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.'"

Comments

Linux?

[kennycoder]

What's that? ;)

Re:Linux?

[rd_syringe]

It's the OS all your Windows applications and games won't run on...

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 .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.

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).

Re:Linux?

[dignome]

It's the OS all your Windows applications and games won't run on...

That is going a little overboard. Especially with the current status of wine and the company maintaining a seperate branch of wine bent on gaming.

Wine HQ
TransGaming Technologies

Re:Linux?

[It'sYerMam]

Unfortunately, the quick evolution of Linux does mean that things need to be redone pretty quickly, also.
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.

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Linux?

[Bohemoth2]

looks like winex is still pretty broken from what ican tell. I now UT2K3 and 4 work but steam is still breaking a lot EQ and CS and BF1942,WoW,SWG, medal of honor and a few others are pretty much the bread and butter of pc gaming. If Transgaming can get these to work flawlessly then they have it made. untill then it's early beta software. If i can get Shadowbane to work in Linux then they will have me as a customer. Shadowbane and CS and i'm there baby.

Re:Linux?

[fymidos]

>It's not that easy to just tell someone,
>"Well, IE had a security exploit so it's time to
> switch to Linux!"

No, you tell him that the design of windows itself is flawed and linux is ready, so it's time to switch.

>the lack of a single binary
>installation/uninstallation API

i fail to see where the problem is. Every linux distro has all those api's and they are installed by default. Do you have a problem with disk space or something? You don't need more than a gigabyte of disk space to install all of them. You install all those "backwards compatibility" dll's in windows and a whole "backward compatible" operating system in macs, and you complain that you have to install both gtk and qt?

>Can you still run a Red Hat RPM you got in 1997?

Yes. But even if you couldn't why would anybody run a linux application from 1997? Unlike other systems, in linux the latest versions of the applications are actually faster, better and cost less (if they cost anything).
These problems just don't exist in the open software world. Why you think backwards compatibility is such a big issue is beyond me. I *NEVER* needed an old application in linux.

>(the fact we're still using X11 is embarrassing)

why is that? make no mistake, if X11 were not good nobody would be using them. The truth is that despite some drawbacks, there is nothing better out there. X11 functionality is still not matched by either windows or macintosh *or* terminal server solutions.

Re:Linux?

[nmk]

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.

Re:Linux?

[phek]

It's the OS all your Windows applications and games won't run on...
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 .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.
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.

Re:Linux?

[VitaminB52]

Windows can still run apps from 1991.

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:

• Remember upgrading from Windows 3.x to '95?
• Remember the 'issues' when upgrading from '95 to Mediocre Edition?
• Remember all those apps that won't run at your new XP box?

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.

Re:Linux?

[nmk]

For people that consider computers a hobby, the CLI provides a powerful tool to explore the inner workings of the machine. What you have to realize, though, is that for most people it has become an appliance. Like you said, it is no different than a toaster or a fridge for these people. Tell me, do you know how to repair your fridge if something goes wrong. I would guess that you would call someone to fix it for you. Now if cooling systems were your hobby, you might know the internal workings of the system and fix it yourself.

Back in the days of DOS (and much earlier) computers were only used in a very limited capacity by most people. When I was nine (I'm 26 now) very few people actually knew how to use a computer (i chose this date becuase it is when I actually got my own computer). Very few people actually bothered using a computer. It was used to a limited extent in offices for word processing, and some spreadsheet applications. However, it was far from ubiquotous as it is today. Therefore, back then the computer was primarily a hobbyist item. So many people who used computer were actually interested in learning the workings of the machine, since it was primarily for that purpose that they owned one.

The computer is now an appliance like any other. It has to be as easy to use, and as intuitive, as any other appiance. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux can not succeed in the appliance marketplace untill it starts to behave like an appliance. The computer is complex enough that hobbyists will staill beable to have their fun. The CLI will persist, however It should be well hidden from the user.

Re:Linux?

[BeerMilkshake]

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!

Re:Linux?

[sp0rk173]

Let's go back to Joe User Joe User isnt SSHing into his desktop Does it display my apps? Does it look nice?

That doesn't mean that there won't be a program developed, using the network tranperancy of X11, that allows joe user to easily and securely bring up his work desktop at home (ala GoToMyPC).

Right now, the open source X world is going through a Big flux. xorg has a developer base that is working on, and will feed back pretty little UI improvements as they become stable and mature (X Server). That will come. Several projects have tried to come up with an alternative for X, and very few have gained popularity for one reason or another. The activation energy required for a whole new UI system for *nix has shown to be a damn hard hill to climb.

Re:Linux?

[Wog]

The problem with your argument is that while geeks like you or I may enjoy working with more complicated-but more powerful-tools, The average user has no desire to be bothered with it.

It's like saying that I should build my own car and tune it myself to go 150 MPH. While it would be nice for me to learn about the mechanics of the internal combustion engine, and to get the power that comes with learning how to painstakingly tune it myself, I have no desire to put forth the effort. I know how to check, fill, and change fluids, check my tire pressure, keep an eye on the idiot lights. I just want to get into the car and have the bloomin thing work. It gets extra points if it's a comfortable ride, and I wouldn't complain if there was some extra power behind it, but I basically have the minimum information needed to use the car to get to places where I will do more enjoyable things.

Joe User is the same way with his computer. Make it work without much effort, make it look nice, and let it be fun once in a while. He probably only uses it until he's done what he needed to do today, and then he moves on to what he *really* wants to do.

Re:Linux?

[TelJanin]

But in Linux you CAN copy and paste between applications. It uses a different shortcut than windows (mouse buttons), but it is quite possible.

Re:Linux?

[zogger]

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.

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 /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 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

Re:Linux?

[jp10558]

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.

Well, I'm a long time Windows user, but certainly not a zealot. My family is the same, and we really have a hard time with Linux, specifically SuSE for installing things and generally doing more than oohhing at KDE 3.2 and playing the included games. I think we are too used to the way things work in Windows, and many things are very non-obvious to us. I hate to recommend making the desktop more like Windows, but I can't really justify spending days and days learning the simpler things about using Linux like installing NEW games when I can already do that and more in Windows.

Yes, this is somewhat my problem. I'm apathetic. So is most of America. To get these people to change I believe they will need to not only be able to do what they can in Windows, and I mean all of it, but actually be able to do MORE. And they need to be able to do this without investing more than a day or two learning it. Otherwise I believe that many, myself included, just don't think it's worth the effort.

Re:Linux?

[trashme]

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.

Personally, I think that's the wrong way to design software. Why should the core functionality of an application be tied to the GUI? I would prefer the app be designed independant of the interface and then allow different interfaces to be used. Let me give you an example:

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.

Finally

[dj_cel]

Some one is getting the picture, remove the software of shame, attach the software of triumph!

Does it make much sense, though?

[krem81]

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.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[Albanach]

I think you're wrong. It's been a year or two since the big linux distros would take some getting used to for Joe Bloggs switching from a PC. The reason they're not switching is he same reason they're not patching their PC - it takes time effort and a bit of skill. These folk want a PC that just works. If their PC had come with Linux instead of Windows, preconfigured so their Digi Camera works, their modem works, and their printer just works then they'd all be happily sitting with a distro that'd be equally unpatched. The only advantage then is that it's a bit more difficult for a virus to spread under the linux security model than the run everything as Admin security model adopted on most home installations of Windows.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[mini me]

I'll give you a reason. Windows is too hard to use.

For example, I wanted to install OpenOffice on a Windows 2000 computer today. Easy right? I though it would be too.

