Slashdot Mirror
Exploring Linux Desktop Myths
Krafty Koder writes "Over at Newsforge (Part of OSTG, Slashdot's Parent) there's an interesting article that attempts to dispells the myth that Linux isn't ready for the desktop or that Windows still beats Linux.
Three myths are explored - that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps ."
When did this happen? What happened to OSDN?
./configure
make
make install
What about the Linux penguin myth? You know, the one where the Penguin turns out to really just be the Bonzi Buddy in disguise?
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
Linux will never be ready for computer users like Windows is ready for them. Once IE and Office run on Linux natively then Linux can finally be branded "the Windows killer." Until that time it just cannot have it beat.
I deal with below average computer users daily (far below what everyone else here seems to deal with). I get MS Office attachments that do not format correct in OpenOffice, I get to visit webpages that do not format correctly in Firefox (at least not without some discomfort), and I don't hear anyone say "oh yeah, Linux, I heard of that."
When we mention DVD X Copy and people immediately post about DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink (I don't see much mention of any good re-authoring tool for Linux as I don't believe there is one). When we mention that there is a new exploit for Windows out people for some reason feel the need to blame Windows instead of the users using it. Do you think that these same people are going to have a secure Linux machine, I certainly don't. When we mention that Firefox doesn't render pages correctly we get endless people posting that yes it does and that those that post that it doesn't are wrong! Until Firefox renders every page just like IE does the public isn't going to care for it (yes, Spyware, exploits, etc are irrelevant I'm sorry to say, remember these are the people that didn't patch against it in the first place because they don't even know or care to know what it is).
Linux will be ready for the desktop when it is as easy to install, run, and care for as carelessly as Windows users demand.
All of these are valid concerns, and often frustrating, but they fail to make the case against desktop Linux, because they fail to compare apples to apples. When you buy a new PC, Windows comes pre-installed on it. You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you. Even when you give a user the Windows XP CD to install, he is already ahead of the game in that he knows the OEM already configured the hardware to work with XP.
Right and when you get new hardware, plug it in, and restart, what does XP do? Hey, holy shit user, you have new hardware, we need drivers! Oh wait, we have them right here, no recompiles or modules need to be loaded. It's a digital camera you say? Wow, would you like to open the files on the camera and work with Photoshop or some random preloaded Windows software or would you like to save them to a directory on your HD?
Remember that a lot of Linux users preconfigure their machines to work with Linux. My Kodak DX4530 camera doesn't work with Linux 2.4.x (I don't have time to figure out why my network cards aren't working under 2.6.x - odd that I have been running Linux for 10 years and I can't seem to get my configuration to work w/o thinking).
All the applications he lists (OpenOffice, Mozilla, GNU Cash) are no where near the level of their Windows counterparts. They are close but they are not the same. Yeah, you can always get stuff to work with your Linux software and I spent years doing just that. Regular Joe Blow User does not want to do anything but point, click, and go.
1) Buy a Windows box with hardware that is known compatible with Linux, just as if a manufacturer were OEMing the system using Linux.
This conclusion is bogus. Basically all hardware works just fine with Windows. It's not the same for Linux. Give me a break.
Windows works for just about everyone without too many problems. Linux works for people with some problems. General users do not want to deal with anything (interoperability, futzing, fixing, downloading, etc). They just want functionality built in that works w/o question.
That's why Windows will continue to reign supreme, at least for now.
I confess sometimes proudly and sometimes sadly to be a Linux zealot, but these stories and arguments don't really get us anywhere. The best argument I have had for Linux desktop viability is with my own networks and family. Pop ups? Lets try out this Mozilla Browser instead shall we? I need to set up a quick web page...let's run this apache client, it's practically imbedded. Man these virus' are killing me I can't even open my mail box any- lets set up a firewall and filter system on this side of the wall ....etc... I had to make no arguments other than simply let the market and costs of one particular OS drive our needs right to the other.
But what's the point? Anyone who is seriously interested in trying out linux will see how far it has come and how easy to use it is nowadays.
The vast majority of those you see complaining on the web are simply trolling and you won't stop them even with the best article ever written.
Okay, I'm not your usual Gentoo zealot, but I have converted my home and work machines to it.
:-P One thing I think is missing is a nice searchable GUI interface for the portage stuff... There probably even IS one, but who the heck knows where to look? :)
I'm also not a linux n00b... but really, installing something by running "emerge something" is not that tough, is it?
Maybe someone needs to make a nice clicky version of that.
I thought it was more of a rumor.
that penguins on TV's exploded.
Best Slashdot Co
I have a solitary Windows machine at home for gaming. Lots of nice hardware to play great games. Until I can get Thief (1, 2, Deadly Shadows), Half Life, System Shock (1, 2), etc on Linux I'll be keeping my Windows machine for that purpose.
Before the fanboys start yelping about Quake/Doom3 being out for Linux: I don't care. I want the lowest common denominator for my gaming and that's Windows.
Trolling is a art,
The problem isn't that there aren't *enought* apps. The problem is that the ones I use run on windows. I'd rather pick my hardware & OS to suit the applications rather than the other way round. (I do also run linux as well as windows. Some apps run on windows, some on linux.)
When you buy a new PC, Windows comes pre-installed on it. You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you. Even when you give a user the Windows XP CD to install, he is already ahead of the game in that he knows the OEM already configured the hardware to work with XP.
Just a minor point, but the last time I ordered a new amd64 shuttle box, I requested it dual-boot XP and the 64 bit version of fedora core 2. XP was no problem, but fedora didn't support the SATA chipset contained within the box, so I either had to go with an older IDE based hard drive or just go with XP until the driver was updated by the manufacturer of the chipset. I chose to keep my snazzy new SATA drive and wait for linux to catch up. That was four months ago.
Sometimes the problem isn't that "most" people will have a problem with linux distros, but that the cutting edge technology folks aren't able to get linux support for simple things like chipsets. Once I get SATA support, I'll be the first to install a 64 bit version of linux. Until then, it's XP for me...
when you mean the Linux user experience, are you talking about installing Debs, tar balls or Rpms? Do you mean Gnome or KDE as the GUI or one of their many custom themes that look totally unalike each other? Do you mean running it on a 3GHz computer or running in slow motion on a several year old computer that runs WinXP fine? Do you mean with Konquor or Mozilla or Firefox as the browser? What of the many IMing programs do you refer to? Which distribution of many dozens?
You see, Windows may be pretty terrible, but it gives everyone the same kind of terrible. With Linux, you never know what you're going to get. That does alot to stop its adoption. People who say Linux is fine for the desktop just don't 'get' what's wrong with it. Linux is good for what it does (imagine WinXP running supercomputers or an https server!), but it is just too multifaced to become accustomed to for the average joe.
I pretty much refuse to take any article seriously that offers The Gimp as a resonable alternative or replacement to Photoshop. I'm sorry, but no. And I'm sure I'll get modded as a troll, but this problem points to exactly what every Linux fan hates to hear: "But Linux doesn't have support for X", where X is of course a major software package required by a particular industry (Photoshop for example, but to a greater extent it's Adobe Creative Suite cohorts).
Other than that I think it is true that most of the FUD is just that - I use BSD and linux on the desktop exclusively
that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps .
Not to sound like a troll but it's really not a matter of enough apps but rather the right apps. Users and small companies may have a specific need that hasn't been addressed in the Linux circles. And frankly when you get into niche markets there will not be enough of a Linux user base to justify developing an app.
And this isn't even touching on the fact that Joe Sixpack doesn't even want to learn a new OS. If it was a simple matter of new technology being better thus being used we wouldn't even be discussing desktop OSs.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Pournelle says:"They've made it: a Linux for Aunt Minnie."
Best Slashdot Co
Everyone complains about having to compile software for Linux and that because of this "need" to compile linux is not ready for the desktop.
./configure , make, make install. This GreatInstall would be the envy ;) of every Windows' User for its ease of installation.
Why do we have to tell the masses they are compiling. Create an application(or shell script) called GreatInstall which does the
These aren't myths, they are facts. Linux is confusing as hell for most people. First of all, which Linux? Redhat, slack, debian, Mandrake or maybe SuSE? That alone is reason enough for a customer to just pass it by and pick up a copy of windows. Oh then you need to pick a desktop, KDE, gnome, Windowmaker, etc etc etc etc. Oh but the apps I want to use are for gnome and my Linux install is using KDE. Hmmm. 99.9% of people will just pass and go for the system that just does it for them.
I don't understand how people can call windows bloated with features etc and not see Linux is 4 times more bloated with multple EVERTHING. I can't even count anymore how many times the Linux community has reinvented the wheel.
Now I know someone will post with the "options are good" rhetoric and yes they are good but you know what? Unified interfaces are better, it's why windows and OSX are successful on the desktop and Linux is not. That's the reality of it. Until developers start giving a shit about usability Linux will remain a third rate hack of an already outdated windows interface. I see ZERO innovation in interface design from the Linux folks. Everything attempts to look like windows and the xservers today are no different from the ones from yesteryear. I see no forward movement, just clone and copy behavior from unimaginitive geeks who fail miserably to document and/or support their own work. It's just that simple.
There is no denying that it's harder to use than Windows. Yes, getting widget X to work is just a matter of looking in the man page and finding the correct command and args - and hell, that may not even be hard for you or anyone else here. But it's still not something the average person will ever do.
.
Besides that, it's ignorant to EXPECT an average computer user to just accept the fact that they need to start learning nifty commands XYZ - why should they? Why WOULD they? Most of the slashdot crowd probably learned it because they wanted to. Linux was something they wanted to use, and they wanted to learn to use it well.
All the average user wants is to be able to send an email, or browse the web for porno, or whatever. LET THEM
Different tools for different jobs. Use Linux if you want to be an uber-1337 power user. Use Windows if you just want to check your mail and surf porn.
Just like if you want to measure the height of a wall, all you need is a yardstick (Windows) - you don't need a damn laser-guided-super-gadget (Linux).
Sure, the super-gadget is arguably "better", but 99% of the people on earth don't need one, don't want one, and will never be inclined to learn to use one.
Why is that such a bad thing?
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
Try unplugging your mouse then plugging it back in, do this in Windows AND Linux. In which one does the mouse start working right when you plug it in? That is why I use Windows.
username:oldwarez password:oldwarez
I just hope the right people read this.
./arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage
Windows has its place. We call those people, Users. If you want a computer to talk on email or watch a movie, get windows. Even for games. What the heck... yer not gonna kill someone by buying that OS. However, if you want to be a little more of a power user, or oh i dunno... run a large corperation's servers, do go to unix/linux/hp-ux/caldera
Every system has its place and user base. It just happens that Windows manages a staggaring market share with billions in profits. Linux has has the same issue with their image that windows had when it was compeating with Apple 20 years ago. They broke through and now bill gates is rich... Linux will go through the same transformation in the next 2 - 3 years.
I think the more publicity and articles like this will help slide people over and get them onto the penguin much quicker. the internet is a great thing. Anyway, rant aside, Good for this guy.
make menuconfig
make && make clean bzImage modules modules_install
cp
reboot
and I got a new system. wheeeee that was fun!!
while(1) { fork(); };
Tuesday night my son and I put XP-Pro on the computer he'll be taking off to college. The install went well, and it was good to see it support the hardware out of the box. I think we may have needed the nForce2 CD, but that was it. The Radeon 8500LE was properly recognized, installed, and configured.
The next day he installed Elite Force 2, but it wouldn't run, he said it reported 'something about opengl'. We have a Quake3 Linux, and used it's pak file, installing the point release for Windows. This time I watched it complain about opengl, or lack thereof.
Though the Radeon 8500LE was detected, drivers installed, and configured, somehow OpenGL was missing. I didn't know ATI made Radeon drivers without OpenGL.
We went to ATITech, got the released (not beta, or special in any way) drivers, removed the old drivers, rebooted and installed the new ones.
Now Quake3 works just fine, maybe he's tried Elite Force 2, by now. The conspiracy theorist in me says, "Hmmmmmmmm."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
In emacs rmail, how do use metamail in converting a message with an attachment in .doc to plain text ASCII ?...
Apparently, it is not a simple thing !
I consider myslef to be pretty geeky, but the last time I tried to install linux I went through 4 distributions (Debian, Knoppix, Fedora, Mandrake) over the course of a week, and I could never get any of them to fully work. Sure, I could get a basic X session up and do office and web work, but many things I could never get running. Namely, I never got the Radeon driver or audio working, and every time I tried to compile a new kernel it failed horribly, even with the nice people on IRC helping me. Easy to install my ass. Having to recompile the kernel to get a driver working sucks big time.
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
I use Linux as my work desktop for development and trying to cut and paste stuff drives my up the wall. Here a list of the apps I generally use on my RH9 box: Netbeans, TOra, Evolution, Mozilla and Konsole. The "clipboard" will work within the app itself, but I'll be lucky if the text I selected will show up when I paste it in another app. I even been know to have a Konsole open to be my clipboard so I can switch between the apps. Honestly, it's not Linux that is the problem, it's X-Windows!
Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
This is a very bad article. First let me says that I love Linux. We have several Linux servers and I use it on the Desktop some, also.
.
:-(
When I say that Linux is not ready for the desktop, here's what I mean. The user interface is not as intuative and consistent as the Windows XP interface. Software IS more difficult to install on Linux, anyone who says otherwise is live in another world. There is no way I could explain to my Mom over the phone how to install
I think the Linux desktop has made a HUGE improvement over the last few years... KDE is looking really good!!! We're almost there, but don't push it until it's ready, otherwise you end up with Windows 95
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
In 1984, Steve Jobs invented the concept of homo-computing which basically was Apple directing the development of personal computers with other companies complementing the centric homogenious platform in very limited and controlled ways. Apple was succesful for a while because of the belief at the time that proprietary computing was the way forward. However, Apple eventually lost steam as Microsoft built the Windows operating system based on the concept of hetero-computing which brought together all the members of the computer industry. Microsoft's idea was that if everybody worked together to make a bigger pie, the rewards for each individual company would far surpass those under Apple's feudal system. The following golden decade for the computer industry made Microsoft the richest company in the world with the majority of its employes becoming millionaires or even billionaires. During this period, however, Apple suffered greatly from the lack of innovation and interaction with the rest of the industry. They never really recovered as even today they merely offer enhanced technologies from the 80s (notably the user interface: hand input device and window menu location). Today, homo-computing accounts for less than 2% of the entire computer market. On the rise is a new concept, mono-computing. A number of indivuals, working separately in free underground locations, are building the Linux operating system. It is expected that the computer industry will suffer as the lack of financial rewards, other than paying support for fixing a multitude of problems, discourages intellectual property research and technological development in general. Operating system level innovation will probably nearly disapear once the Linux developers have finished pillaging the intellectual property of existing Unix systems. The paper tissue and adult content delivery industries are currently experiencing a peak, a possible side-effect of the growth of mono-computing development.
- Genuine technical shortcomings for specific applications (i.e. the infamous ext2 2GB file limit)
- "I can't be bothered to learn anything new"
Seriously, I'm glad some article is pointing out that the vast majority of criticism about Linux from an end-user standpoint amounts to griping that it isn't exactly like Windows.It's the same mentality that made people run progman.exe as their shell in Win95, and that gives me headaches from users who think their computer has been reformatted when their desktop colors change.
Newsflash, Linux is not Windows. Better or worse is largely a matter of opinion, but articles like those quoted in TFA are simply "different=worse" mentality and a clear example of pundits phoning it in. If you can't be bothered to learn something before reviewing it, I can't be bothered to read your articles or buy your magazine.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
This guy did nothing but further my belief that Linux is not something I would ever give to my mother. Every point he made was an excuse as to why Linux is hard to use, not a myth-buster.
Before you read this, know that I am a UNIX-lover of 10+ years. I eat, sleep, and breathe in Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD. I love UNIX, I know how to use it, and I would never give it up.
The REAL myths are in his article:
His Myth 1: Linux is just as easy to install as Windows. -- My mom can install Windows (without any help from me -- I just tell her "If you don't know what to do, just click Next" -- and when she's done, she has a fully functional OS. The linux installation experience is dramatically more complicated, and it's unlikely the end-product will work right if it was done by a novice (he pretty much admits this).
His Myth 2: Linux has lots of great applications -- while Linux has lots of applications, most of them are designed by open-source developer 12-year olds with no concept of interface design, usability, or QA. High quality apps in the OSS world do exist, but they're not the status-quo. (this is a religious argument that I'm sure I'm starting here) -- but there are very few apps for Linux that my mom can use without calling me.
His Myth 3: Installing software is easy with Linux. I find this one the most intriguing becaue he blames the users for not knowing where to look. This only furthers my position that interface design is the most essential element to a user-friendly OS. Listen folks, if the users don't know where to click to un-install apps, that's a design problem, it's not the fault of the "dumb end user who doesn't know how to use the system". The point here is that the system is hard to use -- blaming the users for being too dumb to figure it out isn't the solution to convincing people the OS is ready for broad public use.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
- Linux is different from Windows. People don't want to learn another way of doing things, even if it's an easy other way. Otherwise, Macs would have a better market penetration - they're easier.
- The difficulty of installing Windows is irrelevant. Most people never install their OS, so what matters is the low commercial availability of pre-installed Linux and the reasons for it.
- Lack of Application support is the problem, not the lack of applications. Who do you call to train your workforce in Linux applications? Who provides high quality application tech support? These are important issues that determine the commercial viability, and thus the market penetration, of the platform.
- Installation of software - again, this is irrelevent. Most people don't install most of their software. Most of the software that they start out using is preinstalled, and I've never heard anybody saying, "I don't want to use Linux because it's hard to install new applications." It's a bogon.
So, unfortunately, this article is largely correct, but also unimportant - it ignores the realities of technology adoption.Linux is ready for the desktop. The issue does not lie in the technical merits or the realities. The issue lies in putting together a marketing effort which can convince a population which, by and large, has a computer, has Windows, browses the web, and doesn't need to change.
When Win98 no longer boots people will look at upgrading. When TCPA makes Win98 boxes unable to connect to the network then people will look at upgrading. If Linux has a good presence and well-known software at the time then they will switch. It's going to be difficult to gain widespread adoption of Linux until people are forced to upgrade. Since 99% of the existing home systems meet the needs of 90% of the owners there is no need to upgrade.
As far as the home market goes the only thing _REALLY_ driving upgrades anymore are games. Only gamers need the additional processor cycles or the additional A/V capability. The superiority of Windows support is noted in the gaming world. The business market isn't going to take a widespread office adoption of Linux until a significant portion of the population is comfortable using it. This won't happen until there's widespread home experience.
Linux is in a "beat the clock mode". If it can't get into the mainstream soon the corporate interests will legislate it away. As long as it doesn't get stymied by political shenanigans it still has a chance to make Redmond shiver.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
In emacs rmail, how do you use metamail in converting a message with an attachment in .doc to plain text ASCII ?...
Apparently, it is not a simple thing for people who do not have emacs mastery !
I'm an Oracle DBA and there's nothing out there that's a satisfactory work-alike for Quest's TOAD. I've never seen where anyone's succeeded running it under an emulator (or had any luck myself). Once this hurdle is cleared, there'd be no turning back for me.
http://peltiercooler.blogspot.com/ details the attempt to use LINUX by a patient, non-IS guy.
It's pretty long, and has an unhappy ending.
OoooooK. To the end user, it doesn't matter if the OEM did all the hard work or if the OS programmers did all the hard work. All that matters is if the USER had to do all the hard work. And apparently in the linked Mandrake versus Windows installation challenge article, hard work included hardware replacement! A quote from that article:
Honestly, how many users do you think are going to replace the damn motherboard to get Linux installed?
I'm not saying that most installations require you to replace a motherboard, nor am I saying that Windows is superior to Linux. What I am saying is that this is the least persuasive article I think I've ever seen on Linux-versus-Windows in the ease of installation category.
InfoWorld is running a special report on desktop Linux this week. The gist of the author's opinion is that Linux is ready for the desktop -- for a limited set of applications. What makes it less attractive to companies is the lack of good centralized managament tools and the perennial question: Yeah, but why would you switch?
I see a few people here already using Mozilla as an example of why Linux is superior to Windows, but I can install Mozilla on my existing Windows desktops way more easily than I can wipe them and install Linux. Ditto OpenOffice. We all know that the vast majority of PC hardware shipped to enterprises came with Windows pre-installed. Companies are going to need a really compelling reason to replace that with Linux, and "I can run Mozilla" isn't it.
That InfoWorld special report also includes a review of four desktop Linux distros, BTW. Red Hat scores favorably, but Sun Java Desktop comes in second.
Breakfast served all day!
That article is frikken weak.
