Environment (KDE) for Gnu/Linux ) is integrated into the desktop....which is not as severe as being surgically grafted into the operating system, as is with microsoft windows. However, I wonder if having Konqueror sewn into the KDE opens up Konqueror/The KDE to similar issues as ms windows/Internet Explorer have being joined at the hip?
So, where's the Free CAD drafting program?
Free COGO suite to work with?
Hey, I know - a good Free PCB design toolchain!
Wait... do these exist? If they do, are they even remotely comparable to the proprietary equivalents?
For some of us, its about getting something useful done. Go be Free; I'm going to do something useful.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
I sincerely believe that what is keeping Linux off the desktop is Linux developers themselves. Their focus is completely wrong. Take a company like Apple for example. When they develop any piece of software, their primary focus is the interface. They first try to make the GUI as easy to use as possible, so a normal user can access all the functions of the software in an intuitive manner. The software is then written to facilitate the GUI. Howerver, first and foremost, it is Apples policy that a user should NEVER have to see a CLI.
Linux developers, on the other hand, have the opposite approach. They write software to perform a certain function, without much concern for the GUI. The GUI is later added out of necessity, with a clumsy attempt to twist it so that it can acommodate software that was written primarily with the CLI in mind. This is one of the reasons Linux users turn to the CLI so often. The GUI simply fails to do what it should do at times.
I personally find it unbelievable that in the year 2004, there is still an operating system where you actually have to use a CLI to install a device driver. I mean, I haven't had to do that since the days of DOS. Linux may be a great OS, but there has to be a complete reversal in the approach to designing software if it is to be accepted in the general population.
Look at OS X. A fully functional UNIX CLI exists. However, most Mac users will never see it. It is as transparent as it was in the days of OS 9 (when there was no CLI). As long as Linux is a OS developed by geeks for geeks it will never penetrate the desktop market.
Reasons why linux is ready for desktop
Gnome: Makes it as easy as working on windows.
KDE: Eye candy that gnome might lack.
Kpackage: Makes installing and uninstalling as easy as clicking a pretty button, for atleast deb based distros.
Knoppix: Preconfigured debian.
Mandrake: One of the most user friendly distros out there.
Suse: This is another one of those.
Reasons why linux is not ready for desktop
* It needs to work for everything out of the box. This means no kernel recompilations. Users should be able to install any distro without having to check their hardware (although not a fault of developers. Hardware manufacturers need to support linux, but commen users dont understand that)
* People cant add and remove hardware from their desktops and laptops without any hassales.
* The major killer apps need to work seamlessly. Browsers and email are in pretty good shape. But DVD playback and high-performance games need to be worked on. Again like unsupported hardware
* Needs everything standarized instead of scattered around.
Overall, Linux is _not_ ready for desktop yet. There are still stuff that needs to be fixed and taken care of. Developers should rather concentrate more of fixing these issues before introducing new ones.
Disclaimer: I support linux all the way. I use gentoo as my main os, infact I boot to windows only for some casual gaming. Although I do acknowledge linux developers and what they do, I still think that there should be a general interest among them instead of everyone trying to reinvent the wheel.
[ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
Let's face it I don't have to be a car mechanic to drive a car for my convenience so I don't have to be a CS graduate in order to be able to use my computer. Most people (the VAST majority of the MS crowd) don't care! That's right, they don't care about CS, about linux, about MS, about IE about anything. Why should they care? When was the last time a car dealer sold you a car on the condition that you'll take car-mechanic classes or crash-courses or enlist to online support forums? People buy a computer to use it for their job or convenience right out of the box. The rest is intellectual wars from people that are personally involved in IT or CS or Tech Science in general and assume some sort of importance by declaring their preferences.
What MS created and keeps creating is an OS that even that last computer illiterate can use with no problem. It has gone a long way that way but now it is time for them to reverse a bit and patch up the security holes they user-friendly OS architecture created.
Linux on the other hand started from the other end by creating a robust system on a solid architecture and slowly crawling to user-friendliness. The year Linux will meet with MS midway will be the year of the Linux.
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
It's the OS all your Windows applications and games won't run on... .NET or Cocoa, instead of these 20 or so different APIs which require that I install all of them since everybody likes to code for different ones instead of coding to a standard.