First I had to find my way to the openoffice website and eventually find the right download link. Then I had to download it. It came as a zip file so I had to unzip that. After that I ran the setup programs and had to answer at least five questions. Finally after all that hassle it was ready to be used.

On the other hand, on my Linux machine, it was just a matter of typing:

apt-get install openoffice.org

Of course it doesn't end at software installation, but I thought that was a good example as I was just about ready to give up installing it on Windows because it was too much work (I get lazy when it comes to doing things computers should be doing). And now the next time the next version of OO comes out I'll have to go through the same hassle I went through installing it in the first place. On my Linux machine it will be automatically upgraded.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[Metaldsa]

exactly, if those people can't:

1.) Keep their anti-virus up to date
2.) Stop clicking on email attachments from people they don't know
3.) Run spybot/ad-aware to clean up their computer
4.) Run windows update once every six months

Then how can you expect them to learn the linux operating system? I do all of the above and more and my system has never had a worm or trojan (and I dont use anti-virus software to boot, i just watch what runs on my computer and keep it patched). It took me weeks to get my dad to write his email NOT in the subject box. Trying to get his spyware infested box over to linux? UNPOSSIBLE! :)

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[Coryoth]

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.

Really? That's what people keep saying, but I'm a little less sure it's true. What makes Linux hard is administering it. If you can't administer your windows box, what difference does it make that you can't administer your linux box either? Other than that it's just a "getting used to" issue - and again, the more computer phobic you are, and the less you understand, the easier this can tend to be. Serious windows users know all the shortcut keys, and the efficient ways of doing things. They know all about the nice extra functionality that is available. Naive users just don't know anything about that - they have much lower expectations of what a computer should be able to do. They don't understand how any of it works anyway, so the change is far less stressful than you would imagine (especially if you use something like Linspire or Xandros which hews pretty close to a lot of the basic windows ways of doing things). It's not like switching to linux means you have to grasp some new interface that doesn't use WIMP.

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.

Sure anecdotes are not data, b ut where is the data? Why is there an assumption that computer-phobic can't use linux? Certainly I haven't seen any real data on that either.

Jedidiah.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[LucasMedaffy]

That's not much of an argument, considering OO is one of the very few applications that doesn't come with a windows Installer. If you consider MS Office, you pop in the cd, put in a serial number, click next a few times, and it's installed. The links are in the start menu, the files are automatically associated etc. You missed out a few steps regarding apt-get. First, you need to configure apt-get to point to a server that has OO. Secondly, you need to switch to root to install. Thirdly, unless I'm mistaken, you need to manually set up KDE/Gnome links or create a desktop link. I won't switch to a purely Linux machine until I don't have to mess around with text config files anymore. I can do it (I'm a comp. engineer) but I don't like to. Even on my Mandrake 10 installation (which does have a nice OS installer I must admit), I can't get my soundcard to work reliably in XMMS. I had to disable KDE sound, then install other sound plugins, and even then sound only works half the time. Ugh. I will switch as Linux keeps improving (as it is I use almost 100% OSS in Windows), but it's not there yet.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[mini me]

considering OO is one of the very few applications that doesn't come with a windows Installer.

It did use a Windows installer. You can ignore the ZIP step and I've still described just about every Windows application installation procedure.

First, you need to configure apt-get to point to a server that has OO

I didn't.

Secondly, you need to switch to root to install

Okay, sudo apt-get install openoffice.org. You have to switch to an Administrator in Windows, so I figured that point was not pertenent.

Thirdly, unless I'm mistaken, you need to manually set up KDE/Gnome links or create a desktop link.

Not on my system I didn't.

I won't switch to a purely Linux machine until I don't have to mess around with text config files anymore.

I hear this all the time. I can't think of any text files I need to modify, ever.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[Coryoth]

Actually I had my parents do the install. I just sat in the next room. Occasionally they'd ask me to come in and I would do so, and they'd say "What should I do here?", to which I'd reply "What does it look like you should do?". They'd then reply and I'd say "Well, why don't you do that...". No problems anywhere in there.

I admit, I had 1 major advantage: I wasn't getting them to install linux over top of their old system. Rather, I waited till they were due for a hardware upgrade and had them put linux on a fresh new system. No backing up, no resizing partitions.

Jedidiah.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[Clockwurk]

On the other hand, on my Linux machine, it was just a matter of typing:

apt-get install openoffice.org

Which apt repository did you use? Any distro I've used that had a mechanism like apt (yum, etc.), I had to manually select and enter the server names in a config file before I got anything to work at all. On top of that, editing a config file almost always required me to be root and to select what program I wanted to edit the file with (double clicking the file opened it in konqueror, read-only).

How about another example, installing a video card driver.

On windows, I go to nvidias site and find and download an executable. I download the executable and run it (in windows). Drivers are installed.

Now on linux. I go the nvidia site and find the graphics driver it is a .run package. I type ""sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-6106-pkg1.run". I am presented with an error, "X server must not be running before installation". Now I must figure out how to stop X. Logging out and attemping to login using the "failsafe" mode (console only) fails to fix the problem (X is still running) so I login as my user account again and fire up a browser and point it to google. After sorting through several results I find my answer type "init 3" in a terminal window. Boy was that intuitive. After typing out the long command to install the graphics driver, all goes smoothly and I reboot.

I get lazy when it comes to doing things computers should be doing.
If you took the time to install and customize a linux system, this obviously isn't true.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[maskedbishounen]

You know, my fear is that some people might actually switch to Linux. You know, the ones who think that somehow switching will automagically make them secure. Now, what happens when they get rooted? All of a sudden, instead of a pitiful 'dows box that could easily be cleaned by a number of apps, you're stuck with a luser that has no clue anything is wrong with his box, and even if told, doesn't have the slightest clue as to how to "fix" it.

Sure, you and I know to back up our data (including logs to know what to fix), format, change our passwords on the new install, and patch up whatever needs to be done. Lesson learned for us, but what about them?

Now, think about spam for a moment. Is it easier for a clueless Windows user or Linux user to keep the said thing from happening?

Just don't blame me when your Gmail inbox fills up. I've told all my non-tech-savvy from to stay the heck away from it! :)

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[Tim C]

the run everything as Admin security model adopted on most home installations of Windows

And what makes you think that home installations of Linux would be any different?

You can run XP as a non-admin user *right now*, using the "Run As..." service to run stuff with admin privs as needed. Mark my words - when/if "the average user" starts to switch to Linux, either they'll run as root or, if the system supports it, they'll enter their root password to install stuff whenever prompted.

The security model of the OS is secondary to an educated user being sat at the keyboard.

Re:Does it make much sense, though?

[omega_cubed]

One advantage I see to installing Linux on computers of family members, though, is the ease of administration/patch etc. As long as the computer is on a constant-on internet link (and who doesn't in the day of broadband), and as long as SSHD didn't break, I can always ssh in, su to root, fix whatever broke in whoever's directory, run whatever update I need, without having to leave my house/dorm, drive over and pop in a CD-ROM. Think about it, with the prevalence of remote system administering, why not take the burden off of your parents/siblings? For all my mother cared, KDE is just like Windows (okay, the four virtual desktop thing scared her the first time, but she got over it quick enough).

not yet

[viggen9]

the problem is, that for your actual "average user", they will say, "where is my MS Office" and "where is my internet explorer" and I need my Norton Anti-Virus. Linux is great, but it's not for the average user yet. An acquainance of mine can't get over the fact that his win xp box doesn't have a floppy disk drive. What would he do if I took his start menu away?