It picks some of the best complaints, and then tarnishes it.
I thought everyone already agreed that installing software is a (#*&$#% in linux and needs to be worked on.
And that if you can't get your hardware working in linux, you'd have just as much trouble in windows if XP didn't come with the driver.
Frikken zealots are gonna ruin linux. Retards.
-
You're always fighting the automatic form fill in in the spreadsheet. If you type something, and some cell has something similar, it gets "completed", and you have to back up to fix it.
So you can't just type in numbers. Yes, there's probably some l33t way to turn this off. But Microsoft does it better.
-
Every time you save a file in ".xls" format, you get a message that "some attributes cannot be saved", independent of the content.
-
The word processor lacks an "envelope" maker.
-
In imitation of Microsoft, OpenOffice has a little shiny thing that appears to provide "help". But it's even dumber than Microsoft's.
-
There's PDF export, which is good. But the UI for it is inconsistent. It's an icon in the word processor, rather than being an option in the "save as" dialog. In Draw, though, there's an "export as PDF" option in the File menu.
But it's getting better. I remember when StarOffice came with its own stupid "desktop" system. And Draw is better that Microsoft's, because Microsoft wants you to buy Visio at extra cost.I gotta start previewing my message...that should have read: There is no way I could explain to my Mom over the phone how to install [insert your favorite software with 15 dependencies (nested) here].
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
It's the lack of drivers and ease of installing drivers that kills linux.
I spent 5 hours getting the latest ATI driver working after suffering with with slow speed with the mesa drivers while running celestia. After I finally got it going, glgears and fglxgears ran great. Celestia no longer worked, nor did a couple of other 3d apps I tried to run.
I spent hours trying to get alsa to work and gave up, having to settle on OSS with no volume control support.
I just installed real player 10 last night. Doesn't work with firefox, and when I got it to run ran very poorly compaired to real player 8.
Etc.. Etc.
I like learning about the system, but when you follow instuctions to the leter and it still doesn't work like it should, it gets damned frustrating.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Most linux distrobutions don't have an auto-install like windows does, plus this logging in thing really confuses a lot of people.
The gap is, however, narrowing. Soon linux will be the easy to use OS.
And doesn't really offer any solid evidence besides.
The author's points are actually pretty weak, too.
He complains that people who say that Windows is easier to install and maintain are simply not comparing apples-to-apples. That seems unlikely, given that Windows is easier to install and maintain than Linux. That's a very broad category, and to be honest, I'd have to agree with them. That is NOT a fault of Linux itself, it is a fault of poor vendor support for the underdog OS.
Then, he tries to go on to state that there is plenty of software available for Linux. That doesn't address the counterargument. The original assertion is that there are specific apps (let me spell that, s-p-e-c-f-i-c) that are unavailable on Linux that the person is unwilling to lose. For instance, I cannot play Age of Mythology on Linux. I cannot play World of Warcraft on Linux. I cannot use MS word on linux. And before my detractors attempt to do so, I have to state that you *cannot* trivialize someone's choice of application, because they have time invested in training on how to use *that* application that they may not be willing to give up.
His third point... Was that really a point? It seemed like a half-hearted swing at the opposition.
I'm not saying that Linux *shouldn't* be the dominant operating system, I'm simply saying that it *isn't* and there are valid reasons why that is true. My firm belief is that if Linux wants to win the desktop war, you have to do two things: 1) Hit the competition where it hurts (in the wallet), and 2) Stop trying to convert the old. Its not gonna work. CONVERT THEIR CHILDREN.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Wow, I've been waiting for someone in the pro open-source community to write an article in defense of Linux on the desktop!
It's about time, I just wonder what took so long!
Now if only somebody would write an article about how insecure Windows is, the the truth would really get out and the big companies would certainly start switching!
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
When did the switch happen?
Ive tried to use Linux for my desktop OS since about '94...everytime Ive switched back to Windows because no matter how many times someone has said "its ready", Ive found the experience to be just too annoying to continue with.
My latest attempt, with SuSE 9.0, was better than most...all the hardware worked (and to be honest hardware detection actually was better than Windows) however getting my dual screen setup was a nightmare...one which I had to go through with every new driver or X release/patch. While everything worked in general, the number of small irritating bugs, the number of Windows only applications that I actually NEEDED to use (and that wouldnt work under Wine), and the amount of time I had to spend trying to get things to work that SHOULD have worked...well, it all just made it a dreadful environment to use for everyday tasks.
In the end...I went and bit the bullet and bought a copy of Windows XP...sad day...however no doubt Ill be back at it in another year or so.
He's write - not one of those things are hindering linux desktop adoption. It's a combination of all three, combined with the spectre of an unfamiliar environment.
Linux isn't difficult to use as a desktop, for 90% of business operations, I'd say. It's that other 10%, in addition to the home market that makes it difficult to use, and that is holding Linux back - home acceptance will lead to widespread business acceptance. Installation isn't difficult - it's easier than Windows - but again, 90% or more of people would never even consider installing Windows on their own, let alone Linux. Some people simply don't like to learn (thank systematic 'education' for that).
The app claim is partially correct. There are plenty of applications for linux - more than for Windows - there just aren't the right ones, and there just isn't the compatibility with their current applications. MS document compatibility is probably one of the biggest, but there are a lot of people that use things like "Kodak Photo Center" or such, which certainly won't work with linux, and that's what they prefer as of now: familiarity. There sure as hell isn't a comparable application for most of the main 'creative' tools, which are largely used in professional capacity (and at home): Photoshop, Macromedia products, publishing software, and the like. Things like the GIMP don't even begin to cut it, as they're both lacking features and a sane - let alone familiar - interface. Unstable operating system claims don't tend to be enough to pull people over anymore, as Windows is pretty damned stable. Malware and dislike for MS are likely the two main "getting rid of Windows" reasons now.
I'd say the biggest thing that is slowing adoption of linux right now is: games. There simply isn't that many of them, and the ones that are available tend to either be linux only (can't play with friends), fairly shitty, or released weeks/months after their Windows counterpart. The installation learning curve is also a bit of a problem there, as even many folks that use linux (or Windows, really) don't even begin to understand dependencies, and it's much easier to figure out "DirectX 9.0b is installed" than, "glibc version x.x, XFree 4.3 or newer, kernel 2.6" or what have you.
I'm sorry, Linux isn't "there" yet. It won't be for some time - if it ever is. I thank God for this, and I use Linux daily in various capacities. All the idiots are accustomed to Windows now. Please don't try to change the paragidm again. It would be like gradually changing the US road system over to have people drive on the left: people wouldn't know which way to drive on specific streets, things would always appear different, you'd have many, many people that would cause traffic problems, and you'd simply have people getting frustrated and crashing/breaking shit because they're unfamiliar with it.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Sorry, dude, but have never had anyone I've shown firefox to complain about the ways it's different from IE. Office you may have a point about, though about 85% of companies don't need MS Office and don't use most of its features.
Really? I don't. Can you name any offhand?
OK, I admit, you just gave me a good laugh. Thank you. I switched to Linux for my personal desktops a few years ago because my camera and scanner wouldn't work with Windows but would with SuSE. Here's what my recent experience with adding hardware in XP has been like:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I lived in the world that most /.ers seem to wherein Windows XP works better with hardware than Linux, I would have stuck to keeping Linux on the server. However, in my experience, Windows XP simply doesn't handle hardware well and Linux does. YMMV I guess.
Well, I don't use OpenOffice or GNU Cash (Star Office and whatever money program came with my Palm Pilot, personally). However, I will agree that Mozilla is nowhere near the level of IE: it's at least 2 generations ahead of it.
OK, I call bullshit. Tons of hardware doesn't work well or easily with Windows. People just never have to deal with it because Windows gets preinstalled.
All's true that is mistrusted
- Word Processor
- Spreadsheet
- Presentation Software
- Web Browser
- CD Player
The first three are nicely handled by Open Office.The fourth is handled by Netscape, Mozilla, Konquerer, and perhaps others.
The fifth has several nice apps that work just fine.
OK -- playing DVDs is not easy. But you do get a well-functioning X-Windows system which is an add-on for windows.
Yes, the Open Office does not have 100% of the features of Microsoft Office, but I can say that it has 100% of the features that I use on a regular basis.
Unfortunately there are few administration tools for software packages that run only on Windows, although these are getting upgraded to platform-independent versions as time goes on.
Bottom line: I still have a windows machine along with my linux machines, but guess where I do most of my work?
-----------------------------------------
Computeri non cogitant, ergo non sunt
Until there is a real method of packaging and installing/removing software for Linux, the operating system will never move past where Windows was circa version 3.1. RPM has dependancy issues, and apt-get is something past most people. Don't even mention compile from source for your grandma! With Windows, you just download a binary installer and run it as either the admin or not. If it's admin, it'll install it system-wide; if not, it'll install per user. If'll bring any extra libraries in needs for its private use.
No current Linux technology immitates this. There is no way I can currently download a self-executing shellscript wrapper or otherwise binary program that will install either system-wide or to ~/bin/$appname, with care taken to provide its own libraries, and giving me an easy link so I can remove the application folder, the installed support libraries, and any config files separately.
Linux has made great strides in getting the system installed, and the various distributions have creative solutions for getting the more crufty parts like X11 (which freedesktop.org is, thankfully, revamping to be much more accepting and dynamic of modern hardware), and in terms of user-application glue (remember how OS/2 Warp would remember which applications were open and all their states when you rebooted?) in ways that surpass Windows, the actual application management is still a horrible hack, largely based on designs from the mid to late 90s which don't really work in practice.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You know, we really should work on making a spyware free replacement for Bonzi Buddy.
People LIKE Bonzi Buddy, and while the spyware would irritate them, they're really not aware of it.
IM is becoming more than just instant transfering of text.
File transfers (GAIM sort of has this), webcams, plugins and games are becoming big reasons for IMs.
Sorry but saying "close enough" isn't good enough when the rest of the world can do it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Myth #1: Linux is harder than Windows
./configure, blah. With OS X, to install an app you either have a nifty installer that asks for the admin password and it "just works", or you do something difficult like drag the app to some folder, usually /Applications. The only distro that gets installation right is debian. Oh, and I have apt on my Mac too.
Although this is true, its mute. I first used DOS, which I cannot really call an operating system, but anyway. Then windows. Got sick of reinstalling, dropped windows in 97. Started using linux. Stopped using linux on the desktop in 2004 when I got my powerbook and OS X. I'll never look back. OS X is not perfect, but its hands down the best end user OS I've ever used, and all of my dotfiles from my *NIX machines work flawlessly. Printing still sucks under linux, setting up networks still sucks under linux, nfs/samba shares are still difficult. Try getting power management to work properly under linux.
Myth #2: Lack of Applications
Again true. I'm sory, but OpenOffice is only useful because its better than strings WORD.doc | less. I can view stuff, but its not 100% compatable, and its ugly as hell, and just clunky. Most any app under linux will work on OS X plus all of the native OS X apps. KDE and GNOME are Windows wannabes, OS X is different and very slick IMHO.
Myth #3: It's hard to install software
Again true. rpm dependancy hell.
I used Linux pretty much exclusively on the desktop from 97 to 2004, and I have no plans on looking back at it. I've found what I want. I use and admin linux daily. I like linux. But I don't want to admin my laptop. It just works, and that is a good thing.
The only people dumb enough to purchase the retail applications would be, probably, Windows users who assume that they need to purchase it.
What's that other Linux myth? Oh, yeah, the one about Linux users being condescending assholes.
Contact a local LUG or solicit volunteers to install whatever flavor of Linux you want on your system and create a dual boot configuration for you, so that you can directly compare Windows usability with Linux usability. That puts the Linux installation on a par with the pre-installed Windows setup.
I see, so in order to honestly evaluate Linux, you have to ignore the installation process by having someone from a user group do it for you.
Linux has a lot of things going for it. This article is not among them.
Firefox actually *does* render pages correctly. If there is a problem it isn't firefox's fault, it's the designer's fault. Firefox is a standard compliant browser, IE is not. IE is just more forgiving to bad coders.
Why? Your arguments are simply false. To claim that all hardware runs with windows is wrong as probably anyone with any windows experience can tell you. Why doesn't my scanner work with XP? Believe it or not, there is no driver for it. Does it work with Linux? Yes it does. Does that mean that linux rulors and windows suxors? No, it just shows that your excuse for an argument is bogus.
You claim you are working with below average computer users yet you don't shy away from something like this: Linux will be ready for the desktop when it is as easy to install, run, and care for as carelessly as Windows users demand.
Sure, everyone who has anything to do with computers knows that installing windows is never problematic and just a breeze for your below average computer users.
And yes, I'm an avid Linux fan. I run it at home exclusively, and have defestrated a friend.
But we're not going to get anything done by complaining. So let's find a happy medium - start demanding it of the vendors. Work in finance? Go to Calyx and ask them if they have Point for Linux. Any industry that keeps a cust db - go to the Act or Goldmine people and ask them for their software for Linux. No, not the web software that requires a MS IIS, but a native Linux version.
This sig no verb.
Here's a typical Linux situation.
Linuxtard: You should switch to Linux it is better than the evil M$ (isn't that clever it's a dollar sign instead of an S)
Normal Human Being: Sure, why not. It sounds cool. Hey! Why isn't it recognizing my video card? How do I check my email?
Linuxtard: RTFM
Normal Human Being: I DID! It didn't help at all, in fact, I think it made the situation worse.
Linuxtard: RTFM n00b!
I remember numerous times that there have been posts about some independent research saying that Windows is better than Linux for one reason or another. Inevitably this ellicits a bevy of posts claiming some connection between the firm and M$, thus invalidating the study. Now we have some dude who obviously extremely jaded in favor of Linux. Many of his comments are so one-sided that its ridiculous. Now I am a linux user; I can't stand Windows. But do we have to turn to poorly written libel? Let's except that Linux has its problems. Let's identify them, then fix them. Just ignoring them is what made Windows what it is today.
... I got the go ahead today to install a Linux machine in the training room of the Company where I work as Sysadmin - it will be running Slackware 10, KDE 3.2.3
I have been wanting to do this for some time, but always with reservation - but after trying Slackware 10 on my laptop, and then totally moving my last winders box 2000 -> Slackware 10 here at home, I feel the desktop has arrived, if not for the work place (due to legacy reliance on M$Office et al) but at least has arrived for most windows savvy USERS at home.
Most can't get over it's 'free' and 'free' to copy/give away legally, and they will be even more impressed when I set it up tomorrow!
the 9800 Pro (and others released after the last version of XFree86) are supported by X, I
(and others, as seen at the Redhat forums/bug reporter dealie, et al) can't use Linux. Period.
X not starting my just keep some from using it...
i meant acceptance. dont even bother ;)
Those haven't been the myths for a long time that most GNU/Linux users talk about.
The barriers to entry are:
* Hardware (auto)detection/configuration
* Integration with other systems (Word Docs, MS Exchance, etc.)
* Configuration for More Complicated Tasks, like installing software that's not provided by your distribution
* An easy configuration program (right now we have a half dozen)
I've been using GNU/Linux since 1997, but these are still real issues for the person in between the complete notice and the power user.
We have most of the power users, many of the complete novices won't notice, but I think a large segement of people fall somewhere in the middle and we may not do as well there.
But it's still not possible for Joe User to simply download an app and install it via an installation wizard like everyone is used to on Windows. You either run setup.exe there or some *.msi files and click "Next" a few times and you're finished.
Not so under Linux. I am a Linux developer myself, even earning my money as a Linux developer, and I know it's a tough problem to tackle in the Right Way(tm). But we should eventually try. The old installer from Loki games is a good example of how it should work (although I don't think it's the correct solution as there is no RPM or deb support in it). The really tough things here are first to get most projects to have support for such an installer and second for such an installer to support as many distributions as possible.
Of course Debian users will argue "well, just do an apt-get install foo", and Gentoo people will tell you to use emerge, but the point for Joe User is not to have to use the command line.
If we manage to deal with this problem I'll say Linux is really ready for desktop of everyone. I've set up the desktop that a few hundred people of the Bavarian Blood Donation Service use via their thinclients, so I know Linux is ready for desktop use if all the necessary applications are installed.
Remind me again why Windows is considered ready for the desktop? Before anyone marks me as troll or flamebait I am asking a serious question. The graphical shell is just as primative as anything Gnome or KDE seem to front and the customization and configuration is non existent. The only thing going for Windows it seems is very tight integration across multiple applications. So the work lies outside of the graphical shell.
So why do people continually think Windows is ready for the desktop? Why are people striving to make Gnome and KDE like Windows? Windows if anything seems more primative which implies that desktops are too complex or something else is going on...
I find it often useful to substitue the word hard for different in Windows vs. Linux discussions. Many aspects of Linux are not hard just different. I don't believe Linux was every promised to be a replacement for Windows. Linux is an alternative to Windows.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
#1: Linux is harder than Windows
The argument goes basically, "I tried to install Linux and (insert from list below). Therefore Linux is hard and not ready."
Um, yes. On my server which is my only linux box, after install it can not and did not support my sound card. Not only did it not detect and install drivers, it didn't even bother to notify me (Mandrake 9.2) The drivers are still available for windows for this (aureal based) card. I spent 3 hours and after reading numerous accounts of not being able to get this to work, I gave up on it.
The author argues that "installation comparisons aren't apples to apples because Windows is Pre-Installed" OK fine. Boot a linux installable CD vs windows 2000 CD with a blank hard drive and see who wins. Besides registration, you can basically hit enter a bunch of times and windows will install. Installing mandrake, I fretted about journaling filesystems, partitions, etc, and I still didn't get my drivers installed automatically. So, point 1 in my experience was accurate entirely.
Myth #2: Lack of Applications
Well, certainly the fact that the applications ship with Linux distros is a bonus, but let's face the facts, there is a lack of major applications-- especially in the art world. The Gimp is nice because it's free and has some unique features, but photoshop slaughters it. Just plain slaughters it. The author admits games are a problem, and for the apps that do exist (and for free) Usability is a HUGE issue. My wife cussed me out on numerous occasions after putting OpenOffice on her system, and couldn't figure out how to do the things which were totally intuative in MS office. Free is great, but almost every commercial app on Windows beats its Linux alternative hands down. (except on price, of course.)
Myth #3: It's hard to install software
Compared to Windows? You bet your ass. With windows, you insert a disc and press enter a bunch of times. Everything else is spoonfed.
This guy's on crack. Every one of his Linux "Myths" is , in reality, pretty accurate in comparison to Windows.
I love the idea of linux. I like playing around with my linux server, but it's not nearly as user-friendly as windows.. sorry. And the most important reason that it's not viable as an end user desktop is that you can't take it to the local mom & pop computer shop or CompUSA and get support. (Admittdely, they'll probably just reinstall the OS anyway, and say "oh well," but at least they can do that!)
This article is such bullshit that it's difficult to figure out how it even got published in the first place. Seriously.
Most of his arguments seemed to revolve around either one (1) test case or simply saying, "Well, this isn't true - because I say so."
I don't use Linux for a lot of reasons. I don't like Windows for a lot of reasons. Linux offers too many indistinct choices, unclear conventions, inconsistent & incompatible interfaces, bizarre naming conventions, spotty documentation, and more. Windows locks me into the Microsoft Way-Of-Thinking and doesn't allow me to fully do what I want to do.
Both operating systems get in the way of my productivity, but for different reasons. Windows assumes I'm an idiot, and Linux assumes I'm an expert. Neither works for me because my strength on different platforms is different.
My final comment is this: Can we change http://slashdot.org to http://shillforlinux.org? Please? It would be a lot less confusing sometimes.
I have built many different systems for many different uses - there are many that I feel Windows was better for (Office assistant that needs to access documents created by the "outside world"), there have been some that Linux was better for (Of course the servers, but also dev boxes, etc), some mac (CEO), ect.
I've only been limited by available hardware once - that was for a HP scanner. I HAD to use Linux - anything running a scanner under Windows was not scriptable!
So the only hardware lockin I ever had was being forced to use Linux - weird, huh?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Usability-wise, KDE gives OS X a run for its money. Provided that everything works (it won't "just work", and you'll have to hack it into doing its job), it's the best GUI I've ever worked with.
:-O
Yes, it's essentially the only alternative for people who expect an actual GUI that makes them productive. Gnome is ok for the geekier, and I myself am a fluxbox user, but KDE is the only thing I would put "normal" people onto.