As far as the applications go, there is a linux replacement for 90% of windows applications, some better than the windows equivilant, some not, but most have the functionality that 95% of users need, and they tend to not crash as much since the underlying OS is stable.
For the Games, in my experience, most people over 25 who don't work in the computer field don't play computer games much, they usually focus more on music, movies, porn and work related applications which, there are a wide variaty of these for linux. And if they do want to play games, wine has a decent selection of games made for windows it'll run, not to mention the ever increasing amount of games that are being port'd to linux by the developers.
It's not that easy to just tell someone, "Well, IE had a security exploit so it's time to switch to Linux!" The Linux desktop has usability and infrastructure issues. I don't expect them to remain forever, but it is sure taking a long time, and by then Apple's next version of MacOS will be out along with Windows Longhorn, and it will be another decade of playing catch-up with their new technologies.
I've got quite a few people to who really aren't familiar with computers at all to switch to linux and don't have much trouble. I actually find that people who havent used a computer at all or at least not in the past 10 years have a MUCH easier time running linux rather than those who are converting from windows to linux.
I think right now the biggest thing I see keeping away commercial developers is the lack of a single binary installation/uninstallation API integrated into the desktop environment. You just can't be sure your app will still run in 5 years. Can you still run a Red Hat RPM you got in 1997? Windows can still run apps from 1991. In addition, a unified API akin to
What about RPM's, Slackware packages, Debian packages, not to mention all the apt-get style applications that will download it for you? Plus developers can easily write an installation application for their software with an installation 'wizard' identical to windows installation app's if they wanted. The average user really doesn't have a very difficult time adjusting to how to install linux applications. It only seems to be the windows zealots who com plain about it. As for the unified api... *cough* glibc *cough*
I guess that's it, really--you can't expect the Linux desktop to become standard if it doesn't embrace any standards itself. Now, I know a lot of people like that facet of Linux, and that's cool. I'm just saying, don't be surprised if it never takes off in the mainstream as a result. It has a long, long way to go, most of it internal infrastructure issues (the fact we're still using X11 is embarrassing).
Whats wrong with X11? is it embarassing that it's more stable than a windows desktop? or is it the fact that its designed from a networking standpoint? no? maybe its all the other applications that can be designed to interact with X11 yet be completely independent of it.
Oh yah, about that can linux still run applications from 5 years ago... First of all an RPM isn't really an app, but im guessing you meant any binary since rpm's weren't even around in `97 (could be wrong). Yes linux usually can, I've never seen any old binaries not work because of 'age'. On the other hand though, I've never seen a windows application from `91 still work, it almost always needs some sort of of dos, or win 3.1, or even win95/98 dependency that isn't still distributed with current versions of windows.
I just installed Fedora Core 2 on a second hard drive and kept Windows on the first. Fedora tells me that it detects my sound card and then asks if I can hear the test sound. I can't so Fedora tells me "Sound won't be available on this system." End of story. Great OS guys. How is this any less frustrating than Windows? Not to mention that installing Fedora was next to impossible. Partition this, partition that. What a mess. Then I download Firefox to install that. I get the archive, open it; now what? There's nothing to click; no install file. Am I supposed to just know what to do next? Guess I'll be putting my MP3s back on that HD. Dumb. I'm seriously disappointed.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
They could really care less if their PC is turned into a spam zombie..
If they can still run their games, and balance their check book... it doesnt effect them so they dont care..
Nor do they care about the costs, or that they are feeding an evil monopoly.
*we* care, but the 'real world' doesnt...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He agreed to give my recommendation a try, and that was it. Storm calmed. About an hour later, he called back to say he'd found the file containing his address book and had "reconnected it to Outlook". Problem solved.
Is anybody else infuriated by the fact that so many people have this attitude? "Oh no, the world is falling apart because Windows has done [x] horrible thing!" ... and then not long after, "Oh, I managed to fix it! I'm sure Windows won't do this again...". How many crises does it take to convince people to switch away from Windows?
I've a 1998 app (RailroadTycoon II), that doesn't run under Windows XP.