Re:not yet

[Coryoth]

he problem is, that for your actual "average user", they will say, "where is my MS Office"

The article points out CrossOver Office handles that one.

and "where is my internet explorer" and I need my Norton Anti-Virus.

The reason for switching was to get away from IE and viruses - if they were actually switching for that reason, why on earth would they then complain about the lack of it?

An acquainance of mine can't get over the fact that his win xp box doesn't have a floppy disk drive. What would he do if I took his start menu away?

Indeed. So which distribution is it that you're planning to give him that uses blackbox or windowmaker as the default desktop environment? Is there a reason you're thinking of giving him a more hard core hacker oriented distro instead of, saw Linspire or Xandros or Mandrake or SuSE or Fedora or any of the other multitudes of distros that use KDE or GNOME as their default DE?

Jedidiah.

Year 2004 is the year of Linux desktop!

[wheany]

Just like the year before.

Re:Year 2004 is the year of Linux desktop!

[Vampyre_Dark]

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?

Re:Year 2004 is the year of Linux desktop!

[NanoGator]

"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?"

Because they read Slashdot and the MS defect of the week, and think that millions of people run around in a panic desperately trying to patch their system. They think it should be bonehead obvious to all of us Windows users that we should switch, even though they don't consider the idea that we don't rate security as high as they do, especially when we know switching to Linux will disrupt us in unpleasant ways. (Games, anyone?)

The reality is that us Windows users aren't scurrying around like that. Even the less techinically inclined users are running anti-virus and the sort. That handles most of it. Maybe a few running Zone Alarm. Even got a group of people that have no idea, and they're sending out worms like crazy. But since worms etc can't do much damage if they kill their hosts, they're not losing their data.

Viruses aren't going to be what moves people to Linux. Additionally, treating Windows users like they're stupid isn't going to make them switch heither. You want us to switch? Appeal to our sense of "we're getting something new and cool!" not "we're restricting you to lower software compatibility and not-so-ease-of-use so that you can have unlimited up-time and better virus protection even though what you have now isn't so bad and you still have to maintain Linux anyway."

Remember BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about trying a FreeBSD desktop instead of Linux?

Re:Remember BSD!

[Brandybuck]

Oh, okay! Does it support half of my hardware? No? Well fuck FreeBSD then.

Actually, FreeBSD supports 100% of the hardware on my home desktop, home laptop and company workstation. That's about two percentage points better than Linux, and forty percentage points better than Windows XP.

Re:Remember BSD!

[Billly Gates]

My usb keyboard and mouse were recongized under FreeBSD first.

So was my memory stick.

Well factored code

[Baldrson]

Microsoft's assertion that Internet Explorer is now part of the operating system shows its flawed reasoning.

Actually, if Microsoft factored their code properly there would be almost nothing to Internet Explorer -- a few high level calls to standard libraries and that would be that. Agreed, this isn't what they've done (although they might be fooling themselves into thinking this is what they've done) -- but it isn't an inherently bad thing to say that Internet Explorer is "part of the operating system" so much as saying the "operating system" itself should be nothing but a nanokernel. Even Linux fails in that regard.

Isn't it a little early...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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."

Re:Isn't it a little early...

[Flingles]

By coincidence, I did recently switch to mandrake 10. You could probably say I'm about neutral towards linux/microsoft, which allows you to see problems much easier. And these are some of them.

Firstly, every distro needs a bundled windows emulator. And they need to be better too.You see, my ISP requires a windows program to go on the internet.This is Australia's Telstra, which is the DOMINANT ISP. Yes that's right, if you want broadband, you need windows. I had to completely reinstall windows so that I could download Wine. Burned wine onto cd, booted up linux and ran the setup for this internet connection program. Now wine can't run the install wizard for this program. I repeat, an install wizard. Linux needs to be able to run install wizards.

Secondly, it needs easy interaction with NTFS and FAT partitions (also bundled). This would have saved me several CD-Rs and Reboots. Luckily, after I copied the program directory this internet connection program actually worked and I could use the world wide web.

Thirdly, I hear this is just a mandrake thing, but why can't I use the browser to do things as root. I can't interact with an NTFS drive in browser, because it requires root access which you can only get command line. Now I know it feels cool when people see you using a command line to do stuff, but it is incredibly slow, especially when files are named stuff like Wine1.3.4.0.i386.tar.gz .Also installing programs in the browser is a must. (Yes I know this is supposed to stop employees/grandmothers installing stuff, but then that's what the root password is for)

Finally, (not so important) was speed, or lack thereof. Although you might say it's a sacrifice for stability, it was still taking over ten seconds to load simple programs eg. Kwrite/ konqueror. Also just a mandrake thing but all the libraries should be on the first cd, and be installed by default. Otherwise it's dependency hell.
I would say these are the only things holding linux back from being far superior, even for new users. Once developers of soft/hardware start supporting linux the win emulator can be dropped of course.

Feh

[foidulus]

If you are really hardcore I suggest trying tron on the desktop. Now that would be something to write about!

Broken link? Here's the fix.

[colonslashslash]

From TFA:

Security Center Editor Larry Seltzer takes a different view of the bug in Mozilla on Windows. Click here to read more.

I'm clicking but I'm not getting any reading. I assume this is the same for everyone else. For anyone who wants to read the article that wasn't linked properly, check here:

Larry Seltzer on Mozilla Flaw

Radical change in work environment

[Jagobah]

Those that wish to switch from Windows to Linux simply to avoid security problems with Internet Explorer may just find it easier to use an alternative browser and practice common sense when dealing with suspect links.

It would take a lot more work switching to Linux due to not only learning how the new operating system works, but also how to learn time saving shortcuts that come with the OS and the new productive applications needed to acquire.

This article uses the widespread threat of hackers "holding the whip hand over Windows" when in fact it's not that much different than before. There'll always be hackers and there may always be holes in IE, but if you can practice enough common sense to not click on suspect links or download attachments in e-mail, then for the most part you'll be fine working in Windows.

If I were to switch to Linux I know that I would lose at least 3-5 days of productivity just installing the damn thing.

Re:irrelevant

[TWX]

"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.

Go for it!

[bl8n8r]

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.

It's the Apps Stupid...

[Duncan3]

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.

Re:It's the Apps Stupid...

[Noksagt]

90% of your other apps? Please. Which specific apps can you not find an equivalent app for that won't run under wine/crossover office/vmware?

You will find many here who use Linux as there primary or only OS. Are you saying these people don't actually use their machines?

Re:It's the Apps Stupid...

[archen]

It's a very windows-centric attitude. If you really think about it, you start to understand that computer OS's tend to differentiate the way their users think. Windows users tend to think on the terms of "I can use this PROGRAM or that PROGRAM" reguardless of what it does, they tie their thinking to a specific application. Mac OS users tend to think on terms of what they can DO with their computer, and not so much what app does it. They can edit photos, or make movies - many aren't aware of what programs really do that. Unix users tend to think on terms of a solution. Using programs to get something done whatever way they choose - perhaps by doing things themselves.

And thus you have people switching... Mac users are used to being able to do things, and easily without complications - this often makes Unix and Windows unfriendly to them. Windows users get fustrated when they can't use their specific apps on other operating systems, despite the fact that there are often alternatives that do the same things and sometimes better. Unix users tend to get fustrated in windows by being confined by what they can do. By contrast Unix users move easily to MacOSX not neccesarily because it's easy to use, but because they can use lots of tools to do things the way they want them done.

Well that's my theory anyway.

Re:It's the Apps Stupid...