Now, KDE is HEAVY, even compiled for a specific architecture. WinXP severely outperforms Linux 2.6+Xorg+KDE. And, yep, Fluxbox ain't a WinXP killer
Really, that's what the headline should be instead of focusing on operating system X,Y,Z. I've been using computers since the 70's and I can tell you IMO that in general, most people were stupid back then (and afraid of computers) and most people remain stupid even today. Sure, the popular OS made it easier for the stupid people to use computers but where has this led us? Viruses, trojans, spam, etc.
It never used to be like this. People who used computers used to teach themselves and help others ("others" who were also eager to learn on their own and not ask the same question over and over wanting to have their hand held for them all the time).
I'm tired of hearing how difficult OS X,Y,Z is for the stupid people and call this a troll/flame if you want, but it's not, this is reality but some wish to sugar coat it and waste time and money making everything "appear" easier which only creates problems because no matter how "simple" you make it if the users remain stupid they will ALWAYS find a way to fsck things up or someone smarter will fsck it up for them and in their stupidity they will perpetuate the problem (like spreading malicious files).
"Well some people just want to use a computer like a car and hop in and go and not want to be bothered with how it works" great, maybe we should give these people special liveCD geared towards them to teach them, or something. But IMO the solution is not to continue to dumb down things for dumb people.
(quick look for something in my post to mock so you can put the classic comic spin on a good point in order to get people to avoid the real issue, happens all the time)
There's not enough high-quality games for Linux. The ones present are usually backported "hits" from Windows. Some of the ports are very buggy and usually only "dedicated server" executables work really well on Linux.
(personally I must say, Unreal Tournament's (the orig.) textures suck.)
And guess what is the main motor of progress in computer industry?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I feel like a positive note has to be made on this subject: everyone on /. complains about poorly or even non-existent support for 802.11x wireless stuff. When I purchased my Toshiba Satellite something laptop, Slack (10.0, been out for two days when I installed it) asked me about wireless stuff during install. Didn't have it at the time, but thought heck maybe - so yes. Today I plugged the first SMC something card, didn't even bother to look if it's supported or something, and exactly two commands later (iwconfig eth1 essid somestring key somehexstring && dhcpcd eth1) I am online and well. Why the hech is everyone bitching about lack of wireless support?
I recently installed mandrake 10 on my pc. I was tired of windows and wanted to finally make the jump to linux.
Big mistake.
By far, the easiest part was actually getting it to install. Mandrake has a fantastic install, and i commend them on that.
But I instantly lost functionality.
Things were annoyingly difficult to install. (command lines?! I havnt used those in almost a DECADE! Dont be an elistist here.)
It was slower then windows 2000. On all fronts. Opening programs, moving windows, even typing.
The applications did not play well with each other, at all.
Drag and drop never worked.
Configuring default settings was a pain.
Networking. Dear god. I spent 3 hours trying to get my network up, only to finally call my local network guru... who spent FOUR HOURS setting up my LAN. Which then stopped working when the computer rebooted due to a power outage.
Good luck trying to get a codec installed. Yeesh.
So I decided to go back to windows 2000, but only run open source apps on it.
Im here. Im totally willing to go open source only, but linux just BOMBED on me. It didnt work, and it was a struggle just to navigate.
You will not find a more willing computer user then me. Im serious. I WANT TO USE LINUX. But it just _sucks_ usability-wise compared to windows 2000.
(i would also like to thank the entire community for their help. you guys were awesome)
no
While I would agree that Linux isn't necessarily lacking in sheer numbers of applications and it's definitely as easy if not easier to install than Windows, it still has some major stumbling blocks keeping it from being "ready for the desktop" in my opinion.
Things that come to mind are; printing, plug & play, hardware support (drivers), software installation (ditch the post install config file hacking) and in general... the handling of user screwups (apply the wrong video drivers and you'll see what I'm talking about).
My Tech Posts on Twitter
I'm sorry, but Windows does not have huge ease of use. It has huge long term familiarity and many people around the place who kind of know how to do things. OS X does not have ease of use for a typical user upgrading from OS 9; considerable retraining is required. In fact, I can well remember when I had to migrate from Unix + Mac Os to Windows: it was a steep uphill learning curve, especially making networking work.
I keep making this point, I will doubtless do it again. Twenty years ago, Diesel cars were a rarity in Europe. Gas ruled. "Everybody" understood gas engines which were "simple". Diesel was slow, smelly, hard to figure out. Where's the carb? The spark plugs? Only Diesel used about 30% less fuel than gas engines, and had a few other hidden advantages.
Twenty years on, and in Europe Diesel technology is heading for 50% of the market in some countries. The reason? Cost, and it turned out that it was actually harder to develop better gas engines than Diesel engines. Development has taken care of the problems, and Diesel has developed much faster than gas engines over the same period. Now, even Jaguar has to have a Diesel. If, in the US, SUVs and large cars ran on Diesel, Iraq wouldn't be a US problem.Middle East oil? Who needs it?
So look at the broader picture. Which platforms really look to have the easiest development route and the real lowest long term cost?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The first Myth;
"Until that happens, however, the reality is, installing the operating system is an extra task would-be Linux users must undertake.
The writer admits that Windows is easier (no need for an extra task), so he hasn't really debunked it.
"No, it's not apples to apples, because Linux's apples need to be peeled before use."
Peeling = extra task = more complicated.
So how did he debunk this?
In the software chart;
First column "..."
Second column "Simply too numerous to mention."
Thats a great piece of writing there.
In response to the 3rd Myth "It's hard to install software"
First he says that anyone who thinks this way is lazy. Um.... all computer users are lazy, thats why we have the desktop, GUI, mice, keyboards, nice big monitors.
And to prove his point he states, and I quote in its entirety because its an clever argument:
"It's not, but it's just as easy."
Thanks for debunking that myth with that brilliant piece of factual logic. How could anyone have missed it?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
... ever notice how Linux "myths" are forever while Windows truths never stick?
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
and that there's not enough apps.
Including, apparently, grammar checking apps.
People have favorites and often don't like change. I was working for a company that in 2002 was still using NT 4 on desktops because it did what they needed it to do. You are living with your head in the sand if you think that people will just jump because something equivalent is available. Much time and effort is involved in learning to use an operating system and applications in the way a person or corporation wants. There is a huge amount of inertia involved in displacing Windows and I really can't believe that anybody that takes a look at the world sees Linux as a Replacement for Windows in any less than a 5-10 year frame, just like Linus does. Frankly I think a quick push to a Linux destkop hurts Linux more as a lot of people will only give it one chance, just like they would with any other product.
Linux has been around since 1991 (13 years old)
How many people that use PC's now, could have intalled and setup DOS/Windows/networking in the 80's and 90's?
Patience is a virtue!
we are making great progress!
One thing holding back Linux was MS word documents. I used to get lots attached to e-mail. Now these attachments come as "rich text" in the main email (which Linux Mozilla e-mail handles fine) or as PDF attachments. Notice how much PDF usage is growing on the internet? It's more the standard now than MS-office.
If my family is any indication then Windows isn't "ready for the desktop" either.
OK, I went to a Windows box and now I'm viewing it in IE. It doesn't look any different. What "overlaps incorrectly" in moz? I don't see any difference.
All's true that is mistrusted
I don't concur that Linux is really ready for desktop use. The basic SIMPLE tasks have been quite much covered. The old ones. The developers seem to be really oldish and non-innovative. Sorry to say but it's true. The more "advanced" use you have for your desktop the more you will start missing Windows XP. The things aren't hard technically or always missing. They are just hard to get to use, in too early stages of development or the developers just have a bad attitude against everything new. They seem to love their 486's and living in the past to put it mild.
.. Lots of does exist but they lack integration completely. Managing a Linux corporate environment is plain hell. Unless if you pay $$$$ to RedHat or something for their a bit more usable tools.
Some small examples, there are more:
Lack of smartcard/smime support in applications. There is practically only one really good email client on desktop. Hard to really sign my email with my official digital ID card.
Lack of corporate features ready built in like kerberos authentication. It DOES exist for a lot of software like KDE in general etc but it's hard to start using that stuff as it isn't around as default. Hard to sign in with anything else than the outdated username/password mechanism. It should be nowadays ONLY a fall-back method for support tasks.
Lack of real management tools for desktops. Installing stuff, updating, making small "manual" fixes, state querying, log management,
The default file systems should be faster. Ext2/ext3 just aren't upto par. (Do like suse or get xfs/jfs.)
Lack of security options as default. (Mostly PAX) The desktops are quite insecure and the distribution vendors and kernel dev team have really 70's attitudes and no grip of reality in overall. Not that there would be one single MUST-TO-HAVE thing but that there is mostly none.
Lack of tools for image editing. No monitor color profiles support in X server. Gimp would be good but the layers/effects/etc are not dynamic, they are stable and slow to work with. I will stick with my Photoshop CS, thank you.
Lack of XAUTH in kernel IPSEC implementation makes it impossible to connect almost all of the commercial VPN devices in "road runner" style of implementations. So no reading work email it seems.
Lack of 802.1x protocol supplicant as default makes it hard to network in modern corporate networks that have access methods on the switches already. open1xsupplicant exists but it isn't designed for the wired stuff and it is hard to set up.
Device vendors are still doing 2.4 kernel drivers though 2.6 is the current. The hardware support is a tad bad in some places because of that. 2.6 should have provided "compatibility layer" or then most of the drivers should be moved away from the kernel so that 2.6 drivers could work still on newer kernels too etc. It's just plain silly.
The current SATA implementation doesn't have the required pass-through mechanisms so the better-than-average workstations can't get any pre-warning of failing hard disks. SMART does not work!
Try changing your X mouse cursor scheme in Gnome. You got it right. Manual copying of files. Try installing the icon themes. Again just the same. Making the basic stuff easier for novices where there is no real need for the manual stuff would be nicey. The is no extra value in doing things "manually" in many places. There are those, but why can't I just use some auto thing for trivial tasks? Mmh
Lots of the kde/gnome developers are really against adding even optional eye candy. I know it isn't really important to have it all but the lack of SMOOTH SCROLLING is horrible. In some recent researches it has been found that the human eye can benefit from even the 300-350 fps difference and for the brain its a lot of easier to take a grasp of images if movements are smooth. Smooth scrolling makes things just generally more readable and intuistic. It doesn't eat any cpu either unless if you still live in the early 90's.
Anything you can do on a Windows box, you can do on a Linux machine. I can attach any device I want, of course I have to build my own drivers, but anybody with an IQ bigger than their foot size should be able to do this. Linux apps are not the feature packed bloatware that simple users are used to, therefore OpenOffice spanks MS Office and GIMP is better than Photoshop. While Windows users are busy playing banal games like Halo, Vice City, and Manhunt, we have the far superior TuxRacer. In conclusion, Linux is clearly superior.
I spent 3 hours trying to get my network up, only to finally call my local network guru... who spent FOUR HOURS setting up my LAN
/etc/hosts /etc/resolv.conf
/etc/modules.conf but, for the most part, everything else is "dhclient". If it's any more complicated than that then you don't have dhcp from a LAN router and Windows would've been just as hellish.
Not much of a guru. Unless you were demanding horrible prerequisites that you would never think to have on Windows.
Maybe you need to add something to
I imagine you wanted your own DHCP server, your own internal DNS, and your own httpd off of the Mandrake 10 box. That's not fun on Windows either.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Dragon Naturally Speaking is only on Windows. Anything with similar performance on Linux?
Does Windows does this? Can Windows automagically get your WEP key (for a home WAP, not the fancy ones that use Radius servers at work...)? No way! SO anyone who dings Linux because of that is just clueless because you HAVE to configure it on Windows.....it's just hidden in nice gooey windows instead of a .conf file.
That said, Linux is not ready for the desktop and the reason is the applications most users want/need do not run on Linux. Some may point to OpenOffice.org but that's just an office suit and most likely the thing that matters least. If you can't run a piece of software bought by your company that you use to actually run your business, then it's useless. Using a computer is more then just what you need at home. if youc an't run your business application on it, then you can't run it no matter how much you like Linux or how many items replace Office. Gimp is nice, but are their classes on learning it? Do artists want to use something other then the software that they paid $$$ for in classes and the software itself? That's the thing. Sure, we may be able to do amazing stuff with the Gimp but if you don't know how to use it and were trained in another package, then it really does not matter does it?
Gorkman
However, I will note that that the X based guis have come a hell of a long way. Here's a snapshot of my desktop with the K menu down. Fast, very pretty (look closely and you can see KDE's menu transparancies), very easy. Kicks the sweet bajesus out of Windows, hands down.
As always, welcome to Linux. Damn near an orgasm when it's working, and the definition of hell when it's not.
I'm a little late commenting on this, so this probably won't get read (let alone modded), but still. Yes, Linux is harder. Yes, Windows is probably "better" for the Average Joe (TM), but that's not the point. We don't want people to use Linux because we think they'd be better off. It's because we all would be better off. Those who already use Linux need others to use it so manufacturers and developers sit up and notice us.
Don't tell someone they should use Linux because it's easier (you know it isn't) or that it's better (they'll give plenty of reasons why it isn't). Get them to use it because we'll all be better off. Would they prefer it if the only car you could buy was a Ford? Some will say yes, but then ask them what would stop Ford from charging twice, triple, quadruple even, more than they do now? Nothing. But there are many car makers, so prices stay at an (arguably) reasonable levels. Why can you buy a Gamecube for $199(CAN)? Because they're 3 major players out there all vying for the same market and they're willing to sell at a loss to get more customers who will then buy games. That's a Good Think (TM).
Why is Windows very expensive and all pervasive? Because there's no decent competition. That, my friends, is a Bad Thing.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
Windows is a calculator with a stuch square root key. It works most of the time, but if you need to use the square root you may need to hit clear and re-enter your lnput again.
Linux is a slide ruler. It's great it works better, but hell if most people know how to use it.
Linux, a far and objective look.
username:oldwarez password:oldwarez
Games.
... IOW, if I want Doom 3, I want Doom 3, by id Software. I want it to install and run just the same as it would in Windows. I don't want to play Doom 1 via WINE, and I don't want to play "D00M", a homebrew Doom-clone. I don't want to play Doom 3 with a crack to use a private server so I can play with my friends.
Seriously. I'd switch to Linux if'n Blizzard offered World of Warcraft, or Warcraft III natively in Linux.
I'd switch to Linux if Sony offered Final Fantasy XI in Linux.
I'd switch to Linux if any of a dozen other games were ported to Linux. I don't mean "similar" games, or cheap shareware games (or even freeware games) -- I mean high-quality games that I can buy in stores for $50, just like every other game out there. I like Angband, Nethack and the like. I enjoy a good game of Solitare on occasion.. but what I really want is high-quality productions, made by skilled (and, hopefully, PAID) programmers.
I want legitimacy, native support and GAMES.
on the desktop, and you have (or can whip up) some documents which will help other companies do the same, then you can win a trip to Novell BrainShare in Spain this year. Novell and O'Reilly are offering a nice little prize.
"Your experience can help guide and inspire others who are considering migrating or who have already embarked on the process. We're looking for entries that describe the benefits realized from a desktop migration, a phased migration plan, or the most practical tips for migrating to Linux. We'll publish the best stories and the top entries have a chance to win some fantastic prizes..."
The one who dispells, doesn't spell? Or, they who spell, dispell? Or, the one who spells best, dispells the most? Question about question...
Is it the corporate desktop where the hardware is approved by IT? If this is the case, then Linux has been ready for the desktop for a while.
Is it the grandma desktop where she does not add new hardware without bringing it into the place she purchased it from? Again, if this is the case, then Linux has been ready for a while.
The ONLY "desktops" that Linux is not ready for are the power-gamers (latest hardware and lots of playing with it) and the "Joe Six-chip" who purchases a Dell or whatever and then tries to add various peripherals.
Now, since there are far more corporate desktops in use, on the HARDWARE side, Linux has been ready for the majority of desktops for a while.
"Linux won't be ready for the desktop until hardware is written with Linux in mind. That's the point, thanks for helping to clarify."
Which will NOT happen until Linux gains 50%+ of the desktop market.
Which makes a nice problem, eh? Linux isn't "ready" for the desktop until it already owns over half of the desktop marketshare.
First off, I'm not a windows bigot.
I run Gentoo linux for my servers. I built them from stage 1 source and compiled the everything, including the kernel. It works like a champ. I could leave out all the services I don't use to minimize my vulnerability to attacks.
Ernesto is right on every count based on what I've
seen.
I can't use Linux for non server applications.
The X desktop is awful. If I wanted remote access
I'd use VNC. I used to like Gnome a little, but they're becoming as bloated as Windows Playskool.
I've got stuff to do with the computer. I don't want DRM, fancy GUI effects on the desktop,
RPC services that nobody uses to get me infected
with virii, etc.
Will someone do a nice lightweight desktop
that just works? I'd even be willing to help
port applications to it.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
My experience with Windows is that, so long as nothing goes wrong, there isn't much maintenance. But, when problems arise, even finding documentation on how to fix things is a problem, despite its popularity.
Recently, I needed to change the subnet on the public side of a group of computers, including a Win2K server and some Linux boxes. The Linux boxes took 5 minutes each, and all the daemons adjusted to the changes with a simple 'service XXX restart'. Never even had to reset the hardware.
It also took 5 minutes to change the IP on the Win2K box... but it required a restart... and several very important things didn't come back afterwards (Exchange and RAS in particular). It took two days to track down WHY, because everything looked correct.
Turned out that the settings were correct, but neither Exchange nor RAS are tolerant of changes to the binding order of interfaces, and any significant change (like an IP) to an interface changes its binding order... making it invisible to both applications. This isn't documented in anyplace convenient; I only found it by tracking down specific error message text via GOOGLE, piecing together information off of several of the results, finally finding a very nice MSKB article on the subject... which hadn't appeared in the GOOGLE search results!
I'm now fighting a problem where this same machine has decided that its second and third net cards are deaf... They exist, they detect the network, Win2K says they're working, but the rest of the network can't talk to them. And the customer gets frustrated, while I try to find SOMETHING on the net that would explain the behaviour. I could have fixed this problem within an hour under Linux...
As Dogbert said, "We have the very best kind of evidence. Anecdotal!
No.
:(
I just wanted a firewall, and file transfer between windows and linux.
Finally we both said "Fuck it" and just got all the pcs behind linux online, and that was enough. Thats why it took so long.
Might I also add that reading your post was like reading pig-latin. Im not much of a networking guy
no
Are we really stirring this bees nest again?
Pre -1 Troll caveat: I have used Linux for many years, love it, but it is not without flaws. Please take these points under consideration.
Let's go through the standard arguments:
Myth - Windows is easier.
Fact - Windows is familiar. Recognize the difference.
Myth - (and this is a quote) "The only people dumb enough to buy the retail [Linux] applications would be, probably, Windows users who assume that they need to purchase it."
Fact - Firstly, calling Windows users dumb is just showcasing your immaturity. Secondly, they are conditioned this way. Marketing tells them that nothing is free. Even when they hear 'open source', it's no different than 'Cash Back' when buying a car. You don't actually walk out of the dealership with a bag of bills, you simply apply that cash to something else or a cheaper loan.
Myth - It's hard to install software in Linux
Fact - Wait a minute, this is true.
Here's something I noticed when reading: When he realizes that Linux just isn't ready for the desktop, he puts those reasons in two or three sentences and quickly puts a huge amount of text or a neat table out to distract you.
For example, Games. That is why Windows remains popular. Yes, it's a chicken and egg problem, but the fact remains that Microsoft knows that if there is any market where gaming is owned almost soley to themselves, it is the computer gaming one. They liked it so much they made a console about it, and regardless of the bleeding that XBox endures, it is a drop in the bucket to the money that they will continue to drain from users as their OS locks them into proprietary standards and advances.
The problem of installing applications gets a total of two sentences. Yes, two. Anyone who has ever hunted down some stupid, ignorant library or dependency and has screamed in frustration as they try to play follow-the-dependency, I hear your calls, I feel your pain. It is the reason I have stopped using Linux for anything but server operations.
I can't handle another game-less, hard to add programs to system that does everyone else great but fails spectacularly in the things I now take for granted: easy to install and remove programs (no gunzipping or 'make uninstall'), tons of games, and programs that actually follow easy to use UI or at the very least have a little thought behind their interfaces.
And did I mention documentation? Because as good as some programs are, some have abhorrently bad documentation, sometimes reduced to a few sentences boasting their coolness, shout outs to their friends, and an email address that may or may not work.
If it wasnt for games, I would not have a single Microsoft OS (or software product) in my home.
I have everything I need (video editing, audit editing, compilers, editors, "office" products) for linux.
Ah well, just a short googling around tells me that there are WAYS more prebuilt binaries for GNU/Linux than MacOS X. And hey, it wasn't even this short googling, I am a GNU/Linux - MacOS X dualboot user, and I know WHY I use GNU/Linux. Because there are the apps!!