Windows, it's the OS that doesn't run many apps / drivers from it's previous edition:
One big difference: when upgrading to a new Windows edition, you have to pay for new apps that replace the apps that won't run at the new Windows. When upgrading to Linux, not only are most of the replacement apps free as in speech, but also free as in beer.
If you are a windows born and bred type of computer user linux will be hard. Especially if you really want to learn linux and not just whine on /. about how it is not windows.
People with dos experience will have the basic mindset that not everything has to be done in a GUI with a wizard but people raised on windows 95 and later will have to do some adjusting.
Oh and if you want linux to be like windows just give up right now. It isn't and hopefully never will be. Linux is a unix. Love it or leave it.
So on to my tip. DO NOT SWITCH. DO NOT INSTALL LINUX OVER YOUR WINDOWS and expect to enjoy it. DO NOT EVEN USE DUAL BOOT.
Why not? No matter how smart you are if you are used to Windows 95 and later you will find plenty of moments where you just get stuck in linux. If you are in dualboot and need to reboot to read up on how to get your network up and running then you are setting youreselve up to get a hatred of linux because to you windows just works and linux doesn't (you ofcourse will be forgetting that you once had to learn to get windows to work too).
Instead setup linux on a old machine and use a kvm switch to switch between them. Then you can use your old familiar setup to read up on how to work with your new OS and if for some reason you quickly need to do something you haven't yet learned on Linux Windows is only a button press away. Get frustated, lost, out of time? 1 press and hello windows. Want to try again after your head cleared? 1 press and back you are to learning and trying.
KVM switch (keyboard video mouse) is even better then two machines next to each other. Why? When you press the button for linux that is all you see, no problems with two keyboards and one is easier to type on or the windows machine has the bigger monitor. Keep the printer on windows for now so that when you got some long piece of text on windows on a linux subject you can print it (printer setup in linux is easy enough once you mastered it, mastering it isn't easy for everyone so wait, babysteps)
Now if you got linux running smoothly start using it for 1 or 2 tasks. If your a gamer do all your browsing, downloading and music playing on linux. You will then notice if you use a browser like opera you can keep all the webpages open as you like, have downloads going in the greatest memory hogs java ever spawned, play your mp3 collection from beginning to end WHILE gaming with 100% of your windows machine. Does the game crash? No worry, the linux machine will still be playing your MP3's while windows reboots, have the walkthrough page where you left it and the download happily downloading. BUT always remember to take babysteps. Don't do them all at once. One at the time. Browsing /. is probably the easist.
Next you may try stuff like Mplayer (linux movie player) and get rid off all the conflicting codecs on your windows machine that are just eating resources. Try openoffice for writing your letters. Email may be intresting to switch (do you really need outlook and exchange at home?)
I think this way works best, it works excellently for me. I am a web developer with some coding skill and an avid game and anime watcher. ALL my gaming is on windows plus some photoshop. ALL the rest is on linux. Because my game windows doesn't do anything else I got more memory for my games and more cpu cycles. I also care far less about game crashes as it doesn't interupt anything else (I don't photoshop and game at the same time).
Meanwhile I have learned an awfull lot of linux (to be fair I come from a unix background and had plenty of dos experience so it wasn't that hard for me) and more importantly I have the mindset that there is more then 1 OS out there. You might be suprised to learn this but if you go out into the workplace you might encounter everything from DOS to unix to VMS to mainframes (well software running on mainframes) to custom-made to windows 3.1->2003 to Linux to OS-2 to Mac OS 8-X etc.
A Windows 95-2003 person will be horribly confused. So am I but at least I have managed to learn the principles behind using a computer. Not just to press buttong X in situation Y.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why the heck ***SHOULD*** they put work into making Unreal Tournament work on Linux through Wine? There ARE native ports of both games, afterall.
I dunno about the other games, 'cause my system is far too weak to play much more than basic Q3, but bitching about UT when there is real-native-support is sorta.... Weak.
There's one major issue with the few distros of Linux I've tried, and that's program installation.
/var, sometimes in /usr. Sometimes /sbin. Sometimes it's /home (when I'm lucky), with a hidden folder.