[Noksagt]

Dreamweaver
Works under crossover office. Also see NVU, Bluefish, and Quanta for great native GUI HTML composers that run natively.

Warcraft
Frecraft or under TransGaming.

Neverwinter
Runs natively

EQ
Runs under Trans Gaming

Re:It's the Apps Stupid...

[Eric Damron]

Actually Ditching IE wouldn't fix the problem. Microsoft integrated it into the OS. That means that parts of IE are used by the OS. So even if you stop using it you will still need to patch and repatch and repatch... If you don't you can still be open to other attack vectors against the IE components that Microsoft foolishly integrated.

A lot of people feel that Microsoft chose to do that in order to prevent the Justice Department from forcing them to remove it before Netscape was rendered completely irrelevant.

Personally, I can't help but be amused that Microsoft's anticompetitive practices are coming back to bite them in the ass in this manner.

To truly compete...

[metalligoth]

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?

Re:To truly compete...

[Gorath99]

Actually OO.org does have a VBA equivalent. Unfortunately, it's not exactly compatible with VBA, though (but then again, if it was the MS lawyers would love it) and the editor isn't quite as nice as the one in Office.

Re:To truly compete...

[Conor Turton]

To truly compete against Windows, GNU/Linux needs to have a line of hardware, clearly marked, that it will work flawlessly with.

Its even worse than that. Take for example my Epson Stylus CX5400 MFD (Printer/Scanner). It was listed and WORKED in Suse9, it doesn't in SuSE 9.1. I had an ISDN card that worked in Mandrake 8 but didn't in 8.1 but did again in 8.2. What the hell is all that about? I do an update , which so happens to include a newer kernel, and all of a sudden my graphics card doesn't work and I'm left at CLI cos X won't load!

Linux hasn't a cat in hells chance of taking over from Windows as a "home" OS until it gets its hardware support act together.

How the hell you can compare Linux to the usability of Windows when you have to re-install drivers, if they're available or "build" your own if they're not, just because you ran "update" is beyond me.

I recently had the same idea...

[gargan]

I've run Linux off and on (more off than on, really) for the last 5 or 6 years. Started with Redhat either 4 or 5 point something or other. Only reason I quit was for games, I think.

Well, recently, I got the bright idea to try XP and long story short Windows won't even let itself install on my hard drive anymore. So I took it as a sign and switched to Linux again.

I recently received in the mail 4 distros, Knoppix 3.4, Suse 9.1 personal, Mandrake 10, and Slackware 10. I had used Suse 8.2 and kind of liked it, hoped they'd fixed the bugs, and I guessed it would have the best installer of the three as my machine was being quirky.

Well, I was right. It installed fine, everything worked. It installed a rather limited package selection, for example I cant get xchat installed because it depends on gtk2 which I installed but for some reason it's being a bitch and there is no xchat on the cd, but I digress.

Other than the limited package selection (however I did cheap out and get the download version on a burned cd, so I guess I got what I paid for) it's excellent. Other Linux distros have been crashy when I tried to do anything cpu intensive, but Suse has yet to crash on me under all the stress I cared to put it under. I have to say they did fix most of the bugs that put me off. And if I do grow tired of it, well, I have two other distros and an EXCELLENT live distro sitting in my desk just begging to see the light of day.

So, yes, now IS the time to try a Linux desktop.

Re:Not to necessarily dispute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. You're another victum of slashdot sensationalism. The original story had the wrong bugzilla ID and had nothing to do with the security issue. The correct one is much more current and was handled in a timely manner.

Basic Assumption is False

[MBoffin]

The article's basic assumption is that Internet-related work is the defining factor in what OS I choose. Adobe hasn't released a Linux version of Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign. Many other apps I use on a daily basis are either just not released for Linux, or are at the status of someone's pet project on SourceForge. This is not to knock the wide array of software that is available for Linux, but the software needed for me to do all my daily work is not quite there yet.

In the meantime, I use Firefox for Windows which is nicely patched (and quite quickly patched at that).

It's about damn time!

[TheDarkener]

Yesterday I was working on my mom's boyfriend's computer, which I installed a fresh copy of XP on a couple days prior. Already, there were bluescreens during shutdown/reboot (due to IRQ conflicts with our precious plug-n-play system), Adaptec CD-Creator wouldn't print labels (but everything else would print fine), and right-clicking on My Computer to go to properties would yield a cryptic registry-based error before opening properties. He had AOL 9.0 installed as his only Internet connection. I was using that to download drivers, and search for other things (such as "workarounds" for the ever annoying XP Activation), and IE would hang at just about every other website I would go to, rendering everything else I was doing on the computer useless until it freed it's resources. I found myself getting completely frustrated after about 10 minutes of working on this hunk of *$&#, because I couldn't even browse the web to fix the original problems. I installed FireFox, and that helped a lot with the browsing issues.

All I want to say, is that I've been using Debian Linux for about 5 years now, and just switched from using the "ultra-elite" Fluxbox WM to Gnome 2.6 since it got uploaded to Unstable, and I have had absolutely 0 problems. It JUST WORKS. It's easy enough for my mom's boyfriend to figure out. Even the horridly cryptic "gconf-editor" is easier to get around than regedit. I don't see why anybody in their right mind would still fend for Windows when they have a completely usable, prettier, faster alternative with 99% of applications able to do what Windows apps can already do.

SWITCH TO LINUX!!

Re:It's about damn time!

[antime]

Yesterday I spent a good six hours unsuccessfully trying to get networking to work on my laptop before giving up in disgust. I haven't experienced anything equally frustrating since setting up PPP in '97 or so. Today I spent ten minutes swearing over why adding an item to the KDE menu didn't work until I found some webpages telling me I had to nuke some directories from my homedir, but at least I got it working. It's been a very very long time since I had these kinds of problems under Windows. And let's not talk about why my soundcard doesn't work (but worked in the previous distro release) and how the hardware browsing applet manages to freeze the entire system.

Some people seem to have big problems with Windows, but Linux has plenty of big ugly warts itself.

It Happens

[soloport]

Just two days ago, a marketing VP I know called to bash Microsoft. He'd lost "thousands of e-mail addresses" (he's not a spammer, just well-connected) because he had answered "Ok" when Windows asked if he wanted to "repair" something.

He wanted me to walk him through installing Linux, right then and there -- over the phone. So I did. I said, "Well, what I recommend is you get your feet wet, first". I Asked him how he used his laptop; What were the applications he couldn't live without; What were the ones he liked but could live without, etc.

Then I said, "You know, all the applications you mention are ones that will run on both Linux and Windows. Why don't you download and install them, first on Windows, get to know them and then switch all the way to Linux, once you've adjusted?".

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.

Seems like, recently, I've run into more and more awareness of (at least the word) Linux. It's becoming a great "save" me" point when clients get frustrated with Windows. They just want to give Microsoft the big heave-ho! And, though I and everyone in my home and office have been Microsoft-free since 1998, I find myself talking people out of taking the plunge.

I wish there was a distribution that gave me the confidence I need to recommend it. Since all I know is DEC, Solaris and RedHat/Fedora, perhaps I should buy a copy of Linspire and try it out -- for clients' sake. Any other suggestions for helping people transition?

Re:It Happens

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

Take a look at SuSE sometime, it's now available as a live-cd, .iso for the personal edition, and FTP install for professional. I haven't upgraded to 9.1 yet but I've been using 9.0 pro since around march and it's just incredible. Even auto configured my tv tuner card properly. YaST ties all the myriad plaintext system configuration files into one place with a nice gui. Only problems I've see is that there are still a few issues to be worked out with clearly explaining what all the options do, and when you first install it, the default filesystem is Reiser, which I've heard some people are still a bit leery of.