Erm who presented these as problems? now lets look at the real issues: hardware support, hardware support, hardware support. (Oh and the GIMP not having vital adjustment layers and effects stacks)/
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Four years ago Red Hat 6.2 was easier to install than Win 95, fewer drivers to hunt for in RH. Today Red Hat 9 is simple, Suse 9.1 is better, I'd bet that any major distribution is as easy or better than Win XP. As long as your hardware is reasonably mainstream it will be supported with out looking for extras.
Linux has been ready for the desktop for years.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Almost everyone I know who's tried Linux and doesn't like it dislikes it not because of the lack of software, but because of the lack of hardware support for very common items.
How many times has support for a piece of hardware (almsot always network related) been utterly screwed up because the manufacturer decided to use a different chip? For example, Linksys WPC11 cards work great up to v4, but after that aren't supported without additional help from NDISWrapper (if you're lucky) or Linuxant (costs $$, might as well go buy another card).
Granted, you wouldn't have this problem if you made sure that each piece of hardware you purchased was Linux compatible, but not everyone has that option.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
"Even this isn't true. The OEM doesn't have to reject certain hardware as "not working with windows" because it all does."
Riiiigggghhhhtttttt.....
So, let's see you install XP on an iMac. How about a G4?
Your definition for "all" hardware is "that which works with the version of Windows that I'm installing".
I have accelerated video cards that haven't had Windows drivers since NT 4.0. They came out of an old Alpha box.
"Now I'm not blaming anyone here - it's often the fault of the manufacturers, and sure, I could write the drivers myself (well actually, I probably couldn't) but the fact is still that Linux causes me more problems than windows."
Welcome to "marketshare". And this situation will not change until Linux has 50%+ of the desktop market.
But you are confusing "marketshare" with "ready for the desktop".
There aren't many DeLoreans out there. And you have to pay particular attention when purchasing parts for them (and sometimes special order).
But that does not mean they aren't ready to be driven.
And in the same vein, I find it hard to take seriously any article that claims OpenOffice.org "Works just fine with .doc, .xls, and .ppt files." No. No it doesn't. Last time I checked (about 3 months ago) .doc files had major issues with things like talbes and figures, and .ppt files were hopelessly screwed up. In a work enviroment where I am consantly being sent Microsoft Office files, minor incompatibilities become major headaches.
.doc, .xls, and .ppt files work fine in OpenOffice, doesn't do anyone a favor. It only displays the extreme bias of the author of such a statement.
And yes, there are incompatability issues between different versions of office. But in my experience they pale in comparison to trying to read Office files in OpenOffice. This is why 1) people where I work are discouraged from upgrading to new versions of Office, and 2) OpenOffice is a complete non-starter.
To claim that
Download my free songs!
802.11x is a real problem. Chances are that you were lucky enough to have a card that has a chipset that has a Linux driver. I know that the newer Prism chipsets (almost every Linksys in existence for the last 2 years) don't have linux drivers. It really, truly is a 50-50 proposition on if it works or not. To know if it will work, I use Knoppix, which has all the hardware detection, and every wireless driver built in. If wireless works with it, then you're ready to rock, otherwise, you will need the windows driver, and a pay-ware program known as ndiswrapper. So, there are options, but it is probably the area where things are the furthese from being perfect. I know we had a TON of hurdles to clear at our last install-fest, where we had about 30 laptops, they all wanted linux, and we pulled our hair out trying to get them to work. And this was all back in May, and a lot has not changed since then. Until the companies release specs or drivers, or until someone reverse engineers it, then it won't work quite right.
I can't be bothered to read through all those responses, but what about games? Sure Transgaming / Wine is around, but the experience just isn't the same. Ready for the desktop is one thing. But the fact that you can't play Warcraft III: TFT at the same res/graphic quality on slackware than you can on XP is really going to make linux lose some market, no matter how "ready for the desktop" it is, it all comes down to compatability.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
I own a small OEM and consulting computer company. We focus our bussiness in Linux as a server, among other things. We've tried really hard to make our customers comfortable with Linux as a desktop alternative, and we have always found too many problems.
So I don't agree with the contents of the article. Linux, as a replacement for Windows is, in my opinion, harder to use for the regular non-technical user because:
1. There are too many applications that try to do the same thing (more or less). I hate when I see pretty much all distros installing by default repetitive/similar applications. Regular users don't want AbiWord, OpenOffice, KOffice, because one does one particular thing better than the other and viceversa. Same thing happens with the whole bunch of media players, text editors, graphic viewers, internet browsers, email applications, etc. Dont misunderstand me; I like having a choice, but most users don't want to choose among these things, they just want 1 office application that works just like MS Office, 1 media player that plays everything, 1 graphic viewer that displays all formats, and those users are the majority, and they dont want to learn how to use 30 applications to do what in Windows can be done in 7. These non-technical users will be who in the end will make linux win or loose the desktop war. I'd like distro designers to consider that more applications do not make a better distro. Just pick up the really good ones and leave the others as an option.
2. Installing applications is still too hard. Yes, we have rpm and deb files, but regular users do not know about dependencies and stuff like that. They want to double-click on an icon and follow some simple procedures and have an icon on their desktop and on the start menu. Today, still many linux applications are installed and you have to add the icon manually. We really need the GNOME and KDE people to work on this together.
3. Make linux desktop options less complicated. It takes for a regular user hours to check on all bells and whistles that come with i.e. KDEs control panel. I still have to find a Windows user complaining about how simple and unpleasant the windows desktop is.
In few words, make the linux desktop experience really easy-easy for non-technical unexperienced users. They are who will decide who wins this war.
that attempts to dispells the myth that
"...that attempts to dispel the myth..."
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
A somewhat-quick glance at the article in question turned me off -- it looked worthless, certainly not something that even merits discussion here. But only the devil knows how stories get accepted on Slashdot because plenty of bullshit shows up and plenty of "news for nerds, stuff that matters" story submissions get rejected. The anti-establishment bias of Slashdot makes it a joke, rather than a resource -- sad, but I digress.
GNU/Linux? Well, here's some tidbits that can't be any worse than that piece-of-crap article...
a pay-ware program known as ndiswrapper
Since when does ndiswrapper cost money?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
If it's any more complicated than that then you don't have dhcp from a LAN router and Windows would've been just as hellish.
It's not hellish at all. Setting a manual IP takes about 20 seconds and is available from the standard network connection GUI. It's extremely straightforward. Granted, non-technical users maybe would have trouble, but I suppose Windows has some sort of GUI/Wizard for them. Note that grandparent is a technical user since he posts on Slashdot, I'm sure he'd be able to set a manual IP without any issues.
I've had lots of problems with Windows networking over the years, but the TCP/IP setup has always been a breeze. We'd often resort to using FTP over LAN because Windows file sharing didn't work like we wanted it to.
Further note that creating a DHCP server in Windows isn't exactly difficult either, it's done automatically if you enable Internet sharing. Administrating that DHCP server seems to be more difficult though, I've never stumbled upon it, and can't be assed to look for it, either. Setting up a HTTPD is easy enough if you use one of the many Apache/Win32 setup apps which basically do most of the work - again, administrating it is, well, as hard as administrating Apache is. The initial setup certainly was easier for me on Windows than on Linux, but that's partly because the Linux system didn't have APT or anything installed. I never used IIS, so I can't comment on how easy it is to set up.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
To wit:
Having dealt with giving Linux ( + kde ) to users with NO guidance as a test.. " here is something new, try it and tell me what you think ".. there are still usability issues.
Not that the job cant get done, as we all know it can be, but its not apparent to the *average* user that is used to windows.. Things are not in the same place, and often have strange names.. "where is internet explorer"....
Sure they can be trained, but that doesn't help maters.. It should be initiative and not need training....
Though I agree with other people, the biggest surprise people have is 'wow it comes with al this stuff for free', then get totally lost as there are TOO many choices.. 'which one do I use'...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not hellish at all. Setting a manual IP takes about 20 seconds and is available from the standard network connection GUI
/etc/hosts. You can edit it with your favorite text editor.
It's just as easy under Linux. It's in
The issue was somehow it took 4 hours to get a home LAN configured. I was trying to think of why this would be so. Turns out the user wanted filesharing and a firewall. iptables and samba both have a learning curve.
My biggest issue was that the OP mentioned calling a "networking guru". My point was "not much of a guru, then."
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I've never heard anyone say that Linux didn't have enough apps. Not enough good games, maybe. But the complaint regarding apps has almost always been centered around having so many apps come with each distro, that a newbie couldn't decide what to use/install.
-bZj
.sig
... kicked the living *ass* out of Windows. And that's in spite of the fact that she didn't have working email...
Precisely the sort of gibberish one is used to from Linux weenies. In English:
"This Linux thing didn't actually work, and Windows did actually work, but my religion tells me that Linux was still better, even if the end result was totally and utterly useless for the specified task."
(Email under Windows? Go find a free email client, whether Microsoft's or someone else's, who cares, download, install, It Just Works.)
The folks that annoy me are the ones too stupid to work out how to install one or other of them and complain it's too complicated. For fucks sake how easy do you need it? Look on it as an aptitude test. If you're too dumb to install it, you're too dumb to use it.
I was under the impression (told by others) that it works for 30 days, after which it doesn't work, or you get limited features, etc.
My specially ordered flux capacitor should arrive later this week.
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
Most users think Windows is superior, why? because the TV ads told them so; because the magazines told them so; because consumer reviews told them so. Linux does not have the same kind of marketing as Microsoft.
It doesn't matter which one is "actually" better, it's what the users "think" is better. And if the user "thinks" Windows is better, it would be difficult to convince him/her otherwise, even when presented with all the facts. (Same goes the other way around.)
I battle those who think "Windows is better" at work. My team and I have migrated most of the users from Windows (98/2000/XP) to Linux, and we created a desktop (based on GNOME) for each user, so that it will take them less time to launch the apps they need. We gave them web browser with pre-defined book marks (even included shoutcast). We gave them preconfigured gaim so they can chat with each other. We also created all kinds of custom scripts like a "Click Me To Restore Everything To Default" button, to restore their GNOME session back to default in case they accidentally screwed up their desktop settings. We even included as many Linux games as we can.
The "below-average" users actually felt comfortable about the new desktop envrionment. No clicking through the levels and levels of menus to find the program they want. No more worries about opening attachments to get infected with an virus (big bonus). They even got online radio with shoutcast, instant messaging, and prettier looking desktop. To them, this desktop is smaller, simplier, *prettier* (amazing how they rank this very high on their lists), and let's them do all the things they need to do at work (and more).
The ones who we are having problems with are those more experienced Windows users, who disklike the new desktop "because it's not Windows". We even sat down with some of them and listed out all the job functions they need to perform on the desktop, and proved that the new Linux desktop is more efficient than their own Windows XP desktop ("it took you 5 clicks in Windows to do Task ABC, now it only takes 3 clicks in Linux"). But they still bitch and whine and complain: "Why can't I install program X?" "Well, in Windows I used program ABC to do this, this program XYZ you gave me is different."
The worst part of all this is perhaps the lack of support from management. The managers enjoyed the "freedom" they had with Windows, when they were their own system administrators. And (I think) they absolutely hate the idea that now a lowly geek will have completely control over their latops.
But it's funny how most of these people don't oppose migrating to OSX. And I think it's because of all the Mac commercials on TV that had them convinced that Mac OSX is a good product.
Until we can get that kind of marketing for Linux, most users will still only believe in what Microsoft tells them, that "Windows is superior, and Linux sucks".
Sorry, I guess I must've confused it with DriverLoader by Linuxant, which does charge.
People will pay for a positive user experience. Linux applications for the most part do not live up to their windows counterparts in that aspect.
Most linux and software solutions are free, who cares? People will pay a premium for convenience. If you think for a minute you can think of dozens of products/services that make a profit just because they are convenient (pizza delivery, TIVO, Verizon's all-in-one cellphone/dsl/home phone plan, Windows, MS-Office, SUVs, etc etc etc)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again a thousand times if necessary: Focus on the user experience if you want to make a real dent in windows. Not only would people switch, but they'd be likely to pay for it too.
Which is all well and good, but it has nada to do with the only question that counts : When the user sits down to a)work b)play, is the machine and operating system -- as a single unit -- a) ready b) not ready ?
When I need to do my taxes, or prepare a resume, or edit my photos or whatever, I don't have the time or interest to listen to reasons why I can't do it with Linux. I could honestly care less. If I had a perfectly usable AmigaOS on board, whoopee. Still don't care.
The only thing that matters is can I get on with whatever I'm doing or not? Until the day comes when Linux ISN'T an obstacle to productivity and workflow, no one will use it except a very few.
I don't want to use windows, I want to do things. You guys want to use an operating system. Linux devotees need to learn that difference in intent. Most folks want to do things, and an operating system happens to be involved peripherally in that process. If the operating system presents enough problems that I even have to think about the OS at all, *that* is a problem.
That's for the Linuxant drivers.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
In two and a half years I have never seen that on my browser. Am I doing something right? Wrong? Unusual? This is through all the versions of moz including firebird, firefox, firebat, watermonkey, etc., on Windows, SuSE and Gentoo (Windowmaker in the case of both Linuces).
That's very strange that a problem would be common enough that 4 slashdotters instantly told me about it, yet I've never had it using the same softwaer.
All's true that is mistrusted
GIMP is completely worthless for the end user.
Horse dookie. Maybe it's useless for the person who'd shell out the bucks for Photoshop, but for the average PC user, it's just fine. Both my kids picked it up with practically no help from me while fairly young, and it was a lot less mature then. My daughter has done some production work in GIMP for a book we're about to publish, too.
She turned a bunch of other teens on to it. I've turned several engineers at work on to it. It's just fine for the average PC user, who doesn't need everything in PhotoShop, much less its cost.
Is it perfect? No. But what's the alternative for Windows that does as much as the GIMP, at anywhere near the cost?
Funny, Photoshop flat out DID NOT WORK on my Windows box. Gimp did. Gee, I'm a paint-shop pro fan myself and tried Photoshop and it just didn't work: it kept bombing out. I had to save every minute. The latest gimp is more "idiot friendly". I guess it's what you get used to. It's not fair to compare only after a few minutes use. You have to get used to it for a day or two. Then compare. When I used old Gimp and then went back to Paintshop pro I thought "Why can't I just right click ... this go to the menu is a pain". Exactly the opposite of what I thought when I went from paint shop pro to gimp!!!!
You use /etc/hosts to set up a manual IP? Manual IP as in assigning the computer's NIC a certain IP? I thought /etc/hosts was a way to manually associate names with IPs, in place of or overriding DNS. Doesn't ifconfig set up manual NIC IPs or something? I admit, it's been a while. =)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Perhaps it's not "linux's fault", but it is damn near impossible to find a wireless card that actually works with Linux and has the same chipset for more than a few months running. Twice now I've bought cards that were on HCL's that said they should have worked, and twice those cards' manufacturers had moved on to another chipset without changing the model number, leaving me with crap that I have to use ndiswrappers or similar with, assuming I can get it to work at all. It's my understanding that there are other areas of hardware support that are similar, though I have been lucky enough to not run across them.
To claim that "difficult to install" is a myth is to stick your head into a deep deep hole that it ought not be in. The fact is, for some classes of hardware it becomes extremely difficult for anyone who hasn't chased these problems for years to step up and "just do the install". If I gave something like this to my dad, he'd never get it done, and therefore it fails the "easy to install" test.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
C'mon , guys.
If you're trying to make the point that Windows and Linux are equivalent, they clearly aren't.
If you're trying assert that Windows is harder to use than Linux, you're wrong.
But that isn't really the point. Let's say you go out and buy a car. You have an obligation, because it's a machine that you are going to be using, to at least understand it's principal of operation. Let me say that again - "When you are using a piece of machinery, you have an obligation to understand the basic principal of it's operation".
The GUI and Windows has been dumbing down the average user for far too long. This leads to decreased productivity, apathy, and a sense that computers can't do very much for the average person.
When computers were first made available, people wanted to harness the power to do complex mathematical calculations on them, use them to control appliances, to tune their cars, to improve their lives in any way possible, in general, to push the envelope on what they could do. These days, 2 Billion Operations a Second buys you email with attachments, a simple web browser, and an office application on which all you really do is type and use the Spell Checker.
I agree that Linux probably isn't ready for prime-time, but I disagree on the definition of Prime-Time. To me, when users are harnessing the power of their hardware, they are adequately using their computer. And frankly, they stand a better chance of doing that with tools like sh and php then they do with VBA or Windows Scripting Host.
I have been using Mandrake since 9.1 and am currently running 10.0
My wife and children complain when I break it (doing stupid stuff) because they HATE using Windows XP now. They complain about speed, usability, and the fact that it cannot seem to keep a connection through my 802.11b USB. It also does not normally detect it the first time, and it has to be unplugged then plugged back in.
The only reason we even have Windows at all is because there are games that only run in Windows. For security reasons we only use Linux for email, web, etc.
I am quite certain my wife would have no trouble installing Linux, even though she has never actually seen me install it.
I actually think I want to have her do it now!
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
Windows is easy to install. Annoying as hell, because there's about 30 extra reboots before you've finished installing it, configuring networking, updating the service packs and critical security patches and the half a dozen standard applications that want to do a reboot after you install them because it makes them feel important. But it generally just goes in.
That hasn't been true for Linux in my experience. It does a good job of hand-holding, for most distros, but more things do seem to go wrong. That's not inherent in Linux, it's just that Linux doesn't have an army of engineers who spend all their time updating the HCL and making sure the stuff on it works. But it *is* a problem.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Linux IS difficult to install. So is Windows. The main advantage Windows has right now is that it comes preinstalled on almost every desktop or notebook sold. In my opinion, Window and Linux are actually pretty close right now in terms of desktop usability. Linux is much easier to develop software for. Windows has better support from hardware vendors. So really, at this point the deciding factor is: which OS are you used to using? The cost of retraining people from one to the other exceeds any benefits derived from switching.
Hum, just few weeks/months ago there was similar /. article on exactly same topic. Camoon guys - why are we discussing the SAME topic over and over again? Not like much has changed during past few weeks.
.
Face it - Linux is a DEVELOPER OS, written FOR the developers. Being a software developer myself, I prefer coding on Linux at any time because of better multi-tasking, better editors, better tools (grep, doxygen, scripts, and so on). Ok fine, they are ported to win32, but thats not the point.
Come back in few years and bring up the topic again to see how far Linux and Windows has evolved - preferably after Longhorn release. Now THEN would be a good time to compare again. But not every few weeks - its starting to sound like a teenager asking every day
Madcat.
I recently upgraded my motherboard and hard drive. Did a completely new install with XP (I won't mutter about the upgrade edition of XP). It took about 45 minutes, but spent several more hours installing and configuring various programs. I had a 4 gb HD in the box along with a 40 gb, so I tried to install my old Red Hat. It had issues with the hardware. So I got a copy of Mandrake 9.2. Installed and configured it. then decided to partition my 40 gb hard drive and reinstall linux. Then I had to get my cable modem to work, spent about 15 minutes doing that. In the space of 4 hours I completely installed and configured Linux, including eliminating all sorts of stuff that I was not interested in. And that includes down loading and installing Firefox, thunderbird, and other things that I prefer but do not come with either XP or Linux. I found Mandrake to be very easy to install, as easy, if not easier, than XP. And certainly faster for the install and extra apps that I like.
"Good point. It does mean that they aren't ready to be driven and maintained by your Aunt Minnie."
Unless Aunt Minnie has an interest in doing so. There is nothing stopping her. She does not need to learn how to overhaul and engine nor a new way of driving. Her current skills are sufficient.
"Or by most people for that matter."
Again, the only thing stopping them is the desire. They do not need to learn new skills.
"The average guy-on-the-street? Not a chance."
Only if you define "average" to be "not someone who wants to spend the time with a DeLorean".
If anyone has an interest to, they can. They do not need to learn new skills.
They are not restricted on which streets they can drive on.
It is only about marketshare and interest.
I had Debian installed and it was working great. Then after doing update once with deselect using all the standard options, my sound card and USB mouse stopped working. One of the packages wrecked a dependency and it took me days to find it. Moral of the story: Even on a computer with pre-installed Linux, users will have to do updates, and the same problems will come up. With all the service packs and apps upgrades on Windows, I never had this problem.
You use /etc/hosts to set up a manual IP?
/etc/hosts on each LAN machine (so that they can find each other without me running dhcpd) and (here's the hitch that I forgot) in the config file in /etc/network/something/something (depending upon distro).