I install someschmoe.rpm, and only God knows which files have gone where. More often than not, I do a file search for a name to find the executable. Sometimes it's in
That's one thing that Windows does. It may loadup your registry with hidden keys (if your date is incorrect when you install Norton's AV, you're out of time/luck when you set your system clock), it might hide files in system folders. But you know where to double click when you want to run the program: wherever you installed it to.
Just something to consider...
No. Windows/DOS never had something like X11 apart from third-party X11-Servers.
I develop on Win2K, and I use a CLI on Win2K every day.
I just cannot stand the brain-dead command.com environment, so thank god for cygwin!
Either reason is good for me. Perhaps some people like the idea of being 'trendsetters' for some personal subconscious reason, but that's their deal.
well, I'll agree with you on the GUI. GUI is the UI of choice for most people, because people think in pictures mostly. Look at driving around, how many places do you drive where you got from A to B over many different roads, but only know the names of a few of them? You remember your turns by what the intersections look like, not what they are called. It's the same navigating your computer for most people.
/business/professional academic background, most people never saw unix, solaris, whatever. I like GUI, I don't *mind* CLI, but I don't want to have to rely on it, because I have a job and a lot of hobbys already. The last two years, linux has had a plenty good enough GUI to use for most people, so that the argument is becoming moot. You really don't *need* much CLI action.
I'm just a two year linux user, but if I had to do everything from the command line, I wouldn't be a two year linux user. I came from a 99% mac classic background because way back then the choice was apple, a PC clone running Dos(I tried it, it sucked for me, non intuitive, arcane, stupid), or something else more expensive and esoteric and I never got turned on to it, as in, I have never even seen an amiga running, or a machine on os/2 or any of the other more obscure platforms and operating systems. And unless you had a heavy industry
I think what needs to be done instead is just stop talking about linux, as it is just a kernel, and instead actually name the distro, because those are the real *operating "systems"*. All the top ones now you can run full GUI as far as I am aware. Now whether or not a person can understand them immediately,all the various applications and how to navigate the file system and set up user accounts and get down with "permissions" and "services", etc, I'd say no, heck no, still too arcane, and a lot of windows users still can't use windows WITH it's GUI either after many years use, I'd say most of them can't really "use" windows to it's fullest, they use a few familiar applications and that's it. With a name brand linux kernel based operating system, though, you get a ton of apps come pre installed, people are more likely to try them out, because downloading is scary to people, they simply do not know who to trust, or why to trust it, why they need application xyz, etc, so a lot of windows users stay pretty pedestrian with their tastes.
The linux desktop people, where the action is to make linux mainstream, have done an amazing job in a short time, IMO. And you can just see the rate of improvement, it's FAST. It's kick booty fast. So in that regard a linux kernel based operating system is ahead of the propietary guys, and another important point, updating ALL the applications is as automatic as can be, this is hard with windows.
Basically, every windows user is going to hit a security pain threshold, then they will think about it. You would be hard pressed to find a normal windows user who hasn't been nailed, re nailed, and nailed again over security issues. The time is ripe, that is the number one reason to switch. Games? ehh, I think they are silly. People should use a dedicated game console to play games. That's just an opinion of mine, and I know it isn't all that popular here, but I'd be personally embarrassed to say I "needed" some computer and specific operating system to play some game. I just have too much real life stuff to do to be bothered with games. I tried a few, ehh, even back in the olden days at the arcade, I'd drop like two bucks, that was it for 6 months or even longer, they just never floated my boat. If people want to stay stuck paying windowes cost and using it to surf because they want games, I say "let them" don't even bother talking to them about switching, waste of time. They will do it when they want to and it gets harder to crack games on windows, then they might look around. I really don't care, it's a non issue to me, just like professional sports, it's just not even on my radar.. I'll watch a few olympics events and some of the trials, th
I'm planning to celebrate when Linux moves from 1% to 2% on the Google Zeitgeist OS pie chart.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
WTF? You explicitly said that Linux was "virus-safe". Don't give me that bullshit. You said it. Explicitly. You're wrong. Explicity. No operating system that does anything is, was, or ever will be "virus-safe" unless it's completely controlled by some sort of trusted computing. On top of that, a lot of what you're counting as viruses are application and user problems more than Operating System problems. Linux is secure like UNIX. UNIX has fallen victim to worms and viruses. Linux can too. Not only that, a stupid user running as root - which is exactly what will happen the first time Joe Sixpack gets pissed off that he can't run xyz without jumping through even the most insignificant of hoops - can do a SHITLOAD more damage to a Linux system than they usually can a Windows XP system anymore. Quit ignoring the stupid user problem. Shifting dumb people from one place to another doesn't solve the fact that they're dumb. In fact, what you folks are advocating is sort of like worrying they might poke their eye out with a pencil, so you give them a grenade instead.