Re:It Happens

[Proud like a god]

Mandrake is definately a distro I have confidence in recommending to others. It's got great hardware support, the URPMI package system is very simple and easy to use, and right now the 10.0 Official Discovery Edition comes with a LiveCD (MandrakeMove), as well as a complete desktop install with finishing touches such as Real Player® and Flash® Player browser plugins, and graphics drivers from the first boot.

With all this your can easily help migrate your friends by first using OSS on Windows, and then use the LiveCD to let them test out how it feels to have the whole lot working together on their machine before installing anything, all with a consistent feel.

Re:It Happens

[orkysoft]

Then I said, "You know, all the applications you mention are ones that will run on both Linux and Windows. Why don't you download and install them, first on Windows, get to know them and then switch all the way to Linux, once you've adjusted?".

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.

Why switch?

[wrf3]

I already run Mac OS X. Why would I want to switch to Linux?

There's never been a lack of reasons to leave...

[Kjella]

...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

Re:Finally

[DarthWiggle]

Because Luddites read EWeek?

Ok Grandma and Gramps ....

[jrl87]

First, this button turns on the computer.

Second, you use this board with letters, numbers and symbols on it to input, "type", information into the computer ... we call it a key board.

Third, you move this kinf of round object here to select stuff on the screen, "moniter", which we call a mouse.

Ok, you got all of that. Good. Here's a cd with linux on it. You have to install it to use the computer. I have to go.

All kidding aside, you know that's going to happen, most of my family is that way with the ironic exception of my grandma. I think she has worked on computers since they came out. She has a box with XP on it that she rarely uses and another on that is of the pre-pentium era that she uses frequently. In her case, I think she would do better with linux than windows, but I don't think she is savvy enough to install it herself. If this is going to work, computers are going to have to be shipped with linux pre-installed and be readilly availabe.

It's the hardware too!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Linux needs to be properly "marketed" to consumers

[Dzimas]

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.

Perfect Opportunity!

[Dolphy]

Take the time; let's do a little experiment. Go searching through the archives for any and every newsworthy bug, exploit, or vulnerability which has affected any part or whole of the Windows Operating System. I absolutely guarantee you that half the comments and followup posts to the article will be some variant of "This is the perfect time to switch!". Like the tellings of crazed prophets, I now expect the "End of the World!" proclomation every time I see some bug or patch made public.

What am I getting at? It's simple: this *isn't* the perfect time to switch, and neither will the next exploit, nor the one after. There's are reasons (although, granted, few) that Windows won't go away. It's fine and good to set up a linux box for Grandma and hand over the controls when you're done padding the floors, but try getting Grandma to install Linux herself (just about any version here, folks), or Dad, or Mom, or Sis, or anyone else who hasn't been playing with Linux to begin with. Have fun (and make videos!) of them trying to admin their systems or set any options more advanced than Desktop Resolution in their DE. There's an idea as well: let's see them try to install and setup their windowing system as well.

Before your shouts of "Check the docs, newb" get too loud, let me point out that this is exactly why the "lesser beings" are slow to switch: they don't need the docs for Windows.

Now, don't get me wrong, we are headed in the right place. Gentoo and RedHat are decent examples of where administration and/or ease of installation/usability should be going. But don't turn a blind eye to the fact that we ain't there yet.

Mandrake 10.0 a Nice Suprise!

[MysticalMatt517]

I recently decided to give Mandrake 10.0 a shot, and I am pleansantly suprised! Except for a few minor glitches that were easy to iron out it installed perfectly on the first try! I would say it's equally as easy as a Windows install.

Also, after setting up the http mirrors I found that software installation was incredibly simple. I was able to install everything I needed in just a few mouse clicks. This included everything from Apache/PHP/mySQL to silly stuff like Gaim.

This is the first Linux install I've ever had where I didn't have to edit at least a couple text files to get it to run properly. I would reccomend it as a great "Linux Desktop" for the Average Joe user.

Death of Windows Predicted, Quicktime at 11!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Finally

[b0r1s]

Yep, we're getting there...

And once we get there, the same population that can't run windows update will still not be secure, because the latest (OpenSSH/Samba/Cups/X/KDE/Gnome/) security hole will become the new worm target, and then they're even more screwed (linux rootkits are much, much more effective than windows rootkits, as is propagation, etc).

The solution to the current problem is to switch browsers, not operating systems.

Re:Hmm...

[Demanche]

Win4Lin = SCO Affilaited software.... Id rather take my chances with windows then sco ;)

Re:irrelevant

[Joe Tie.]

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.

Most people do NOT want to go to work in the morning, or change diapers, or watch commercials either and find each one of those frustrating. But the end result of each makes it worth it to the person. Don't, and I say this as someone who's been accused of it many times myself, be too elitist. We're not some seperate species gifted at birth with the ability to configure our soundcards. Joe user is quite capeable of plodding his way through a linux for dummies in between setting off fireworks and making his way through another six pack - if he thinks the tradeoff is going to be worth it. He's certainly able to buy a linspire box the next time "the internet breaks" on his current one. And that decision isn't yours to make for him, nor is it mine, it's his own.

Not True IMO

[cloricus]

I recently went to a lan where I played most of the games natively in linux, given that they were opengl based. Some other games I simply booted into windows to play but I now know that these few games (specifically bfv) will run under winex4, at least according to reviews. So I'm not going to give up games just to be a linux user, I'll bring the games with me, even if they have to be emulated. As for 90% of apps? What rubbish, specific apps should run fine in wine if there is no equal in linux but so far I have switched all but two of my windows programs to better open source versions. Those two programs I can live without or emulate perfectly fine without troubles. So really I don't see what is stopping the home users except for the fear of something new. And they had that fear when they learnt to use windows so why not have it again?

Really? Try this

[rd_syringe]

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.

Re:Not to necessarily dispute...

[mdfst13]

You're mixing two bugzilla reports. One regards the general idea (theoretically vulnerable) of passing unknown protocols to the OS for handling. This still hasn't been "fixed" (i.e. the behavior has not changed in general). The other regards the shell:// vulnerability in MS Windows, which was blacklisted within two days of being reported.

It is also worth nothing that the shell:// protocol problem is a problem with its *handler* which is provided by the OS (which is why it only afflicted MS Windows versions of Mozilla) rather than with anything in Mozilla. The "fix" actually just turns off the shell:// protocol.

What if I run FireFox and OpenOffice?

[khasim]

Will those run on Linux?

Re:What if I run FireFox and OpenOffice?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no law against idiots accessing and posting on slashdot... unfortunately.

Re:What if I run FireFox and OpenOffice?

[Kiryat Malachi]

Not on my machine...

Then again, I blame that fact on Linux not being able to install on that machine. Any distro I've tried. Mandrake, Gentoo, and SuSE all lock up during install. It's strange.

Re:What if I run FireFox and OpenOffice?

[pjpII]

Actually, I find OpenOffice to work significantly better under Windows than I find it to work under Linux(Mandrake 10) - there are well known bugs involving bidirectional language support in the Linux version of OpenOffice 1.1. Also, its easier to install OpenOffice on Windows than it is on Linux, assuming both options start off without it.

Firefox, OTOH, works great in Linux, especially for installation.

Re:irrelevant

[thenextpresident]

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?

Re:The problem...

