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.
... 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."
"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."
What about when most users had Windows 3.1? Setting that up wasn't practical for an end user either, as it required the ability to physically set hardware addresses, configure things through the MCI control panel that were a little less than intuitive, and knowledge of how Program Manager tied into the actual programs.
Sell a preloaded computer with Linux to the masses, and I'm not just talking e-Machines or Walmart, and the books will follow. The "ten easy things to do in Linux" columns in laymans' computer magazines will follow.
People may not patch or compile their own kernels or programs, but that's okay. That's why distributions with package management utilities exist. I don't know about you, but I haven't had to compile anything by hand in quite some time since switching to Debian.
Most users where I work at don't have a clue anyway, so not having a clue in Linux isn't any worse than not having a clue in Windows. In fact, once they're shown the basics of how there are no drive letters and how things are just off of / I suspect that they'll work with it just fine, and they will have a significantly harder time breaking the system into pieces with stuff off of the Internet.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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).
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
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.
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.
The moment most users using Windows can setup their own printer, remove spyware, or reconfigure their network settings in Windows without having to call upon the tech person they know, then you have a valid point.
But most users using Windows can't do that in Windows, so what makes you think Linux will be any more difficult?
Jason Lotito
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
and spend the enire week trying to find out how to get your printer to work
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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
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.
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 really not a case of being intelligent. Linux is getting to be "country simple" to install and it's already no harder to use than Windows.
:-)
... let me see now. It took open-source programmers less than a day to fix it, Microsoft programmers still haven't fixed the real problem, and it's been more than a year. I know which record I'm more impressed by!"
"I know i've never had a security problem on any of my Windows computers, and i only switched off of IE maybe 6 months ago."
Are you sure? When your box gets "owned" chances are you'll be the last to know.
"Going to Windows Update and clicking 'install updates' once every other month is a small price to pay for having a usable computer."
I can't say it any better than Steve Vaughan-Nichols who wrote the Eweek article on which the Slashdot story was based. When talking about a flaw that allowed hackers to take control of a computer running Windows and the Mozilla browser:
"Hmmm
The open source community responded lighting fast and reprogrammed the part of Mozilla that allowed a user to exploit a weakness in the XP operating system. They shouldn't have had to do this. Microsoft should have closed this hole more than a year ago.
Running an update every other month may give you a sense of security but it is a false sense of security!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Simplified, everything in /bin is core operating system stuff like the shell, permissions tools like chmod, etc.
Additional tools that provide extra functionality to the system like editors, Internet clients (ftp, etc) generally go in /usr/bin.
Applications installed by users generally go in the /home/[user]/bin.
All of these directories normally live in the shell search-path although there is a security issue with putting home directories in that path - therefore some distributions will not do that by default.
You are always able to change your search path and you can interrogate RPM to find out where it has installed all of the files from a particular package - it's just about familiarity.
Please remember that the big upside of UNIX over Windows is that user-specific configuration files always live in the user's home directory so it is very easy to delete a rogue configuration file & start again.
In Windows, not only do you have progressive registry bloat over time but it is very easy to trash a Windows machine simply by removing the wrong key from the registry.
I would also add that you're thinking about UNIX in entirely the wrong way. With Windows, you have a totally GUI-based OS with some additional functionality at the command prompt. However, in UNIX, the power is at the command prompt but a lot of applications have GUI front-ends to make them more intuitive - but even so, the GUI is just another set of programs that you can choose to run or not to run.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.