/etc/hosts and it's possible to get away without doing anything in /etc/network if you're savvy enough to start dhclient out of /etc/rc3.d and alias in /etc/modules.conf. dhclient will take care of everything in that case.
You're right and I forgot something. To change the IP of one of my LAN machines I must change it in
If you're using dhcp off of a home LAN router then you don't need
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I had the same expreience as you 2 or 3 years ago with red hat 8, but I kept going and never gave up. Now I'm a happy gentoo user who will never switch back to windows. Oh and about the codecs, you compile (follow the instructions) mplayer with all codecs built in, then you _never_ have to install a codec again.. very nice indeed.
Ahhh...
Yet another user who blames Linux because he had a bad experience with some distro.
I remember when I first started off. It was Red Hat 8.X if I am not mistaken. I mucked the intallation so bad, I reinstalled it a few times. Then I got fed-up and installed ALL packages, yes, it did reach to a 3GB installation, but everything worked.
But to me, it was a learning phase. I have never used Red Hat ever again. I've moved from Mandrake to SuSE to Mandrake to at long last Gentoo now.
One distro does not reflect how Linux is. There are plenty of options out there. Be bold and explore! Find one that suites you. Rather than complaining about Red Hat, I moved on to a different distro.
I Love Linux, But I am a programmer like most of you. Linux in general is hard to install. RPM's help and are very quick and simple, if and only if they contain EVERYTHING you need. I have been trying to get video editing installed on my box- the IEEE 1394 Firewire card is recognised by the OS - great no problems- grab the rpm for KINO - install it -- missing another package - find rpm install, missing another rpm, no binary rpm available - need to build from source.... now the fun begins with missing libraries ......
I booted in to my win2K partition, downloaded the windows app and was editing in 15 minutes.
We as a community need to improve the packaging more than anything else. If I had installed 1 rpm to get the video editor to work I would never boot into win2k on that machine again....
PS Thanks to Rob Fisher for a great site http://www.robfisher.net/video/ pointing out the steps to get going.
... to get into Linux for years. I prefer laptops, and I've had a hard time trying to install it. I have so many different distribution CDs, some bought, some downloaded, but have never actually gotten a proper installation running. I used to have a Texas Instruments 570 CDT, but none of the installations could get the display hardware working properly. There was always this border on the edge of the screen, and it made me wonder where the missing pixels were being written to. Then I got a Toshiba Tecra 740 CDT. I actually bought a separate hard drive module so I could pull out the Windows installation and stick in a Linux one. But I never was able to get it to handle the display hardware on that one either. I still have that laptop lying around, so I tried again recently, but could only get it working with 256 colors rather than the thousands it is capable of. And it is too slow to handle KDE. The colors were screwed up in the window manager I tried using that wasn't too slow, presumably because it was rendering in a limited 256 color CLUT.
Now I have a Titanium Powerbook G4. I actually bought an external 80 gig firewire drive in the hopes of being able to install Linux on it and boot off of it by simply setting it as a startup disk. I bought a three button mouse as well. I don't want to use the dual boot method, because I'd like to be able to disconnect the external drive and have a clean OS X system. I don't know if the OS X startup disk system preference setting would handle that, though. I tried a PPC Knoppix Live CD, but it would get an error and wouldn't go into KDE. It went into a German command-line mode and the keyboard mapping was all messed up. A friend of mine tells me that I should use Debian, although someone else advised I try Mandrake instead because it is easier for newcomers. I think I'd prefer to have a Debian system, though, because I presume I could install the same applications available to other debian users if I compile from source. Or I could try a PC version under Virtual PC, but I'm waiting for Virtual PC 7 to come out first before getting it. That might be a bit slow, too.
Here is a list of the different versions I've tried to install through the years; Red Hat 5.2, a previous Redhat version before that, Corel Linux, Debian 3.0r0, Debian 3.0r1, Mandrake 9.0, a previous version of Mandrake before that, Libranet 2.8, Knoppix PPC, and Debian PPC (CD won't boot). I know that this wouldn't be a problem for someone who has experience with Linux, but I don't, and all the information about installing it that I find online is pretty daunting. I still really want to get into it.
If using a non-standard piece of software causes me to look dumb/incompetent even once because of an incompatibility, it is not worth the monetary savings over MS Office.
On a good Linux distro, none of these things are necessary. They usually come with firewalls pre-configured, the mail reader doesn't execute attachments, there are no real-world Linux viruses, and, while browsers do sometimes have security holes, they are rare and tend to be less severe than IE holes. Also, there is nothing like VB which infests every "productivity" application on Windows and also means that all these apps are vulnerable to VB viruses and malicious attachments.
So... it seems pretty clear that MS Windows is ready for a non-networked desktop. Buy the box, take it home, plug it into the power, turn it on and use it. But it's clearly not ready for networked desktop use, unless it's in a big corporation with professional network staff to keep the thing safe.
Linux is ready to turn on and plug in without any major worries.
Doubleclick setup.exe
Curse
Try disabling antivirus
doubleclick setup.exe
curse
download filemon and regmon from sysinternals
doubleclick setup.exe
analyze filemon and regmon output looking for errors.
curse
call Microsoft Tech support
Repeat until installation works....
Granted the above example is a little extreme (taken from experience regarding Visual Studio 6.0), but such problems exist on all systems.
In general I have found RPM and automake errors to be much more transparent than Windows Installer errors. In general, it is much easier for me to install software from source than it is for me to install binary apps on Windows.
Of course, it isn't that hard in any case. And many desktops don't give the users the ability to install programs willy-nilly. So this discussion is completely and totally irrelevant.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I've never set up a firewall on Linux and I am not sure there is an easy way to do so. But then again, it was never necessary as Linux is safe enough from silly worms and such as it is.
Basically, KDE comes with great samba client support, meaning you can connect and browse Windows shares easily. Having Linux serve as the samba server is much more difficult in my experience, but I have not tried to do this recently. Mostly I much-prefer Linux's desktop usability so I haven't tried setting it up to serve Windows clients.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do much good until it's used by a lot of groups. It needs to be stabilized and then it needs to be used. Maybe we can get Sourceforge people to use it as the official packaging system? :)
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The one big thing I still use Windows for is to run Visio. And I do some rather complex stuff with it at times, that simple drawing tools cannot compare to, such as programming my own shapes. Anyone have this for Linux (even commercial payware) or BSD?
And for those who are thinking of trying an exploit on me ... it's not connected to the net.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
...the stupidest argument ever. Period.
Use whatever OS, apps and hardware work for you on an individual basis.
If you dislike what someone else likes, to bad for you. Every human is different, with different needs. Diversity is necessary.
End of Story.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
Anyone claiming that GNU/Linux hasn't got an intuitive interface just needs to sit a preschooler down in front of it, they'll show them what to do.
Horseshit. I say again, HORSE SHIT! How can you possibly say that Windows is successful on the desktop because of its interface? It is successful because of its business practices, and because it has more-or-less been the ONLY game in town. It is what people know because there have been no other options for the PC. I am not a Mac person at all, but I understand why there are Mac people. To use Windows and Mac in the same sentence when discussing UI is insane. Windows XP is not any more usable that Win2k. In fact, I became so annoyed with the XP interface that I had to seek out how to make it behave like Win2k. And that was just because I was used to 2k. At home I use Linux, and love it. Not just because of what it stands for, but because I find it more usable. But I do totally different things at work and home. I use Linux for its positives, and despite its weaknesses. You want to use Windows, that's fine with me. But don't try to tell me that Windows earned its crown with innovation and technical merit.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I enjoy tinkering in linux, but there's just some stuf that doesn't work.
- I install gaim. No MSN support for my braindead ms messenger friends.
- I attempt to compile something with openGL. I then attempt to compile Mesa. I then attempt to not kick the computer.
- I try to get a volume widget in the taskbar. I end up with a 10-pixel-high (/exaggeration) widget.
- I install Mplayer. If mplayer is open and I try to open another vid file from Konq, mplayer freaks out.
It's not so much the major things in linux anymore, it's a smooth user experience that doesn't have some parts neatly ironed out and others barely working.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
The fact is, a Linux box would be perfect for your grandmother.
It can be configured to automatically log her in.
Other than that, nothing you've noted is any different in Linux than in Windows.
And even more disturbing, how many are going to try one, find that something didn't work and then tell all their friends they tried Linux and it sucked ass?
You arnt being serious, are you? Im not trolling, nor am I spouting lies. I am trying to provide constructive criticism here, and I am giving you as honest of a story as I can.
:P Somehow another player got associated with firefox, and trying to point it to mplayer became an incredible chore.
:(
Hell. I HATE MS. I dispise them. (I also recognize that w2k is a pretty good OS. Also one they dont sell anymore. If I was getting paid by MS, dont you think I would support something they still make money on? XP blows.)
Okay, so I neglected to mention that this was all on a celeron 400. Slow ass computer. _BUT_ w2k ran fine on it.
All of my statements are true. I suggest not reacting with denial and trying to improve linux. I want it to succeed, badly.
Drag and drop never worked properly or consistently. (sometimes a drag and drop into firefox would toss a url, but the page wouldnt load? other time i would get an error, other times nothing would happen)
I tried installing that package, but mplayer still wouldnt play everything I wanted it to. Mostly pornography. I admit it
Might I also add that i never figured out how to make firefox my default browser, or add it to menus. I could never get x-irc to work with firefox >_
You arnt helping, just living in geeky denial.
-sigh-
Why did i even reply to this?
no
A lot of the discussion going on here (and in the linked article) is of the form "Linux won't be ready for the desktop until it does X" or "Linux is ready for the desktop because it does all these things better than Windows.". This is all missing the point.
Yes, modern "end-user friendly" Linux distributions are pretty close to Windows in terms of usability, but that's not the point. Windows has infiltrated our culture. It has become synonymous with computing. It is assumed that if you have a computer, you're running Windows (or maybe a Mac if you live in a more liberal area).
The reason Mandrake (or Linspire, Xandros or others in that crowd) isn't good enough for Grandma isn't that the software is harder to use than Windows. It's that whenever she needs any kind of help or advice--be it from her ISP, her online banking tech support, the local computer shop, the kid down the street, the community college, mainstream books and all the other sources of information--it will always be Windows-centric.
Linux won't be ready for the desktop until the first response to a request for help is no longer "What version of Windows are you running?"
"If you aren't a paid up Microsoft stormtrooper, please do try to some research before making such blatantly erroneous statements."
If they were tools which were more widesrpead, there wouldn't be a problem. We need a solution which is distribution agnostic and available to all, not just Mandrake or SuSE users. The proper setup would allow install on any OS, and provider their own uninstall wrappers. No need for distribution specific support!
Autopackage has been suggested to me, and it looks cool. It's just that it's not 1) stable and 2) wide spread.
Saying that it's the users' fault they all don't use SuSE or Mandrake is like saying it's the users' fault that Microsoft products are insecure. Fix the product, and you notice the problems disapear.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Thanks for supporting my point.
It isn't that a DeLorean is NOT ready for anyone to drive it, it is that it is so rare that there aren't many people to SUPPORT the hardware.
Linux IS ready for the desktop.
But because of marketshare, not every hardware manufacturer will support it.
You do not need to learn new skills (with Linux or a DeLorean) to operate it.
Both are as capable as the alternatives (Windows or a Ford).
It's all down to marketshare. Linux has been ready for a while.
...for working Iraq into this thread! Sorry I don't have any.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
http://doc.vic.computerbank.org.au/user_support/au tologin/
Easily found by typing "KDE automatic login" into google. ibtiwtkagn
Administrating that DHCP server seems to be more difficult though, I've never stumbled upon it, and can't be assed to look for it, either. Setting up a HTTPD is easy enough if you use one of the many Apache/Win32 setup apps which basically do most of the work - again, administrating it is, well, as hard as administrating Apache is. The initial setup certainly was easier for me on Windows than on Linux, but that's partly because the Linux system didn't have APT or anything installed. I never used IIS, so I can't comment on how easy it is to set up.
Well, under Windows 2003 (the only one I have easy access to), they're both trivial. First, you have the "Manage This Server" wizard which can get you to whatever you need in about 30 seconds. Second... er, no, that covers it.
IIS is easy - you can set up things like a new virtual host just as quickly as you can in Apache. This from someone who's set up hundreds of sites in Apache and had never used IIS before in his life. What's more, the advanced options (after using the Wizard to set things up) are very accessible - I found out that I can do things like set bandwidth throttles per site. Can probably do that in Apache too, but I wouldn't know how.
It may (note: may) be harder to administer a large pool of Windows servers. But for a lot of folk just running a workgroup-level box, it can be surprisingly easy. And this is coming from a confirmed UNIX fan. If its as easy for me to do most of the common admin stuff on a new platform (Windows) as it is on the old standbys (UNIX), I'm assuming that its even easier for people who are more familiar with those servers. I'm not so sure that it would be as easy for a Windows guru to take charge of the average UNIX box.
Back to the other point. I - again, this is my first Windows server - could add an auto-dialed PPTP connection, enable sharing and NAT on it, and share it with the rest of the office lan. This was for remote connectivity to a client site. I'll be honest - I don't know how to do that on a Linux box. Could I find out? Probably. My point is though that I got it running in about 10 minutes on our Windows box, from a few hundred miles away, with no need to reference any documentation or external websites. Not too shabby.
But we're getting pretty off topic here.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
I suspect true question is 'why so little people switch to Linux desktop' (outside of /. crowd that is), not if Linux is ready for average desktop (because it is).
.config files)
Now I'll speak for myself: I tried switching to Linux 3 times during last 4 years and every time I come back to windows frustrated with linux for 2 reasons(I tried RH, SuSe, Slackware, but that is beyond the point here). I was frustrated because it took me forever to setup my box the way I like (no, I don't remember all the command line switches nor what goes and where in
Biggest reason is software or lack of it. 3DMAX, DreamWeaver, games. Some of sw has their linux equivalents but... those are available on windoze!
5 years ago reasons to use Linux were Apache, MySql,Perl, command line tools. Now I have Cygwin and all the above running great under win. Firefox is great and kills IE hands down, too.
My conclusion will sound like troll here: Open Source kills linux desktop; I have less and less reasons to boot to linux now then I had 4 years ago.
In the meantime windows got a lot more stable while Gnome and KDE got a lot more bloated and I had to get used to ctrl-alt-backspace.
Why would I advocate Linux on a desktop while I myself use windows then? (isn't that true for many slashdot readers...)
You're both an idiot and an asshat.
People who have different user experiences than you != FUD and lies.
"3 networked desktops at home - each up and running in half an hour."
Hmm, I didn't manage to get 3 networked desktops at home working in a half an hour, therefore I think you're getting payola from Linus Torvalds.
And they say you nerds are supposed to be smart.
There is something that's supposed to work like InstallShield -- autopackage. I haven't looked at it in detail, but it's very promising. It needs to be stable and distributed widely, though. That's not happened yet, but if it did, I think we'd see a greater move to Linux on the desktop. After all, once you have a system and can add and remove parts of it easily, you can really use the system :)
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Off the shelf eMachines box with whatever piece-of-crap video card it came with. I installed Windows XP: the screen was stuck at 640x480 until I found the card's manufacturer's site (emachines.com didn't help) and downloaded a driver. I installed SuSE: I could set the resolution up to 1280x1024 without having to do anything.
I don't think your average user has the time to download drivers and configure them. So, I know Windows XP isn't ready for *this* desktop, at least.
All's true that is mistrusted
I've been using linux for almost 8 years now. I was introduced to it the usual way: a friend came over with a slackware CD saying that if I was really tired of Windows and wanted something I could do with as I pleased, I should try this.
We're 8 years later now, and a lot of things have changed for linux. It's stepped out of geekdom and entered the corporate world, taking small steps at a time and the occasional leap. From a relatively small group of technologically very adept people, it has grown to become the new pet-OS of wannabe-geeks and even for a while Linux threatened to become a buzz-word for certain companies to shamelessly promote themselves on an IT market that had suffered a damaging blow.
Three years ago I was at a school that gave introduction courses in linux as a member of a jury for (pardon my bad English) practical final. I was judging several projects that were made during the course of 9 weeks of internships in companies, and over half of them were made using linux. Of the 10 groups that presented a linux project, only two of them were capable of presenting a flawless project.
What really got me at that moment was, that even though linux had come so far in those 5 years, many last year students hadn't even the faintest idea how their OS really worked. The argument most used for the use of linux was that it was free (as in beer), and someone even managed to blurt out that linux was actually a product from Sun. After three days of judging, I came to a startling conclusion. Many of the linux projects I had seen were dodgy at best, the students had very little grasp on the tools they used, and many webprojects failed to provide even the simplest security to their database as I happely added SQL on their URL and displayed lists of unencrypted passwords.
The Windows projects I saw however were a lot more solid. SQL Insertion failed on nearly every project, and most students were up to speed on the technologies they had used. Most of the Windows projects were finished, or nearly finished, while the linux projects seemed to have a lot of rough edges (in fact a girl actually told me : "Don't do that, that corrupts our database and we don't know why").
What does this have to do with Linux on the desktop, you might ask. Well, if 4 years of training in programming and networking hasn't even thaught you the simplest of hacks (SQL Insertion), and you're practically lost without a GUI to configure your networkcard (but manage to boast about your networking project), there is either a fundamental problem with your education or your unwillingness to use google. The truth behind it is "ease of use". MS Visual Studio comes with a bunch of tools in one package, a graphical XML schema editor, a graphical database management system, click-n-paint GUI creation, and to top it off each of those students gets 4 years of excessive training in all of those tools.
Linux on the other hand, has most (if not all) of these things, but students don't know them. Those that do have knowledge of these tools are often complaining that they ran into problems (again because of lack of training, or googling). Many have spent two days finding out how to install a certain program, and most just give up asking their supervisors for aid (which they often can't provide).
This is the problem with linux, and this is why the linux desktop will never be as succesfull as we hope it will be: our diversity in tools and lack of proper bundling. Distributions do a good job at providing us with defaults, but provide too much goodness. Most linux machines have at least 7 compilers and interpreters installed by default, 6 MP3 players, 10 office suites, and horror of horrors 2 desktop environments.
Teaching students all these things is an impossible task, and that's why they aren't prepared for the choices they have to make when they are going to actively use linux. And educating users on using office package A, while there exists at least one package for every letter of the alphabet each wi
My usb memory stick? Completely unreliable under Linux. Have to recover files under Windows.
The cheap bt848 video capture card is a beaut under vlc and xawtv. Stops Windows from booting, though.
Have Linux installed at your place in Amsterdam, for cheap
Wow Amazing. I was able to install linux and use it in under 2 hours on my machine (suse). I guess I must be a genious!. I never thought I was of above normal intelligence but after seeing how many people could not even install linux and get it working I am now convinced that I am super duper smart.
Whoo Hoo. I rule.
evil is as evil does
Once, down in the Mediterranean, I met this beautiful blonde woman at a church... Oh, sorry, never mind, I thought you were talking about the Holy Gail of Greeks.
Of why linux is not so bad.
Here are some features that I have a beef with linux over. Installing software. The article states that the user has not used add remove program. Well to install on windows you don't have to use "add remove program" to install some thing. You just double click and go. And this is true for most windows programs. Some linux programs are this easy but most are not.
Printing on Linux is just plain aweful. It's hard to set up, and most program will differ on how they print. It's not what you see is what you get when you print. Windows and Mac kill linux in this.
Consistancy. Copy and Paste in Linux drives me nuts. In some programs I will have to right click instead of ctrl-c / v to copy and paste. Other program like gvim have their own ways to copy and paste. Oh, to copy and paste to a termial window I have to shift-ctrl-c and shift-ctrl-v for it. Aweful. Oh, and if you copy and then close the program and try to paste into anther program your data is gone. On Windows, and Mac the data gets stored in a system clip board.
On diffrent versions of linux I have to go to the command line to mount my cd-rom. WTF? Computers should automate things that why we use them.
And that just a few things off the top of my head. However I only have to reboot linux when I move my computer. Monthes of up time is great.
I have used Linux for 6 years, now 100% so... base Mandrake/Redhat originally, but tried gentoo too! (all still on their own boxes, I might add and still use -> 1000 days (more now)). But never having looked or used SuSe or Debian (and others)...
:)
But Slackware 10 is truly excellent, and my cup of Linux
IMHO, XFree is what prevents Linux from becoming mainstream on the desktop, i mean, X is a kludge, slow, and prone to problems when used at a desktop , the kde/gnome/whatever people should seriously consider getting rid of X as the underlying layer and instead promote/invent/code a different layer that gets rid of the client/server features of X and focus on acceleration by using direct hardware access, like M$ did when moved the graphic driver into kernel space and WinNT graphic performance skyrocketed. Just to avoid getting flamed as a M$ lover, i administer a 50 server farm 95% of them running Gentoo Linux, and i hate Windoze , but i can't replace it on my desktop yet, it's simply not ready, surely GNOME/KDE looks gorgeous in comparation of WinXP, but the sad truth is that it's slow as hell.