[EEBaum]

Mom used to equate "Netscape" with the internet. I'd say "check this out online" and get the reply, "OK, so I dial up my Netscape?"

Linux desktop? I use it!

[kyknos.org]

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.

Ask yourself

[rd_syringe]

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.

Re:Ask yourself

[Eric Damron]

"They'll want actual reasons to switch."

Did you even read the Slashdot story to which this thread is related? The reason to switch is that IE is integrated into Microsoft's OS and Microsoft is incapable of securing their OS because of it! Even if you run a diffrent browser on a Microsoft OS, IE is integrated so that parts of it that may be subject to attack are being used by other parts of the OS. This forces you to apply patch after patch after patch to keep half a step ahead of the bad guys.

Seems like an "actual reason" to me!

Re:Ask yourself

[lvdrproject]

It seems to me that if you're intelligent enough to use Linux every day, you're probably intelligent enough to keep your Windows machine sort of secure. 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.

Anyway, Linux is definitely more secure than Windows any day, but what are you willing to give up in order to have that extra security that you probably will never need? The list is too long to even begin. Going to Windows Update and clicking 'install updates' once every other month is a small price to pay for having a usable computer.

I'll probably get modded down as a troll, but i'm sorry, it's just the way it is for most people. Linux, BSD, &c., are fantastic for servers, and they're fantastic if you're really really really hard-core about open-source software. But for the desk top, no way. If there are this many people who are computer-savvy and hate Linux, just imagine how many non-computer-savvy people there are who won't like it.

Re:Ask yourself

[Eric Damron]

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.

"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 ... 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!"

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!

Re:Ask yourself

[BlueJay465]

If I had the mod points, I would mod you up. Instead I will reply.

Most people seem to forget that Windows is a commercial product. Microsoft is indeed in the game to make money. For shelling out $299 (certainly not a drop in the bucket) for a licensed copy of XP Professional, Microsoft is providing you considerably more service and value than just a CD thrown in a cardboard box. Product Support Services can be called at any time, 24/7; the Windows Update site, anytime 24/7, Knowledge Base 24/7, Developer Support 24/7...see a pattern here?

People tend to place a lot more value on the things they have to work for. Give 1 teenager a car, and force the other teenager to work for his own. Which teenager will still have the car after 5 years? Same thing with Windows and Linux. Linux is significantly different enough from Windows that it will cost me more time than money to learn what the differences are and get my skills with Linux up to the same level as I have with Windows. Money is simply a measure of value, and since time = money, I am not ready to make that commitment yet.

If the folks who support Linux would get together and settle their differences and fragmentation and decide on some standards on what to use, how to do it, and how to support it, then I would be more willing to make the time commitment to learn Linux. Seeing as no one is getting paid to do all this on the Linux end and no money, hence the VALUE aspect, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Prove me wrong.

Re:Ask yourself

[fireman sam]

"It seems to me that if you're intelligent enough to use Linux every day, you're probably intelligent enough to keep your Windows machine sort of secure"

Have you ever seen an 8 year old keeping a windows machine secure? My daughter would click on every attachment she got in here inbox. I would have to reinstall windows on a weekly basis just to remove the crud.

I finally got sick of that and moved her machine to Linux. She thought she got a new computer because it looked so much better (kde) and had more games. The best part is she can be an average "Windows" user and NOT destroy the system, or get infected every other day.

Re:Ask yourself

[fireman sam]

"I know there are valid reasons for why Linux is the way it is, and i've had them explained to me a billion times: Why it doesn't come with as many of these as Windows, why it doesn't have this, why it makes you do this, why it looks like this."

Let me give the examples you mised:

"Why it doesn't come with as many of these as Windows"

Word processors:
Windows - MS Word - $$$
Windows - Open Office - free
Windows - Word Perfect - $$$

Linux - Open Office - free
Linux - KWord - free
Linux - Abi Word - free
Linux - LyX - free

Games:
Ok, you got me there, the windows platform does have more games than linux. But how many do you actually play?

"why it doesn't have this"
Viruses: (cheep shot:)
Well linux does have vunerablilities found. The biggest difference is when they are found, fixes are released quickly by the maintainers. Then, shortly after that fixes for specific distros are released by the distro maintainers.

"why it makes you do this"
"login as root to change simple settings (ie network)"
One word, security. Windows left the security to the user and the one thing that this has showed, the user cannot be trusted to be secure. Therefore it is best to run as a user with restricted rights. (I bet you don't run everything as Administrator on Windows XP)

"why it looks like this"
Like What? Windows XP: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=1 499&PHPSESSID=17c0bcc7d710e44c677c22dca98540eb
Like Mac OSX:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?con tent=1 53&PHPSESSID=17c0bcc7d710e44c677c22dca98540eb
Or something completly different:
http://www.kde-look.org/

"After spending 40 minutes trying to figure out how to compile properly"

What site did you get the drivers from? Didn't they have installation instructions? Did the package include a README file? Did you actually read it? What type of card was it?

"And those are relatively stupid examples"
I agree with you there.

"There are some things that you can't help, like the RPC exploit."
So, without any form of security (apart from your common sense) and with a known exploitable bug on your system, you still go on the net. And do you have sex with prostitutes without a condom as well?

Re:Ask yourself

[jp10558]

The main problem with Linux is installing other software. Now, I know it's wrong to think of Mandrake, SuSe, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo as "Linux" but damn it, that's what the average person sees.

Now there are about 5 different ways to install things in "Linux", of course usually you would use the one for your distro, but how does the average user know which one that is? Also, many of these aren't point and click.

I download a staticly linked rpm for SuSE, click on it. I get to extract it - ok so far. Then I go and click on the extracted file. Nothing. If I click on it inside of Konqurer I get a choice to install with YaST. OK that doesn't seem to do anything. The readme says to type make install blah blah ...

make not a recoginized bash command? Ok.

Anyway, I honestly think Linux needs to grab the moderate power users from Windows. The people who like to install other software to try it out or whatever. But the install will pretty much need to get down to click the installer, next,next,put it in /home/me/programs/, next, next, finish.

And using online update isn't the same, what if what you want to install didn't come with your distro, and isn't on their servers?

Many windows people (moderate power users) go along seeing interesting software, download the installer to a temp dir, and after awhile try and install it. I honestly think the huge difference in installing software in Linux vs Windows is one of the main things that slows down migration. Probably right after the lack of specific software running.

My Linux Experience

[SecState]

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.

Re:Finally

[Anne Thwacks]

and spend the enire week trying to find out how to get your printer to work

Linux? What about usability?

[whjwhj]

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.

Re:Linux? What about usability?

[TrancePhreak]

Windows: Insert CD, follow on screen instructions.

Linux: open the command line, find the name of the program you want to install, type distribution specific commands in followed by the name of the program. -OR- Distribution does not support previous steps, find program, ungz/untar, find where program was uncompressed to, config, compile, find where program was compiled to.

Linux or Windows?

[NHSheep]

I believe I possess adequate knowledge to operate my computer at a higher level than the 'average' user. Surely not much higher, but I can easily accomplish a hell of a lot of tasks the average person can't. I'm no programmer, graphics artist, network specialist, etc. I'm just an average user. I browse the internet, burn CDs (legally of course!), play games, and all that good stuff.

After hearing so much about Linux, I figured I'd give it a try. I read quite a bit, and decided I'd go with a distro that would be easier to use. I couldn't make up my mind, so I tried SuSe, Mandrake, and RedHat. The installation was a breeze, far from being easier than Windows, but even a child could do it.