Considering your aggressive attitude, I'd be tempted to go with b) at this point.
Yea, okay Mr. Linux Guru. As an AC already pointed out, the lo probably died. Why? No fucking clue. Why don't you tell me you 1337 penguin, because I sure as hell couldn't find anything wrong.
I seriously doubt this. What distro were you using? Were you using beta versions of software?
Red Hat 8.0 with regular updates. No special software beyond what Red Hat installed was ever put on it except Firefox, Thunderbird, and a glib upgrade some time back.
Ah yes. I've done nothing but complain about X and the two popular window managers and that's anti-Linux even though the two are only superficially related. Of course. So, because X sucks (X being a perfectly viable BSD app, mind you), which invalidates Linux as a good desktop system since nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative, that's anti-Linux.
Go ahead man. Keep going. You're doing well, really.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I find the standard linux window managers very obnoxious. The more they try to mimick windows, the less intuitive they are the more off putting I find them..
Ironically my favorite window manager is fluxbox because it seems to understand *nix on the desktop.
KDE and Gnome feel like they were hot glued in place.
clifgriffin > blog
iTunes. Wouldn't it be great if iTunes had more than one front-end? Say maybe a web interface so you can access it from another computer in your home? Or maybe even a command-line interface so it is easier to access from a device with a small screen (or low bandwidth), like your PDA.
I started off as a Mac user, but I've since learned that there is a place for the CLI. It has a higher learning curve, but for some operations it is a much better tool.
It's pretty, It's good and it's a lot different the SuSE I'm used to.
Advantages: The install was flawless and idiot proof (not being newbie I can't really comment to much on this). The start menu & taskbar have been pared down to stuff regular people use and is no longer this massive and confusing list of various programs. There are provisions to connect to existing ISP's (they had the major ISP here in Austria, but not mine).
Open Office is in the default install and I have come to the conclusion that people that send you excel spreadsheets that don't work in open office are self important pompous asses (I am speaking specifically about PricewaterhouseCoopers, God I wish they read Slashdot because they suck and need to find this out) and the spreadsheet does not likely have any real or useful functionality.
Disadvantages: Setting up my ISP was painful but I think this is more iNode's fault than SuSE's fault; there are plenty of things helping you in YAST. Your point on messenger service is valid, I don't use so I didn't think of that. I always plug my camera into my Mac, so again I haven't tried it, but you comment about gimp I don't think is valid because Photoshop has one hell of a learning curve, I took a course from a photographer friend and still it is somewhat of a mystery to me
Bottom line: In my opinion people who can not learn enough to self administer SuSE personal (or other similar Linux distros) can not learn enough to self administer Windows [whatever] and would be much better off with an Apple product. I am not trying to be mean, I am not trying to degrade Linux or say it's not ready for the desktop. What I am saying is that some people will NEVER learn ANYTHING about their computers and cannot cope with the flood of various forms of malware targeted at windows machines, Apple is robust to this and has more Automagic setup features than SuSE Linux. So if it is a real issue about supporting an important person in you life who is not living with you (In my case my Mum) go with OS X if they can't / won't learn how to use a computer and SuSE personal if they can / will.
Although, I must admit I have been looking at QNX for a project at work, and it really seams perfect for the person who doesn't use a computer much to check mail and do light surfing...
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
People don't seem to realize that hackers spend time writing viruses and exploits for windows because it is the most used OS. Writing a virus for linux is a waste, because it's not going to infect many people.
I already know what you're going to say. The patches will come out quicker for linux...but that doesn't change the fact that people will spend a lot more time hacking linux if it were the most used OS.