News Flash: They already have!!! -pedestrian crossing
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
"Er, you didn't actually address any of my points."
That's because your points are irrelevent to my position.
"Sure, anyone can rent a DeLorean and move it around."
Exactly. They can even buy one and move it around. The SAME as they can with a more POPULAR car. Because "marketshare" != "ready".
"That's different than owning and maintaining it."
I can own it and never drive it. So owning it doesn't matter.
I can maintain one and never drive it. So maintaining it doesn't matter.
If I wanted to drive to the movies, is there anything about a DeLorean that would prevent me from doing so THE EXACT SAME AS I WOULD IN A FORD TAURUS?
No. There is not.
"Which I already said - anyone can use a Linux box if someone else sets it up and maintains it."
Welcome to the corporate world. I work in an IT department.
"That's hardly "ready for the desktop.""
If anyone can use it, then it is, by definition, "ready for the desktop".
Of course, MY view of the "desktop" is the corporate desktop. But there are others. It's just that the corporate desktop is the largest segment.
Linux is ill-suited to the power-gamer desktop or the person who purchases new or weird devices. But these are much smaller segments (compared to the corporate desktop).
"["]... Three myths are explored - that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps .""
::: what is your IQ?
::: do you know how, and are you willing to read and follow instructions?
::: how many apps have you helped to build?
being a linux user who has not seen a windows install boot up in more than a year, i can honestly say this. Linux is not harder to use, it is not difficult to install and nearly every app i can imagine is in working condition.
With that said, if you are a windows user with no experience what-so-ever on a linux (or any *nix) system. If you are considering the idea of moving to linux (and for whatever reason) be prepared to learn, and be prepared to unlearn some of those things you have been taught thru your unfortunate experience with microsoft products.
the problem with microsoft is that it makes things so apparently "easy" for the end user (think dumbed down) that when a problem does indeed occur the end user generally has absolutely no idea where to begin the task of fixing that problem. Instead, they generally rely upon 3rd party tech support to solve the problems or simply resort to wiping the problem away and starting fresh with a clean install. The caveat in this is that the end user in not able (or allowed) to view the source code from which the program runs. this creates a situation where the user is at the will of the company who produced the program (and sold it).
on the other hand.
Linux (and _all_ of its sourcecode) is wide open for debait and refinement by the greatest hackers and programmers in the WORLD. (even, perhapse some who work for microsoft.) And if a linux user discovers an area in the software that could/should be improved, often times all that is needed is the meer suggestion of the feature (and if it is a good suggestion, chances are just as good that you are likely to see such a feature implemented in a new release to follow. that is if the one to suggest the feature him/her-self is not skilled enough to implement the idea into the code.
my point being this: Linux has grown to become more than an operating system, it has become the flagship of freedom of information worldwide where virtualy anything, ANYTHING is possible.
is it "harder" to use?
is it "more difficult" to install?
does it have "enough apps"?
whats more, if you run windows (and software that runs under that environment), LEGALLY. how much money have you spent? because I can tell you (as a linux user) I have spent exactly $0.00 money on the software that I use [in linux] and im running a server!
all the support i need is on irc.freenode.net ##linux (and related channels) and regarding Slashdot Zelots i wouldnt doubt it a bit if this Annonymous Coward gets modded up to +5 Interesting, just because its honest (and the mods know this)
have a nice day (switch to linux)
this line is reserved for my sig if and when i decide to identify myself.
Until there's a real architectural CAD/BIM equal to ACAC/ADT/Revit or ArchiCAD, native, can't switch. Bummer.
My main desktop machine runs Windows for one reason alone: I need to run both Windows and Linux apps. I can run XFree86 on my Windows box and run linux apps on the linux box in the next room connected to my local display, but I can't do the opposite.
Sure, that's a deficiency in Windows rather than a deficiency in Linux, but that doesn't change the fact that I need to run two or three apps for which there is no linux version or acceptable alternative.
Aren't myths supposed to be something besides facts? As in, stories that aren't based on fact?
I understand how you feel. but please don't give up after one try. Most people who have used windows for a couple of years have a hard time adjusting to another way of thinking and doing things. When you start to understand the details of GNU/Linux you will be able to gain a whole new level of control that you will ever get with windows. If you are fed up with mandrake, try fedora, suse or libranet or whatever.. just don' give up :)
Perhaps it's not easy, but it can definetly be done, Good luck!
I'm very sick of the argument "Linux comes with an assload of software and all Windows has is a browser, notepad and solitaire".
I know this isn't an original point, but it's a good one... What would happen to your poor Linux distros is Microsoft was allowed to ship whatever they wanted (assuming they properly licensed what they didn't own themselves)? You'd all be screaming that we need to drag their asses into court that same day!
Give me a break... Do you think Linux would have ANY chance WHATSOEVER if Microsoft was allowed to ship Office, Visual Studio, Flight Simulator and, hmm, let's say Norton SystemWorks? Short answer, in case your blind zealotry keeps you from seeing straight: NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NO CHANCE.
Even if it didn't come bundled with PC's, which I don't think you could legally stop since an OEM could always just go buy Windows off the shelf and install it to their hearts' content, even if people had to install it themselves, Windows would still be king of the hill for a variety of other reasons (like a nice, clean, consistent user interface, like simplicity of software installation and removal, like the biggest software library out there as far the collection after you scrape away the crap software goes, and more).
Linux is great as a server platform. Actually, I take that back. It's not great, it's good. Seeing as how our IBM consultants are having trouble getting their own products to run on RedHat, and I've seen my share of Linux boxes crash for no apparent reason (and hardware issues were eliminated) and I've seen a number of Linux boxes not boot up again after a sudden power failure and WITH a journaled file system.
Linux on the desktop? No. Not now. Maybe never, maybe some day, but not now. I will offer one bit of advice that the community at large should take to heart if you ever really do want to challenge the leaders (not just Microsoft, I mean the application leaders as well)... Stop writing article after article about why Windows sucks and why Linux is better and start writing articles about what's wrong with Linux and how you can fix it, or just how you can improve it. Stop comparing Linux to Windows so damned much and judge it on it's own merits. Face the good (there's plenty of it) and the bad (just as plentiful) and stop the whining about how Microsoft competes in illegal or at best nasty ways and beat them at the game you all want to claim they can't play, that is, delivering the best solutions. Make the best software out there, and not just the best software as compared to Windows as judged by 15-year old whiz-kids, but the best products as judged by any neutral observer.
Do these things and you have a chance. Continue the crap your doing now, and forget it, you will be forever relegated to the nerd's OS and the back-office server platform that the geeks in the organizations want to run but the boys in the boardroom who write the checks will want to stay away from.
Harsh? Yes. Reality? Abso-fraggin'-lutely!
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I recently gave up on Open Office. The only part I really used was Writer, and that was okay. Mostly. As long as I only used it on my Windows box. Using it on my OSX biox was more pain than I want to remember. And that's not even accounting for the fact that the font rendering on OSX (X Windows, actually) is so hidiously ugly that it makes you want to gouge out your eyes.
I've switched to using simple word processors that use RTF files and got on with actually writing rather than fighting with the application.
The sad thing is that I really wanted to like OpenOffice. I used it for a long time. Hell, I even bought a caopy of Star Office back when it had that horrid unified desktop environment.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
... that would get moderated "Flamebait"?
It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na na na na na" when you don't want to hear something, isn't it.
It is a matter of what is "normal".
Do I think that computer users are smart enough not to run as root all the time? No, not in the current "frame of reference".
But that is artificial. Think chicken and egg. Not so many years ago, in Windows(TM) we were fiddling with memory management, config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc.
And that was NORMAL. If (big if), Linux was the dominant OS, then "don't run as root" would probably be the conventionaly accepted practice, and no one would blink about it.
Seriously, I cannot believe the lack of faith in what people will do to make their computers work, no matter how asinine! Think about how things were just 10 years ago...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
His Myth 1: Linux is just as easy to install as Windows. -- My mom can install Windows (without any help from me -- I just tell her "If you don't know what to do, just click Next" -- and when she's done, she has a fully functional OS. The linux installation experience is dramatically more complicated, and it's unlikely the end-product will work right if it was done by a novice (he pretty much admits this).
I installed Windows XP for the first time recently. It didn't talk to about 1/2 my HW until extensive banging around was performed. It still randomly locks up fairly regularly, even though it's running behind a firewall with virus and spyware checkers installed and up-to-date and all Windows patches.
Meanwhile, ever booted a Knoppix CD? I suppose it gets easier than that, but I don't know how. It generally autoconfigures all your hardware, and brings you up running Linux with zero questions. I do my Linux HD installs these days with its built-in HD installer---retains all the configuration it has found, so things just work.
Try this with your mom. For real. Go down to the store and buy a Fry's box that comes loaded with ThizLinux. Hand your mom that box and a Windows XP CD, and stay out of her way for a while. See what happens. I have a theory...
... Linux just works, doesn't it?
I run four Linux boxes at work, never let me down - the main web server (kernel 2.2.26) moves 1GB a day on local Intranet. And as you say, the only time needed for a reboot is when an third party motive is responsible (i.e. update kernel, power outage, etc.)
dlink dwl-122
We're using them on all our retail linux machines. USB keyfob.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
HA HA HA.. it is hell to install an app on linux.. rpm this find that... and here is their myth bustin comment
Myth #3: It's hard to install software
Writers who say it's hard to install applications obviously have a hard time find the "Install and remove software" option under Config -> Start menu, and decided not to learn how it is done but assume it is exactly the same as Windows. It's not, but it's just as easy.
YET they never go into tell someone like me HOW to make it easy..... so i am left with the idea that yea man... it is not easy... so a site gives me an rpm. what am i REALLY to do with that do i really need to rpm -Uvh *rpm and from there install all dependencies?!? lets saaaaaaaaay i want an easier way to install this rpm what is it? and will it work with ANY and EVERY distro.. probably not buahah.. go linux..
Myth1: BS. I'm a competent computer user. It took me nearly 6 hours the last time I did an XP system. Installing Windows usually goes something like this:
... etc ... etc.) ... reboot ... get some more ... reboot.
1. Put in Disk
2. Reboot
3. Format Harddrive
4. Reboot
5. License and file copy
6. Reboot
7. settings
8. Reboot
9. Install drivers you have from disks
10. Reboot (Reboot multiple times if you're a n00b since every driver tells you it has to reboot to work correctly!)
11. Go to windows update to install patches (pray you don't get 0wn3d just by getting on the net)
12. Monkey around with Windows update (This patch can't be installed with the other ones
13. Get some patches
14. Go back to windows update
15. Install Virus protection/ spyware protection
16. Reboot
17. Install Office
18. reboot
19. install office updates
20. reboot
Ad nausium until you finally get all your apps installed!
Fedora is
Language->Keyboard->Mouse->Partioning (automagic) -> Pick apps -> Copy files -> network settings -> software updates -> reboot.
The hardest part is picking the apps, but it will put them in categories and tell you all about them.
The Anti-Blog
Out of curiousity, what are they supposed to blame? The kernel itself? Are they supposed to blame their CD drive? Maybe the Internet did it?
The problem isn't that the user tried a 'bad' distro and didn't have a good experience... the problem is that there isn't a SINGLE distro for Linux that is easy altogether.
Comment of the year
It's too bad -- most modern distributions have nice user-friendly tools to set up file transfers between windows and linux. I'm using Fedora Core 2 and it's a snap to set the "workgroup", add users, and select a path to share. I'm sure Mandrake, SuSE, Xandros, and Linspire all have similar tools -- perhaps you were using an unfriendly distribution, or else your guru wasn't aware of the tools available to help you configure things.
And a tip for you: a firewall isn't as important on Linux as it is on Windows. On linux you just want to make sure that only the network services (programs that run in the backgroup to communicate with other computers) are running, which again all the distributions I am aware of have a handy front-end to that.
501 Not Implemented
Not really, you are both talking passed one another.
The point you are missing that he's trying to make is that Linx is "ready for the desktop" in terms of ease of use for a working install.
The point he's missing that you are trying to make is that you include GETTING to a working install and MAINTAINING a working install to be critical to your view of "ready for the desktop".
It's an important distinction, because I really feel like Linux is in a very odd position where it works GREAT for "Aunt Millies" and PHB level users and GREAT for expert users, but the true middle class of users has trouble. If you don't know anything, the kind of person who uses a Dell with little or no additional software, Linux is free and great. If someone else properly configures it, like Dell would do for that Windows box, Linux runs like a champ and is very easy to use.
It depends on your definition of "average user" and "ready for the desktop".
A point the article was making was that the "average user" doesn't have to install WinXP, it comes ready. If you give the same peron a Linux box ready to use they have no more problems, possibly less.
If they want to use:
Office
A browser
Email
Most of them would have absolutely no problem using Linux instead of Windows. In fact, I bet if you put an IE skin on Firefox and set up Crossover Office, and stuck a Windows bootimage over top of the start up stuff, you could convince a large number of them they WERE using Windows.
Never confuse volume with power.
I don't see how GNU/Linux could possibly be both "ready for the desktop" and the kind of system I would want to use. I don't want something easy to use. I don't want something with shiny a fisher-price GUI and hardware deccelerated anti-aliasing. I want something fast and powerful. I want a system that stays out of my way, and does what I tell it to. There's no way this could even remotely resemble the system for Joe lUser's Desktop.
.swx files. There are a bazillion file manager utilities out there, and I'm sure they can click click all they want until they finish. If they really want to leverage the benefits of running a *nix environment and get it all done in a single 200 character long command, however, they're going to have to use the CLI. There's no way around that.
While I agree that Linux-based apps and libraries need to standardize, I think we need to be cautious as to what standards we decide to use. By using standards we lose the flexibility that makes Linux systems so good today. Standard API's are relatively harmless, but other standardizations are more bothersome. Standardizing on the UI means that you have to get the GNOME and KDE people to agree on which order the buttons go -- but which way is right? Picking one over the other would alienate a lot of users, and there's no clear right or wrong. It's easy to think that standards will solve all our problems, but a lot harder to think of reasonable standards that work.
1. X is not bloated. Have you run X, by itself, with no window manager to hamper it, or even with a "light" window manager? It flies. The only speed problem I've had with X was that when I'm dragging windows around, the other apps freeze (because X is single threaded). I'll admit X is hard to deal with, but in most modern distros it works right out of the box on most hardware, so you don't have to mess with it.
2. Standardizing Window Management
There already is a standard:http://freedesktop.org/Standards/wm-spec
3. Almost all configuration changes can be made with a text editor. Click Click.
4. What isn't there a GUI version of? I mean, you can't really do one for 'sh', 'less', 'more', and 'cd', and I think all the other ones have been covered.
5. I personally am not waiting for the world to change. I will use what I want. If other people find Linux-based systems useful, more power to them. The only reason I might want more people to use Linux is for more hardware support, and since I consider that a pretty selfish reason, I don't think about it.
Here you say 'OS' when you mean 'Desktop Environment'. Don't confuse the two. The 'Desktop Environment' should provide a basic interface. Without some amazing AI, any attempts to actively help the user would be clippy all over again. It's better for the 'Desktop Environment' to be a passive entity that the user manipulates.
I'm not saying that you should know TCP/IP before using a web browser (you don't even need to know that to use lynx), so this is a strawman.
Secondly, no one "expects" people to learn the CLI to organize their pictures and
I dare you to design a GUI with as much flexibility of the CLI:
1. Automatically recognize new unfamiliar commands and their arguments, and integrate it into the GUI in a rational way.
2. Support the combination of innumerable unspecified commands and their arguments to perform an unspecified task (this may require a new paradigm, because pipes don't make much sense in the GUI world...)
3. Support basic programming constructs such as iteration and conditions, without alienating basic users.
3. Be fast and small.
Do all that and the Linux environment would become the most accessible system around, with all the power accessible to those without mad CLI skillz.
Myself, I don't think it's possible, so I'd rather stick with my shell scripts and 7331 645H 5K1775, and avoid the bloated, slow GUI stuff.
Windows still has no trouble demanding you dig out disks and install them and having few people complain. My particular device worked great on BOTH.
/mnt/camera. No dialog boxes or anything, but it would "just work" if I knew it was there. A little advance user knowledge and I put a symbolic link to /mnt/camera in my home directory. Now my wife easy plugs it in, turns it on, and the files are just there. It's not perfect, but it's not bad.
With mine, a Sony DSC-S75, WinXP had a clear advantage: I plug it in and turn it on and up pops a "Whatcha wanna do". Perfect.
On the flip side, Mandrake 10.0 and I don't even know what version of various usb modules I'm running because they were installed for me: I plug it in, turn it on, and it automatically mounts to
Never confuse volume with power.
This is all very interesting, and I'd love to run a similar test if I could get my hands on an "idiot user" as stated in the article for the amount of time it would take to load Linux and Windows just to watch them interact with the installers. But I'm going to call shenanigans on this line right here:
Case made, close the book -- hold on a second. This is another fatal flaw regarding comparisons. With Windows, you get an OS, a browser, email client, notepad application, and little else. Other applications may be added by the OEM (there's that magic OEM again), but the user generally has to acquire many additional applications to get a complete system that does everything he wants. By contrast, with my version of SUSE 9.0, I got 5 CDs with every application that I needed -- no trips to the computer store necessary.
Forget all the business about bottom lines and inferior closed-source products for a second. Microsoft spent years in court just for supplying a BROWSER with their operating system. What the hell kind of mess would they be in if they included alternative shells, office products, and other shit you see in some Linux distros?
My words exactly :) I've used some form of Linux since 1996 and have settled into it 100% from 1998 on. I'm just shocked that most people lack the mental capacity to handle the transition. But I give props to those who tried and failed. I could have easily been the same way since it was an early Slackware (which came on a shareware cd I picked up at a computer show :). That was a lot harder to install than say.... RedHat or Mandrake or Debian.
But I know Linux is ready for the desktop. IF IT COMES PRE-INSTALLED. I've installed it for my uncles and parents. They all use it exclusively now. And we share a laugh when there neighbors complain about the computer being down because of some virus.
--
CodeRed, the lower user #. No relation to SirCam.
The majority of desktops out there are supported by an IT department.
...
"The point he's missing that you are trying to make is that you include GETTING to a working install and MAINTAINING a working install to be critical to your view of "ready for the desktop"."
I haven't missed that. I've run Linux on Compaq EVO's, HP Vectra VL's and IBM laptops (all used at work).
Everything on those worked AUTOMATICALLY. In a CORPORATE environment, getting a working install is very, Very, VERY easy.
And maintaining Linux is easier than maintaining Windows.
"It's an important distinction, because I really feel like Linux is in a very odd position where it works GREAT for "Aunt Millies" and PHB level users and GREAT for expert users, but the true middle class of users has trouble."
Those are the users who are managing their own machines, right?
The problem is how you define "average". Like I pointed out, the majority of machines are managed by IT departments.
So the "average" person-in-the-street is not typing on the "average" computer.
Which is what I tried to illustrate with my DeLorean analogy. Just because something isn't "average" (very few DeLoreans on the road compared to Ford Taurus') does NOT mean that it isn't as capable and as easy to use as the "average".
"It depends on your definition of "average user" and "ready for the desktop"."
!!!BINGO!!!
"A point the article was making was that the "average user" doesn't have to install WinXP, it comes ready. If you give the same peron a Linux box ready to use they have no more problems, possibly less."
!!!BINGO^2!!!
In fact, 99%+ of the "reviews" I've read on Linux focus SOLELY on the installation. I believe that such is what the original author was refering to when he pointed out the problems with modems and wireless network cards.
"Most of them would have absolutely no problem using Linux instead of Windows. In fact, I bet if you put an IE skin on Firefox and set up Crossover Office, and stuck a Windows bootimage over top of the start up stuff, you could convince a large number of them they WERE using Windows."
!!!BINGO^2^2!!!
And when that is possible, how can it be said that Linux is NOT ready for the desktop ("corporate desktop" and "aunt Minnie")?
Thanks!
I think the "problem" we keep having is that different people understand the following terms differently:
"average PC"
"desktop"
"average user"
"ready for the desktop"
The things stopping linux from taking over aren't the above.