Once each was up, I played around with it, tested what it could do. It was a major pain in the ass to get my video card and sound drivers (Epox 8rda+ and an Nvidia MX440.)The packages didn't install right, no sound, no hardware 3d support, no onboard LAN. So I had to go about compiling and tweaking. I eventually got it to work, after putting a different NIC in, and reading up on how other people got it working. There was no short supply of forums detailing how to make the Nvidia drivers work. From there I went on to try Slackware, and of course, Knoppix. I stuck with Knoppix - on CD of course, and went back to Windows.

I've gone back with each major release, just to check the progress. I've seen enough changes, but it still lacks a 'user friendly' environment, which Windows has. Certaintly a lot has been sacrificed to make Windows easy to use right out of the box. The average user won't know what to do if their hardware doesn't work right after the installation (and a lot of the time it doesn't). At this point, I can't honestly say I'd reccommend the switch to Linux unless it's someone who will be truly dedicated to the task. It's like being in a completely new, and different environment. One day Linux may take a large share of the market from Microsoft, but it can't be forgotten this 'market' is mainly comprised of people with only a basic understanding of computers.

Re:WTF

[EEBaum]

Installing, sure... but maintaining? That's where it always got me, and that's why I don't have it running now.

Re:Finally

[jarich]

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!)

Re:Really? Try this

[Coryoth]

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.

Does Konqueror have the same basic problem?

[beforewisdom]

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?

Re:It's about Freedom, Stupid...

[Kiryat Malachi]

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.

Not for me, or most of the people I work with...

[Talonius]

I have SuSE 9.1 Professional. I tried configuring a VPN connection using PPTP to my workplace which uses a Firebox 4500 (which uses an embedded version of Linux). I used the instructions with the client for my specific distribution (pptpclient.sourceforge.net) and got nowhere. The connections were made but data would not traverse the tunnel, despite multiple routing entries, etc. Under Windows XP I create a new entry under VPN networking and bam, I'm connected.

I like to modify my menus. I'm particular about how programs are labeled and categorized. Under Windows this is a no brainer - you can edit the menus in place, or right click and choose explore and modify from there. Under KDE (and Gnome) the menu editor stinks. It loses track of single items (not categories) not even showing them. I ended up hand editing my menu items (thankfully freedesktop.org has a description of what the text files should contain!) in order to get them to show up properly.

Is this the idea of a desktop operating system? No. As bas as it is, people want a graphical operating system and they want it tied closely to the underlying file systems and hardware. Linux may detect new hardware but does that detection extend into the graphical operating system?

Don't even get me started on playing video files under X and the intellectual property issues involved. I know and understand that the Linux community can't do anything to fix this -- it is the codecs and codec owners involved -- but it is a stumbling block to adoption.

Finally - there is the issue of no program ever getting to final status. This one has been picked up and banged on by a lot of people in the past few months but it is the truth. It is part of open source and open standards, and most programmers want to itch their own itch. If I were going to set out to create a volume control program I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to find someone else's past code - complete with their bugs and bad architecture - to start with. Yet I find myself with over 5 volume control utilities on my newly installed SuSE 9.1 system. That's kind of silly!

A unification of an operating system is *not* bad. Having someone direct the operating system and its integration with other software is and can be a good thing. Most distributions try to mold this software into one look and feel, but if they go to far (BlueCurve) a good percentage of the community goes up in arms.

Linux has the hardware support. Linux has the software support. Linux does not have the integration of the software with the software, nor the software with the hardware, to compete against Windows as a desktop operating system at this time IMHO.

Re:Finally

[slimyrubber]

i tried suse the other week. modem and wireless card don't work with linux. not buying new ones. back to windows for me.

Should have checked if your hardware works with the distro.

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.

Let's face it!

[presarioD]

The year of Linux will come around when:

1. Hardest part of installation in brand new desktop/laptop will be inserting the CD in CD drive.
2. Hardest part of repairing will be inserting the CD in CD drive and click "Repair Linux".
3. All hardware will be fully supported and "plug'n'play"ed.
4. Update distribution center for given distro will resolve dependencies and fetch everything necessary for proper package installation (not compilation!).
5. Command prompt will be optional. (Yes I know how superior you command-prompters feel to the click-click crowd).
6. Everybody will be able to login, use the internet, mail, listen to music, write documents and so on and so forth without even knowing what an .rpm or an .mp3 or a .wav file is or what package compilation or even worse kernel compilation are all about.

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.

Re:Let's face it!

[miffo.swe]

Your kidding us here right? You demand that linux should be lightyears simpler that MS Windows (any version). Firstly the goals are not something the community can reach, especially hardware support since it demands manufacturers to give out drivers or detailed papers about the internals so that drivers can be made open source. Secondly MS Windows is nothing but simple. I work in a couple of schools as an admin and frankly MS Windows is a royal pain to use for most of the staff and the students. I cant imagine anyone of them installing MS Windows succesfully with all hardware running. Its a big overstatement to call MS Windows userfriendly cause it aint. People have used it and gotten accustomed to how it work and where stuff is but for a total newb there really isnt much difference in usability between MS Windows and Linux with KDE, XFCE or Gnome.

Putting that much effort in outperforming MS Windows in every possible field isnt as good as it sounds. Id much rather see a big effort in security since thats where we will be forced to go tomorrow either way. Let MS play with their bells and whistles and walk our own way.

I sure as hell didnt start using linux because i wanted another sort of MS Windows. To mimic Microsoft to much eradicates every possible reason for me to use Linux. If i want MS Windows i buy it.

Sometimes it feals like some people just want a free MS Windows version, i just ignore those people.

Re:Let's face it!

[An Onerous Coward]

Initiating sarcasm sequence.... now!

Yeah, that's the great thing about Windows. When my mom calls up and complains that her printer isn't working, I can just tell her to pop the Windows CD in and click "Repair Windows." Viola! The printer is working again! Not to mention all the spyware has been removed, and it sends out signals to blow up all the zombie spam relays in the world, while solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As someone who is trying to drag my parents kicking and screaming into the 1990's, I feel fully qualified to make the following statement: Windows is not simple to install, simple to use, or simple to administer.

and once you figured it out it will just keep on w

[SmallFurryCreature]

and once you figured it out it will just keep on working day in day out. Not suddenly have the drivers disappear or stop being regonized or you switch on and it spews out all the pages or suddenly stops accepting requests from the network or fail to respond to a cancel request.

Linux is harder but once it works it works. I always waste some time if I have to install a linux system on getting it right, it even crashes a couple of times. But once I finished it just stays up and works. I never had linux go tits up on me.

Of course this is my personal experience. Yours may differ. Currently my windows game machine in windows explorer when I click on a folder in the right pane it opens search. I can't change the default action in the file options and basically am just stuck with no option but a reinstall. In 4+ years of linux use and 8+ years of unix use I never done a reinstall. EVER. (perhaps this explains why I need more time to install linux then windows. In 95/98 days I could do a windows install blindfolded.)

So for me the article is total nonsense. I long since switched and am loving it. Linux is like a willis jeep and windows is a BMW AND (and this bit is important) I AM A FULLY QUALIFIED MECHANIC. The jeep I can fix with basic tools. The BMW just has to be towed to a garage if something goes *bleep*.

Re:Finally

[Chess_the_cat]

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.

Most users dont care...

[nurb432]

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...

Re:irrelevant

[dont_think_twice]

What about when most users had Windows 3.1?

Wow, that is a convincing argument. Switch from Windows XP to the equivalent of Windowx 3.1.

Re:It's about Freedom, Stupid...

[Mornelithe]

CAD link 1

CAD link 2

PCB link 1

PCB link 2

PCB link 3

I couldn't find any COGO links. But then, I searched for COGO in general, and the only suites that came up were DOS and Unix. I can't comment on the quality of the Linux software, as I don't do this stuff. But I wasn't under the impression that Windows was the premier CAD environment (all the CAD and Database guys at work have big Unix workstations).

A simply tip to switchers, KVM switch instead

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Finally

[lvdrproject]

KDE: Eye candy that gnome might lack.

Maybe this is part of the problem with you guys. You really think KDE is 'eye candy'? :/

This probably doesn't matter to a whole lot of people, but i'm a huge interface person. It's not as superficial as some people seem to believe -- i need my computer to look good to be able to get something done. Maybe it's an obsessive-compulsive thing. If it's ugly, i tend to focus on the ugliness, and i'm not as productive (or, at least, not as comfortable).

The Linux GUI* is, firstly, ugly. There are two or three semi-decent skins/themes for it, but that leads us to the second problem: Even if there was a decent skin or theme for it, everything is so completely fragmented in its design that it wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't look the same anyway. e.g., if i run kterm in Window Maker, it looks completely different from most of the other applications i have running in Window Maker.

I know i'm probably missing some distinction there (because Linux has like seven-hundred levels of GUI, from X to window managers), so there's probably a valid reason for that, and maybe there's even a way to fix it. But i shouldn't have to fix it. Everything on my computer should look the same, by default.

* I use the term 'GUI' loosely. I know there are different window managers and desk-top environments and all that jazz.

Re:irrelevant

[Joe Tie.]

your argument lacks logic.

That you for starting out with an insulting tone.

you don't need to scour through various sources of documentation to change diapers

I had to have someone show me how best to go about it. I would have liked documentation if I'd gone about a dry run - so to speak.

or what commercials

You say people find documentation annoying and won't be able to put up with it, I'm countering with an example of people putting up with an annoyence if they find the end result worth it.

once you know how, it's easy and no problem.

Which is also my point! Most things are easy once the learning curve is overcome.

in linux, everytime you want to do something new, you have to read through documentation.

How many new things are there going to be? I've given instalation disks to a handfull of people, and it's never taken more than fifteen minutes to get them up to speed. Most of it just comes down to using synaptic, rpmdrake or whatever, and showing them there's somewhere different to get to the control panel. As long as the hardware is all supported Linux these days dosn't have to be rocket science. It's just getting used to a different place to point and click on the little mail icon.

KDE FUD, not insightful

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

konqueror is not integrated into the desktop in the way Internet Explorer is integrated into the Windows OS. It makes use of the KDE infrastructure, but even if you use KDE, you can easily deinstall konqueror.

E.g. in Debian I type "apt-get remove konqueror" and I won't see konqueror ever again. I can still use all of KDE and enjoy the web with mozilla, opera, whatever. [I prefer konqueror to opera and mozilla-firefox, though. ATM I prefer mozilla-thunderbird to kmail due to easier IMAP spam filtering]

There are no similarities to the IE/Windows chimera, where upgrading the OS requires the browser and where there is no clear separation between apps and OS infrastructure and data.

Re:Program Files

[pandrijeczko]

There is a "recommended" way of installing software on a UNIX-type system which most applications do tend to adhere to.

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.

desktops need support

[danny]

My experience is that non-technical users can run Linux, but they need someone technical to provide support. This is not so different to Windows, however - most ordinary Windows users need support from someone with a bit of technical nous as well. So the major constraint on the spread of "household" Linux is the number of geeks using Linux and willing to support it.

I'm planning to celebrate when Linux moves from 1% to 2% on the Google Zeitgeist OS pie chart.

Danny.

Re:You know...

[the_mad_poster]

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.

Re:Why not Mac?

[Prien715]

Cars are a luxury item and the features you describe give near-0 productivity improvements.

You equate Linux and Mac as both having to learn new systems, but fail to mention any sort of learning curve. The learning curve on Mac is much shallower than Linux or Windows (assuming they've not used it.) Computers were introduced to make people more productive. With a shallower learning curve and features that can actually make a user more productive (e.g. native office support, a good clipboard), I don't understand why anyone would have trouble spending a little extra money to make employees more productive.

That said, I'll be happy when there's a Linux GUI as good as either Windows or MacOS. I'll also be happy when MS writes a good kernel and releases it gratis/libre. Guess which one has a better chance of happening?

What hardware are you using?

[Eric Damron]

I'm really curious about your hardware because I am running a computer using Mandrake Linux and all of the hardware was detected and setup correctly. Unlike Windows, I didn't have to go out and hunt down drivers for anything.

This is not the case for my computer alone but also my wife's computer and my home server. Linux came up with everything configured and running.

As far as the "fragmented" thing, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the newest Microsoft FUD. Linux is NOT as fragmented as you make out. Most programmer's write using either the KDE or the Gnome libraries. I use KDE and all of my applications have a consistent look and feel. Programmer's can make their programs look and feel different if they want to but this is the case in Windows as well. Most don't most use one of two APIs. There are a few applications that don't follow any standards. Gimp is one of them and for a long time I hated it! It's a very powerful graphics program but it's not intuitive for me. However, this is an application and does not reflect on the operating system. There are some non-intuitive Windows programs as well.

And although KDE and Gnome don't look like XP, that's not necessarily a bad thing and definitely not "hideous."

I've said it once and I'll say it again

[carlmenezes]

What we need on Linux is better 3D game support.
Hear me out on this.

Better game support = more kids knowing about Linux = more parents curious about linux = more companies being aware about Linux.
Better game suuport also = no need for dual boot = wider use of Linux = a wider testing base.
Better game support also = more hardware vendors writing drivers for Linux = benefit in software categories other than gaming.
More kids knowing about Linux also = More potential Linux only users = a wider pool of future OSS developers.

There seems to be only ONE hardware vendor that has recognized the importance of gaming to Linux and that's NVIDIA. I applaud them for that. They will reap the benefits when more and more people buy NVIDIA cards not just because of their performance, but because there are drivers available for Linux.

The sooner software gaming companies recognize this fact, the better. The nice part is that it is too late for any company, including M$ to keep them from writing games for Linux. The Linux market is starting to take off and it is in their interest to wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:LET IT DIE ALREADY!

[bhima]

You should try SuSE 9.1 personal. Typically I use SuSE pro, but the personal has been in the news lately, so I figured I have a look at it.

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...

Re:LET IT DIE ALREADY!

[Billly Gates]

Bravo.

You made my point. FreeBSD and Unix in my opinion are far supperior architecture wise but I am sick of trying to convert the world.

You and me have some experience coding and doing interesting things with our systems. 96% could not care less and want to get work done or goof off with surfing/IM/games/spreadsheets, etc.

I just can not justify Linux/Unix to non programers or administrators? It never was designed to be a perfect be all os. It was made by hackers for hackers and yes its not easy to learn.

The software in Windows is better and it is now reliable. The system I gave my gf ran Windows2000 and NT4 for the for year with only 1 blue screen from 1999-2003! No joke.

It was this horrible DOS/Windows3.11 code that shared memory and no dll management is what made it buggy. The NT kernel is a great way to start over with modern OS features.

I guarantee you as a pc ( not server ) it will last alot longer than 18 months. Windows 95 is a different story.

Terminology

[Bas_Wijnen]

While the article doesn't speak about GNU/Linux, it does call people who break into computers crackers, not hackers, and that's a good thing. Let's hope it's a trend :-).