The main reasons linux will never take over the desktop are:
a) No major OEMs in their right minds will ship PCs with linux. (Dell, eMachines, being the two largest OEMs in the US) -- the average joe doesn't even know what linux is, he just wants his internet, email, p2p, and music.
b) Windows Power users won't use linux on the desktop because most people don't see the point in editing configs for the simplest tasks, when a simple checkbox will do in windows.
c) Corporations won't use linux on the desktop because it requires training and training requires money. Everyone and their mom has an MCSE certification, but not many people know linux. In addition, corporations and power users both tend to like standardization...which desktop environment do i use with X? KDE? GNOME? Something else?
d) Then there is also driver updates. Adding things like a new driver are generally a headache in linux or applications, most of which you either have to compile, or have to download specific packages for your system. Where as, one installer generally works on any windows platform in windows. The same app i can install in windows 95/NT or windows XP/longhorn, it makes no difference.
You can flame me and say i don't know what i'm talking about all you want...but the fact is, Microsoft is on top. Not Linux. If you were right and i was wrong, Linux would be on top. Plain and simple.
This sort of fanboi-ism is about as unconstructive as it gets, at best we end up wasting our breath in a sad attempt to gloat in our self-satisfaction.
But we really could be putting our energy somewhere else.
Quack, quack.
"sometimes a drag and drop into firefox would toss a url, but the page wouldnt load? other time i would get an error, other times nothing would happen" hint: get a three button mouse. highlight a url with the left button pressed down. you can then paste using the middle mouse button.
Honestly, I think many of the problems you experienced are due to paradigm shift. You've used Windows for a long time now, you expect (even subconsciously) that most things will work the same.
As an example, the default browser thing. There isn't one. Several programs and/or desktop systems might have a place where you can set, e.g. the default browser for all KDE apps - but that doesn't do anything for GAIM. If you wish to argue that it OUGHT to work that way, I won't argue it with you.
Drag 'n' drop works differently in different situations. Again, perhaps a flaw in the whole Gnome/KDE/Windowmaker/foo multiple desktop thing. Point is, there are many things which work differently. You may prefer the Windows way, believe that all of those choices made in Redmond are the correct ones; cool. However, you can't describe your issues as being "Linux is difficult"; only that "Linux doesn't work like Windows".
Might I ask if your network guru was a Unix guy, or a windows guy?
Good luck; fight the good fight.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
You must have a flavor of linux that doesn't deuglify the fonts for you. This was my experience before I fixed my fonts, now no problems with either program.
Right and when you get new hardware, plug it in, and restart, what does XP do? Hey, holy shit user, you have new hardware, we need drivers! Oh wait, we have them right here, no recompiles or modules need to be loaded. It's a digital camera you say? Wow, would you like to open the files on the camera and work with Photoshop or some random preloaded Windows software or would you like to save them to a directory on your HD?
You're damned lucky if that happened. Usually you need to actually install the software that comes with that camera, or you are relegated to the crappy XP program. Which isn't any better than the one that comes with Gnome, or whatever.
This conclusion is bogus. Basically all hardware works just fine with Windows. It's not the same for Linux. Give me a break.
As of when, the 2.0 kernel? Even slackware treated my sound card fine.
(I don't have time to figure out why my network cards aren't working under 2.6.x - odd that I have been running Linux for 10 years and I can't seem to get my configuration to work w/o thinking).
Yeah, that's odd. You using Caldera? I have to say, getting a computer on the network is the one place where Linux is so much more easy than XP it isn't funny. I have literally spent hours trying to get windows boxes to see each other on a network to no avail, and I've never had to trouble myself in Linux.
This is just the reason that it is not ready for the desktop. When people start realizing that you can't fix problems by putting a program fix solution of slashdot, then the desktop may start getting somewhere. The solutions HAVE to be built in so that the non-techie user does not have to learn how to enter code.
Well, that is just what we do. We are 4 sysadmins in one office, with 4 windows boxens (administering a Novell/WinXP network).
If we want to share files, we do have some shared network drives, but they take up space on the server, and we sometimes have biig files...
So, we also each have ~80 GB local ide drives... and a filezilla server, because it just is the easiest way to do it. Shared drives and stuff never really worked. But getting an ftp server (and for convenience we set them all up with the same users/pass combinations) on each box just works for some years now.
Does not really show that Linux is better than Windows, but certainly that out-of-the-box or the-way-you-should-do-it solutions often don't work, but the simple ones with a little tinkering do. YMMV.
We can bash MS all day, but the perception is that the new kid is doing it wrong. Perhaps the view menu should have an option of "adhere to standards" or "compatible with IE". Yeh, I know that gives bloated software, but sometimes you have to play the same game.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans." still has a lot of meaning.
Bleh. I know better than that IE was the first browser. I apologize for stating things in a manner that suggested otherwise. I had Firefox on my mind because I was trying to convert some friends to it recently after I'd already converted myself. And while Firefox is based on earlier Netscape browsers as far as I understand, I tend to see it as its own product. IE has had its chance to worm its way into peoples' minds. And, for better or worse, it proved itself as a browser for years. I liked Netscape Navigator, but IE worked better, at least for me. And, well, which one stuck around? Since Netscape kind of dropped out, Microsoft hasn't bothered updating IE, so it's been passed up by Firefox and Opera (and probably a dozen others I barely know) which I feel have become serious competitors. However, at the core of it, we're dealing with the fact that people are used to how IE works, wrong as it is. And I don't think we're going to have much luck converting them within existing formats.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
What an excellent opinion to which I agree. I don't want to slam linux. I don't want to slam windows. I for one certainly can't wait for the day until there is an operating system which can compete with windows. With 7 machines in the house, 5 windows, 2 linux, we have a clue as to what's what. Time and again, it takes forever to get something up and running on Linux. Rarely does it take longer than 10 minutes on windows. Plenty of spyware filters, firewalls, and so I have to keep my patches updated. What the hey. Eventually, Linux will get the support from the hard/software manufacturers. Then hey, maybe we'll switch them all over... But not until then.
A large variety of useful applications are simply not available from Microsoft (so there goes windowsupdate).
Windowsupdate will get me new software if I happen to *only ever* use Microsoft software. Even this its useless.
This is what I had to do to get Microsoft Office for ONE computer:
Telephone 4 different suppliers for quotes.
Find out that there are loads of different versions.
Have a meeting about which one we can afford
Get Supplies to raise a purchase order
Get the directors to sign off the spend
Place the order
Get told they don't have any in stock, and so go to the second supplier
Re-do the purchase order
Place the order
Wait 4 days for the software to arrive
Find that you need "administrator" access to load the software
Schedule IT Support to come and install the software for me
Reboot several times, meaning I have to stop all my other work
Find that we also need to update the software as it is riddled with bugs
Get IT Support in again to provide the software updates
Reboot multiple times again
(good, it works)
Next topic: configuration
My biggest complaint against Windows on the desktop is the extreme absurdity of some types of configuration. My Windows workstation is my work machine, and so it has to do things like run IIS with Perl.
Well... Installing IIS turned out to be a real pain. Again we had to go through the whole procedure of getting IT in, finding the CD, rebooting, etc, etc.
Configuring the thing was also hard. It requires Perl, but that doesn't come with Windows, so I had to go and get Active State Perl. Of course, I can't do anything as a user, so yet again I have to schedule IT to come and work on my PC.
My point? Windows on the desktop is a freaking toy until a user can do everything they need to without having to get IT in and use Administrator privileges.
This includes installing software, configuring the machine, and running applications.
Incidentally, Windows crashes at least once a day, sometimes more. I've lost count of the number of times it has gone down because it has to be rebooted by IT.
Linux crashes? Can't say I've noticed any. I checked the uptime on our DNS server and it was 253 days.
And the Windows GUI is still freakishly slow, and everything is freakishly huge with hideous colours. I run at 1024x768 on Windows, 1600x1200 on Linux, and still the Linux desktop is more responsive, and everything is more intuitive.
One last little whine: I have approximately 10% success rate with software that can allegedly be installed without Administrator privileges.
More often than not there is no indication that some has gone wrong, it just doesn't work.
And I'm really freakin sick of you Windows junkies telling me that Windows is so easy that anyone can use it.
So what if my mum uses Linux and puts the photo cd into the drive? If she's lucky the thing will show up on the desktop. Now she want's to start the program which comes on every photo cd to present here all the photos. It does not run on Linux. Not ready.
What if she buys e.g. an iRiver. She plugs it into the computer and Linux does nothing. There are no drivers. No Musikmanager. Not ready.
Remember: You guys can solve those problems the normal guy who has problems to use windows will not be able to. Stop talking about this desktop ready nonsens! It's not about Office and Internet! It's about going into the shop and get support. If every hardware and software company brings us drivers and software for Linux then we can talk again. And that will not happen. I don't think that's great but that's it. The Mac is 1000 times more desktop ready the Linux and has the same problem. The companies do not have to make drivers for 10% market share and they will not. It's all about money and Windows comes with the computer or you neighbour got a copy of it. You all know it, stop talking. Start working for those companies and maybe in 10 years Linux is an alternative.
Setting a margin = 0 for form elements is something that should be done by the person writing markup for the page, not the end user, although with custom style sheets you could do this your self.
The original poster was complaining about gecko adding white space around form elements and wanted to know if there was a fix
Sorry, this is an erroneous claim. Microsoft is known for purposefully breaking compatability with standards to foster just such appearances. If the mozilla team went out of there way to "comply with IE", than the next patch would simply change the rules. Case in point: MSN displaying a different, purposely broken page if a non IE browser was detected. . .remember that one?
1. Wait awhile longer, until distro's start saying that the command line is dead :). Actually you can get a lot done without having to use it anymore, I expect this trend to continue.
:).
2. Different distro's use different tools and layouts, may I suggest trying the SuSE 9.1 Live CD? That way you don't have to re-install everying and get a feel for it. Think of it as a demo
3. Why did the LAN take so long to fix up? Takes me seconds to type in the relevant info.
Now, if I wanted to install XP, first I have to be paranoid about hosing my Linux partition.
If you wanted to install Windows XP, you could pay the OEM to install it on a new cheap second computer and make sure it Just Works(tm) before shipping the computer to your doorstep. The point of the article is that the big name OEMs offer to do this only for Windows and not for GNU/Linux.
I understand the lack of default browser, but I couldnt figure out how to get xirc links to load w/ firefox instead of mozilla.
Drag and drop worked differently for every application i used. Sometimes it would simply put a file location/url into the toolbar, other times it would play/run the file. This needs to be consistent.
Gaim is actually one of the programs I have few problems with. I plan on using it, and xirc, and firefox, when i move back to w2k... heck, i was before i tried out linux.
Actually, one of the most annoying problems for me was my non-willingness to learn unix. Other then very simple navigational commands, I dont know much of it. Frankly, returning to the days of command lines scares the crap out of me. I just dont have the time or patience to deal with it anymore. (26, job, home, business, laziness and other such excuses. yay.)
I Wish I had mod points, so I could mod you insightful.
Oh, and for the record, my guy does both unix, linux and windows networking for the local public schools.
no
You're still missing something. The dude you're talking to wants to set up a static IP manually, on the client... ie, not use dhcp.
Try Powertools for Windows XP
3rd from the bottom: Virtual Desktop Manager:
Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
Karma whoring
I also recognize that w2k is a pretty good OS. [...] XP blows.
Man, am I ever sick of seeing this. It is not possible to think that 2k is great while XP is crap. They're the SAME fucking THING.
Every time I ask someone to back up this claim, they disappear, poof, like magic, or whinge about something that could be changed forever in one operation,
like the Fisher Price interface.
So come on, be a man and back up your assertion. Why does XP blow?
As for the rest, well, I agree with you - linux is quirky and hard to get used to after a lifetime of Microsoft OS's. It's not bad, in fact once you've learnt more about it you'll wonder how you ever did without it, but it does need a "gearshift" in your brain, not to mention a whole heap of learning. Everyone says Windows is easy and intuitive, but they're selectively forgetting the many years they've put into learning the quirks and behaviours of the systems.
I recommend installing a bare Debian system and tinkering/apt-getting your way to the functionality you want. It's sometimes frustrating trying to find the right info, but it gets you used to the system without needing to jump right in at the "configure; make" end (although some might argue that you would learn more that way...).
The LAST thing I would ever recommend is that someone start with a "fully functional" GUI distro - you don't learn anything about how the system works that way, because the GUIs are all set up to be like Windows, but the innards are nothing like it. Eventually the mental model you build from the GUI and the model actually used by the system have diverged so much, you get confused (and angry) because the nothing works like you wanted.
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
First, most of this argument is moot given the availability of Win4Lin and Crossover Office.
However, it seems that there is a complaint regarding which applications are better. Here is my $0.02 worth.
Mozilla v. IE.
Mozilla is far more secure, provides better features, is more standards complient, and renders web pages over a dial-up connection faster than IE. However, due to its innovative architecture (XML UI's with Javascript for scripting), it tends to be a little large, and sometimes feel unresponsive when compared to IE. In general though, I tend to prefer Mozilla to IE and most of my customers of various technical aptitude levels do as well. There are a few who need IE-only web sites, and that is understandable for now.
MS Office vs. OpenOffice 1.1.
MS Office has a slight lead here. However, most businesses can get along just fine with OpenOffice and Linux. Very occasionally there is a document which was done as a Word Document with TONS of OLE when it would have been much nicer as a PDF. These don't work on Linux because Linux doesn't support Microsoft's OLE. Oh well.
However, reviewing the roadmap for the next version of OpenOffice (codename Q) and MS office, I think they will be neck in neck at that point.
Application not covered: Gnumeric vs. Excel.
Gnumeric does not support pivot tables, but is generally the most advanced spreadsheet I have seen. In general, it is probably more advanced than Excel.
Quicken and MS Money vs GnuCash:
In general this is the most common complaint that I hear-- a lack of decent personal finance software available on Linux. Fair complaint. Of course, not that many people use this sort of software at the moment, and I hear the same complaints directed at MS Money and Quicken, but the general concensus is that GnuCash is not as useable as these other products. Is it good enough? Are these complaints mere culture shock? I don't know. I keep track of my business books using SQL-Ledger which I like a lot, and my wife manages the personal finances. She does it by hand and without a computer program.
App Not Mentioned: SQL-Ledger vs. Quickbooks
These business accounting packages have nearly the same functionality. So far, I like SQL-Ledger far better than MS Money Small Business Edition, and it is more flexible than Quickbooks. Its major drawback at the moment is the lack of a payroll module.
App Not Mentioned: Outlook vs Evolution
Evolution is better in general.
App not mentioned: Outlook vs. Mozilla with calendar
Outlook provides better integration, but the Mozilla Calendar UI is really nice. We need an integrated client there though.
Games Availability: Valid point. Not many commercial games are available for Linux. Yet. However, there are endless games such as Tuxracer, etc. and a number of commercial ones such as Rune. Transgaming's WineX supports a wide range of games.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
As usual, the matter revolves around browser/office/mailer/joeuseraverageapps. Think the world as a whole revolves around that? Think again. Different users, different needs.
"The GIMP - Never used, nor now do I need Photoshop."
Well, sorry to burst yer bublle, but i do. And so do do hundreds of graphic related professionals.
And sorry, but GIMP doesnt cut it. I know, i use GIMP for other stuff. Photoshop isnt king of the hill on hype, its on merit.
And Video work??? Cinelerra might do it in the long run, but its gona take a few more revs.
3D work? Hmmm, there are a few apps... But dont mention POV plz... Blender maybe...
Just because gfx pros arent "your average joe user" doesnt mean we dont work for a living. And we need the apps to get work done. Get Photoshop for Linux and you MIGHT convert a few.
And hardware support??? Usually it takes ages for Linux to get drivers for the new whizzbang scanner i bought (and paid good bucks) to increase quality. Heck, SANE doesnt even have proper support for my 6/7 year old former scanner nevermind the new one.
So, dig your collective heads out of the sand. As far as gfx users go, Linux stands to Windows more or less as Win3.0 stood to MacOS once. Nice OS, no apps, no drivers.
Btw, this post is being written in Firefox, running on an XP box, and before it hits the net, it will go through a Slack10 box that serves as Router/Webserver and wich i rigged up myself (as i did all my boxes). I work as part-time tech support and part-time gfx artist.
I dont really care wich OS i use as long as it has the apps i need. I dont care about how good an OS is if it DOESNT have the apps i need.
Users arent usually OSCentric, they are APPCentric. Unless they are zealots, either *nix or *indows veriety.
Same experience here... It was a matter of finding the right distribution, which I happen to think is Debian. Now I use it daily. I must have installed it 20 times before I got it right. I finally learned to use jigdo to download sarge (i.e., testing), burn the iso, and then NOT to hit return at the boot prompt. Instead, type "linux26" to get the 2.6 kernel. It handles hardware detection immaculately. Now, its comical how easy everything is.
.bashrc, and add a line such as:
A few points with Debian:
Be very selective about what packages you install. Use dselect with caution, updating required packages only and then carefully examining the individual packages.
Search for existing packages with the following command:
apt-cache search [package-name or keyword]
A nice list will result. You can direct the output to a file as follows:
apt-cache search [package-name or keyword] > file.txt
Then search the file for interesting packages.
Use foomatic and cups for printing (search for appropriate packages).
To play around with your desktop settings, use the following:
dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86
Be careful, though, to remember what your settings are before changing them. Biggest performance boosts come from changing from the Vesa driver to the one that matches your card (e.g., Savage, Nvidia).
Configure your console to your liking. Suggest changing the font to Courier 12pt or higher, with a black background and white text. Save your settings as the default.
To change your paths, edit the file
export PATH="/usr/bin/ActiveTcl/bin/:$PATH"
In the above example, ActiveState's wish8.4 and tclsh8.4 will be automatically found on the command line.
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
because it wont run on my c400.
no
I agree. Most people who can type have no intrinisic problems with the command line (especially if you print the commands out using a fixed-width font so that they don't drop a space here or there). In my opinion the biggest problem is GUI tools that seem to work but doesn't sometimes, while corresponding CLI tools (which these GUI tools usually build upon, such as ifconfig) are often much more mature and reliable, and gives meaningful error messages.
The author is not trying to minimize your needs, he's evaluating from the only point of view he has, his own. It's not POSSIBLE to present a full picture given the astronomical number of things and programs that different people use. Every user is different and there will be no single moment when linux suddenly becomes "ready for the desktop". It will happen at different times for different users. It's never going to be "just like windows", there will be some differences (just look how windows has changed) simply because it IS different. The question is will the user be able to adjust and do their stuff and will it be worth the switching costs?
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I guess you guys aren't using SuSE. Setting up networking and file sharing to windows in SuSE is braindead easy with its wizards in YaST. All I need to do to share files and printers is YaST -> Network Services -> Samba Server. It then installs samba, then brings up the wizard for configuring its settings. I then choose "Enable Samba Server" and tell it what type of sharing I want to do and my computer's domain or workgroup to be then hit "Next." It then has two checkboxes. One says to "Share Homes" which shares home directories, the other says to "Share Printers" which shares any printer you setup. If all I wanted to do is share my user's homedirs and my printer(s), I just hit "finish" Allowing a user to login to their homedir share does still require the command line to run "smbpasswd" and add the user and set their password in samba's user/password database.
For me, connecting to my own LAN just worked out of the box in SuSE on its first boot in its Network Device Configuration wizard.
I've been a Linux desktop guy for almost 10 years, and I've worked my way through a few different distributions. While I'm willing to do what it takes to get up and running, I do not for one second think even two percent of Windows users could be bothered to work out the kinks - - even assuming they had a clue as to how to go about it. I'll give you one example related to SuSE 9.1: the SNAFU that is the new "subfs" mounting system. It just doesn't work, so the user has no clue how to mount a floppy disk, cdrom, etc. If you go to the SuSE knowledge base, you can eventually find your way to an entry concerning
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Have you ever installed windows yourself instead of using the preinstalled version? I has a machine at work with a "designed for windows 2000" sticker on it. No harddrive or RAM, but I found some that would fit from other machines. Grabbed my MSDN win2000 CD and went at it. Well I got windows installed. No network, and 640x480 display. I had to pry the heatsink off the northbridge to find the correct numbers, which then a google search found drivers.
Could your grandma do that? Mine can't either, so I guess our grandma's cannot install windows either!
Contrast that with linux. I bought a wifi card, and got a message to the effect of: linux as detected a foo card, which is known not to work well, try visiting this website for help. In other words linux was smart enough to know something didn't work!
Seriously, Linux may have friendier installs in comparison to older Linux.. but compared to Windows which one is harder to install? Linux may be easier to use now than older Linux.. but easier to use than windows? Nope, sorry. Is it better? Security wise, stability wise, and over all quality wise, I'd say yes. But the ease of use hasn't reached Windows, and possibly never will if only because the Linux folk seem to hate the idea of 'dumbing it down'. Thats all fine and good, but don't refuse to dumb it down on one hand.. then claim perfect ease of use on the other. The argument goes basically, "I tried to install Linux and . Therefore Linux is hard and not ready." * My modem was not detected * Wi-Fi networking was not configured * There was no hardware acceleration with the generic onboard $9 video chipset * I could not understand how to partition a drive All of these are valid concerns, and often frustrating, but they fail to make the case against desktop Linux, because they fail to compare apples to apples. When you buy a new PC, Windows comes pre-installed on it. You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you. Even when you give a user the Windows XP CD to install, he is already ahead of the game in that he knows the OEM already configured the hardware to work with XP. I build computers as a hobby. I'm not very good at it. However, when installing windows XP, I have NO problems. None. With Linux, I do. Ease of use problem. The next part compares instaling Mandrake with installing Windows 2000 Pro. He even said he should have used XP, but didn't have a copy. By his own admission, it's invalad for the purpose of "is Linux harder than Windows". I'm not saying you cant run a Linux instal without a hitch. But between Windows and Linux, Linux is far more likely to not detect your hardware. I DO agree that its a myth that theres any kind of lack of software for Linux. I find that after the instal, I typically have just about everything I'll ever need.
If win2k will, so will XP. That's not a reason.
As a gamer I fail to see any advantages Linux has over Windows.
Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
I run XP mostly and I have never seen a BSOD on my box since the install 11 months ago. Not one single crash. The machine has run for several months at a time without a reboot. The answer? Have you ever installed a non-WHQL driver (ie. non-MS certified) on your system? If you answer yes, then you crashes are very likely due to your video driver or some other 3rd party vendor who refuses to certify because their drivers aren't solid enough to pass. If you ever see the "this isn't certified" warning message when you install a device, then your stability is AT RISK from that point forward. In 90% of the PCs that crash, this is the problem. I chuckle when people say "But I got the latest driver from ATI!". The LATEST drivers are nearly NEVER certified, and some never do (and from my experience ATI and Nvidia both have issues). Only use the "latest" drivers that come off of WindowsUpdate, or have been certified and come from the manufacturer. This does mean that some devices just should not be installed until they certify, but Joe User will ignore the warning and do it anyway, and then bitch for a year about how his system is unstable. Education is important. Don't be a noob and install junk on your system, it will destabilize it!
You will not find a more willing computer user then me. Im serious. I WANT TO USE LINUX. But it just _sucks_ usability-wise compared to windows 2000.
If that were true, you would be spending time finding answers to your linux questions, instead of whining about it on slashdot. Linux DOES NOT suck. Your attention span does.
MS is the defacto standard. It is like driving on the left or driving on the right. It doesn't matter where your car was made. Visit the USVI and see.
Linux crashes? Can't say I've noticed any. I checked the uptime on our DNS server and it was 253 days.
So you are going to tell me that you can compare uptime on a box that you use as your desktop, install zillions of apps, with a box that stand somewhere and receive DNS queries for all activity.
Well, interesting objectivity. If I start my webserver and let my Win2k box in the shadow, my uptime could potentially be infinite. Same as for Linux.
Let's try to compare comparable things over here, will we?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I am already sick of all of those so called Linux Desktop "Myths." Here I am, sitting in front of my Linux desktop. Does it make me some king of a mythical hero or what? (Oooh, I want to be just like Achilles! And get all of those chicks to! Not, that I don't-- ah, never mind.)
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I just upgraded my fedora core1 machine to core2 using yum - had one line I had to comment out of the XF86Config file and that was it - and that was just spitting out a message everything still worked and I didn't have to touch a cd.
try doing that with windows -
I wish I had the time to play all the games that supposedly work on windows only - I don't have a windows machine and never will go back - Billy got my last dime from me buying windows 95.
Linux answers all my needs and I just forget about and get my work done -
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, these days Linux IS Windows. I'm happily running Mandrake 10. Great GUI. Installed in a flash. Picked up all my hardware no probs - network card, sound system, monitor, printer etc. And it takes a good while to boot now too. And between urpmi, the occassional program that seems to autoinstall, and reading minimal README's, even an idjit such as I seem to be able to get by. As for openoffice not handline MS office docs, that's technically true, but not functionally true. I ran opensource programs on Windows to acclimatize myself before switching completely to linux and had (and continue to have) absolutely 0 problems. For 95% of office users,opens source programs available under linux perform indistinguishably from and are compatable with the MS world. I've been running linux as my business computer for about a year now and I have had zero problems interfacing with my customers. Of the few incompatibilities that exist, most are nothing that a normal office user would ever see. Besides, there are still plenty of people using Wordperfect (with the same compatibility probs) without any big problem.
Life Insurance in Canada
Just because a distro comes "with 5 discs, loaded with every app I ever needed" doesn't mean those apps are quality/useful/feature rich/etc. I mean, c'mon. That's like saying PC Chips motherboards are better than Asus if the PC Chips motherboard comes with Betrayal At Krondor on floppy and AOL 3.0 and the Asus doesn't. Not to knock distros or tout Windows, but that was really not a good way to compare. Yes, Windows DOESN'T come with as many apps, but maybe the people at Windows don't want to waste time throwing a bunch of crappy apps into their OS just to say they did, not to mention they don't need to do that to sell their OS. Don't get me wrong, not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out that extra apps do not a better OS make. The OS is what makes a good OS, not the add-ons. (/begin slashdotters posting jokes about Windows being the crappy app) Anyway, just my two cents. BTW, this IS America (where I'm typing this) and I AM entitled to voice my opinion WITHOUT ridicule. So flame on, retort it up, touche to all.
Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.
The most recent WHQL signed driver for my video card won't work at all on many of my games. And these are OLD games, not cutting edge ones. To fix it, I had to upgrade to a newer, unsigned driver.
Every time I run Windows Update it suggests installing the buggy driver. Thanks, but no.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
my linux workstation has a 27 day uptime right now, and its only that low because I've had so many power outages lately. If it wasn't for the power going out the last time i needed to reboot was lets see I believe it was about 6 months when I felt like upgrading my kernel.
Besides since when is just accessing DNS queries a simple process? depending on what kind of dns server your running, it's got to load all the domains into memory, reload them when they've been updated, write logs to disk which can be very frequent, I'm getting around 2,000 requests per minutes on one of my DNS servers, plus handle all of those connections (well I guess they aren't usually connections since most dns is done via udp). Sure the load could be a LOT worse, but hey, I used to have a windows 2K server that pretty much just sat there, no one would ever connect to it, and it would usually hang about every 100 days.
Isn't it just a case of publishing the specs
It's a matter of trying to politely bitch in the manufacturer's general direction, often for years, until the manufacturer agrees to publish such specs.
ESPN.com is made as a joint venture of Disney and Microsoft, both sworn enemies of Free works of authorship. It figures that ESPN.com developers would most likely not frequently test their code on a Free web browser, leading to artifacts as you describe.
Instead your instruction was in the form of a simple line of code which most people would not be able to do because they are not fimiliar with computer languages of any kind.
and that is the point I was making. Many slashdotters knew exactly what you said. 99.9 percent of the overall population of computer users would have no idea about inserting a command somewhere. Linux has to have a desktop that is intuitively written and not too different from the Windows menu system.
By far, the easiest part was actually getting it to install. Mandrake has a fantastic install, and i commend them on that.
Installing Mandrake was your first mistake.
I know how I'll be modded for this one but its no myth. Linux is simply not ready for the desktop of grandmother Jones and Peggy the office girl just yet. (Mind you I'd argue XP is barely ready for the desktop either, since its buggy and configuration isn't obvious to a non-techy user. But honestly how many config files do you have to hand edit under Linux still, compared to none for windows).
Instead of spending time "dispelling myths", how about spending the time improving and unifying Linux admin? How about improving open office etc. The framework's there but if Linux was a cake for serving to end users it'd still be mushy on the inside. Give them the OS in this state, and insist its ready, and see how many end users you put off ever trying it again. Do that with enough CEOs (some of whom still do everything with paper!!!) and you'll sink our best hope for open source.
A photographer only displays their best work. How about Linux developers and users only display theirs? Only then will they move on from being treated like hobbyists and start getting the respect reserved for professionals who are taken seriously.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The HP Linux notebooks do not have a DVD burner or a wireless LAN card, unlike their Windows counterparts.
But to me, it was a learning phase. I have never used Red Hat ever again. I've moved from Mandrake to SuSE to Mandrake to at long last Gentoo now.
I had a similar experience. I Tried Mandrake then Red Hat. I couldn't get everything to work on those (later I would learn that their configs are all fsck up).
Then I (dangerously, as a newbie) tried slackware on an old 386 just for kicks. I had the machine on side, so I could screw with it when ever I wanted. I actually got things to work nicely and learned a bit about the Linux system as I was hacking around with it.
Then I tried a newer version of Mandrake with a bit more success, but it was very painful to install software packages. After a year or so, I hit enlightenment after installing Debian. It was beautiful. Things just worked (there were A couple of minor things that I couldn't get to work). Then I went all hardcore and installed FreeBSD (I still have that box, makes a great file server). Finally, I sit here with gentoo. Gentoo is great, I have gotten things I have never seen before working in Linux to work. (The install procedure is not for the faint of heart).
It's been my experience with distros, that ease of install is inversely perportional to ease of maintainance (prove me wrong).
I was thinking, it would be nice if someone (I may do this one day yet) made a distro based off of Debian or Gentoo that had a really easy install (very few questions) that would convert a windows machine to a Linux machine.
A software installation manager with a nice GUI could easily be made on top of aptitude or emerge.
I would like to add that a lot of the people hear who say bad things about Linux aren't doing anything about it. That's what is so great about open source, you can do something about it. Seems to me these people are just the sort of people to go with the status quo.
Just last week I purchased a new automobile. I used to drive a '96 Plymouth Neon. I now have a '04 Honda Civic. This gave me a first hand immediate look at user interfaces. It has been common but erroneous knowledge that automobiles have standardized user interfaces. But experience suggests otherwise.
This morning I went to fill up the gas tank for the very first time, and immediately made the mistake of pulling up to the pump on the wrong side. I now have to get used to a gas inlet on the left side of the car. That's just user inteface difference number one.
The automatic shift has "P R N D D3 D2" instead of "P R N D 2 1". Radio/clock controls are completely different. I've got a CD player instead of tape player. Windshield wipers are just barely different enough to enusre a low level of confusion. I have to use a key to unlock the back seats for trunk access. I could go on and on and on. Oh, here's the biggie: handling and suspension and different.
But the main point is that I got used to it. So does everyone. Some people will stick with one brand of automobile for a lifetime, but it won't be because they're afraid of learning a new interface.
Perhaps it's not necessary to make Linux an exact clone of Windows before people will start using it. Perhaps, just perhaps, people are using it already!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
MS Windows is not a fanasticly easy thing to use for a complete newbie either - the fact that there is less to know about is overriden by inconsistancies and bits of nastiness like the registry. I don't know how many computer support columns give the advice to reformat and reinstall with a wide variety of problems - a complete cop out becaue the solution is not trivial. A lot of people think that windows is simple becaue they buy a box that is already set up for them.
Knoppix certainly seems to be very usable by people that have never seen linux before, and fedora is easier to install than any windows install I have done. If only it were so. I've lost count of the hardware that I've seen ditched because there is no driver for a newer version of windows and the old driver won't work with the new version. I'm not talking about network cards, but printers, slide scanners, autofeed network scanners and other expensive pieces of gear obsoleted very early in their life because MS Windows is not MS Windows compatible. which keeps a lot of people employed keeping their machines running.DOS was ready for the desktop - linux certainly is and has been there in a lot of places for a while.
Windows is a cheap usable OS that runs on cheap flexable hardware - something they've always had over apple and all the server operating systems. Most users would never care, and shouldn't really, if it was another OS under their MS Office applications. It's really the applications that are important.It's the same answer that explains why typing "ipconfig" in Windows is perceived to be several magnitudes of ease friendlier than typing "ifconfig" in Linux...
The difference is that ipconfig shows that you have a Wi-Fi card, while ifconfig doesn't show that interface at all because Linux doesn't have the driver. No, I can't control what parents buy me for my birthday, for Jesus Christ's birthday, or for back to school.
The Linux kernel will never compete with Windows in my eyes for 2 reasons.
1. lack of HAL.
2. lack of integrated GUI.
Linux distros will never reach the vast majority of the population.
1. 99% of the population has never heard of RedHat/Debian/Mandrake/SuSe/etc. They think Linux is that wierd looking kid in the IBM commercial.
2. 99% of the population will never install their own operating system.
3. 90% of the population doesn't know what a operation system is.
4. 70% of the population refers to their computer case and contents as the CPU.
What happens if Linux is the only OS? The OEMs get free software upgraded for free? More likely the OEMs would have to support and upgrade their own distros... (wonder why they don't like that idea?)
And please don't give me that BS about the multipule desktop. I've NEVER found it useful, and even if you do, it can be found on microsoft's webpage along with the rest of the power tools (it's called the MSVDM, google it). If you have a problem with Windows it is probably the same reason someone might have a problem with Linux (your an idiot). Funny though, the Linux zealots have no problem with compiling source code for their favorite windows cloned substitute software, but they won't d/l free software for windows without whinning about it.
Remember, I'm playing nice and forgetting that
1. my useless apps (games) don't work on Linux.
2. I only have to place the CD in the drive and click next to install any program in windows.
3. I don't ever have to look at a command line or config file in Windows.
4. Gnome sucks, and is usually the default.
I can't disagree with a lot of your points, as most of them sound like personal experience, and I've experienced one on the list (slower graphical draw, since at the time I was using an on-board SIS chipset, for which graphic acceleration was crap (is it still?)).
But as to two choice comments:
The applications did not play well with each other, at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. Most the time, Windows apps don't actually play together ever. The exception are the few apps designed to work together (office suits, uh..that's it?). Applications are otherwise rather self-contained and inconsistent. Try getting Excel 2000 to work with Wordperfect or Word Perfect's spreadsheet program working with Word, let alone trying to Excel 2000 with Word XP (okay, sort of a stupid point, as it's seemingly stupid to install Office 2000 and XP, but one might because of file format incompatibilities).
Drag and drop never worked.
In what? Nautilus? Every app you use? The fact is, there's the rare exception that drag&drop works well in Windows (all of MS's software probably excluded, especially their integrated Office suit). This falls back to the earlier point, that drag&drop really isn't that ubiqitous. The only place I really ever used it was in file management (since it's easier to drop&drop than do a lot of keyboard action), dropping some txt file on notepad to load it, and sometimes archivers (though using the context-senstive menu was usually quicker). Maybe things improved since I last used Windows 2000?
Or are you really talking about file management in Linux? Truth is, that's generally more of a pain in Linux than Windows, mostly due to the fact that it's 90% of the time quicker to just cp, or mv, or whatever a file or files. In the rare exception it's not, you have to wait for a file manager to load (though I hear the load time for konq is near instant if you use kde; same for nautilus in gnome), navigate to a folder, then fiddle with one or more folders/tabs/views to do the work. The fact is, file management in this way was *never* good. It just was a lot less sucky in Windows than using DOS tools. I want to try out Nautilus' spatial navigation some time, though, as that sounds sort of interesting.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
They do not resolve dependancies, they are built using a specific tree of dependancies. They do not work across RPM based distributions without significant work. They do not work unless all of the OS has been installed via RPM. It's a broken design.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Where whiny sexless Linux zealots plug their ears and scream while windows users tell them Linux is too hard.
Windows User: Why can't I just double click and install something? Linux is too hard!
Slashdotter: JESUS YOU NEWB ALL U HAV3 2 DO IS MAKE INSTALL HOW HARD IS THAT?
Windows User: But that didn't work! I got a bunch of errors!
Slashdotter: OMG UR SO STUPID, LINUX IS EASY!
Then there's this chestnut:
Windows power user: I run Win2k and have an uptime of over a year. Hasn't crashed on me yet.
Slashdotter: ANCTDOTES DONT COUNT BECUZ MY GRANDMAS WINXP BOX I SET UP CRASHES EVERY OTHER MINUTE AND IM SURE ITS NOT MY FAULT GOD WINDOWS SUCSK
or this one:
Windows User: I tried Mandrake/Xandros/RedHat and thing went wrong and all my stuff didn't work.
Slashdotter: THAT CRAP DISTRO DOESNT REPRESENT LINUX WHY ARE YOU USING THAT NEWB DISTRO ANYWAY BECAUSE EASY TO USE INSTALLERS ARE FOR STUPID FAGGOTS USE GENTOO or
Or:
Server Admin: But
Slashdotter: UR JUST NOT DOING IT RIGHT AND I BET WINDOWS IS JUST TOTALLY WORSE BECAUSE IM NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN WHY ITS BECAUSE ITS WINDOWS AND IT SUCCKS
Linux is harder, get over it.
Not to mention i18n and i10n on Linux, they are simply sucks..
Windows (starting from 2000) comes with full Unicode awared core, and it's MS office suite, developing suite all comes along with that. Browsing chinese/japanese/korean(other languages u name it) webpages are painless on windows with default installation. Typing those complex languages that require special input method instead of simplying storking the keyboard are just a click-away to get the IME working.
Look back to linux? I need to get the fonts installed, and playing with the locale thing and what and what...But after I have done all these, the application aren't just ready for processing multibyte characters yet!
Hey remember, only part of the people on the globe speak English, majority of them didn't use English as their native language...You see how big the CJK market is? Unless this is going to fixed...I would say Linux is still something very hard to get used with~~
What I meant was that: the person who wrote the parent parent, had not tried other distros out there before making a good judgement. For instance if I ate a bad apple, it does not mean that all apples are bad.
Different distros have different ideologies. What I was trying to say is that one can't make judgements like that if one has not seen it all. The parent parent really sounds like if he had lost his first love, he'll never fall in love again.
Getting the right distro may seem difficult. It does take effort. Even as you said, there is not a single distro that is easy all together. Have you tried each and every one of the distros out there? If not, then how can you make such a judgement?
If anything the market share for Windows on the desktop today is even HIGHER than it was when the so-called Linux craze started in 1996!
Another thing, Windows has an even HIGHER market share in the poorest places like Africa, China, India etc etc, because folks simply get pirated copies of Windows and just very easily install it on their computers, even as their governments continues to extort them to use Linux.
You see consumers will always go for the best products for them, no matter what the government orders them to do.
You see, unlike in Linux, they don't need a PhD to install and configure Windows. The just put in the Windows XP CD and it installs like a dream, and recognizes devices without breaking a seat.
No device driver hell from some dopey Linux software, no Linux KPOD (Kernel Panic of Death) either.
Can't argue with an overwhelming 96% market share.
Consumers can always see through the puffery and empty lies of the open-source propaganda and disinformation machine and make very good informed decisions for themselves when it comes to parting with their hard-earned money, and they have voted firmly AGAINST Linux and FOR Windows.
Windows RULES!
Get used to it!
Screwing up a system is not about load or requests per minute. It's about installing shit on your computer. Windows is barely less secure than Linux in that regard.
You are so proud of your 6 month uptime on your desktop. But I've had almost 2.5 years uptime on my server, in my garage, running Win2k. I'll have to cut that cause i'm moving in a couple of weeks. But still, it's there. And I am running crap - P2P, unnamed codecs installed, all the stuff that I want to test.
It looks to me like you're comparing Win95 with Linux. Win2k and WinXP are *much* different, and I'd suggest you'd give them a try before you continue posting in this story.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Erm, yes, I do. It's well worth it, when those OSes stay installed for 1, 2, 3+years. Also, don't forget devices that you can't replace the CPU in. Laptops for one. Or hardware that you don't own. Also, a lot of people have more spare time, than spare money, so it's a nice option for them.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I JUST reinstalled my IBM Thinkpad with both linux and windows.
I started with windows and I didn't want to use the OEM install (basically, IBM has a cd that installs everything but the windows XP you get has some problems).
I installed XP, no problems, but wait, the display is VERY VERY slow. So I think, well, let's go to the thinkpad site and download a driver. No, can't do that, no support for my cisco airo wireless card OR my built in ethernet card. Alright, get another computer, download about 15 different drivers for stuff not supported in default XP.
Built in ethernet, wireless card, video card, thinkpad setups stuff and so on.
I burned them all on a cd and installed them under windows. Almost every driver/program had a different way of installing, some just unpacked themself in different places (c:\IBM c:\DRIVERS c:\blaha) and from there you SOMETIMES had to go into that directory and find setup.exe and SOMETIMES you had to go to control panel -> system -> drivers (or whatever it's called) and choose the hardware you wanted drivers for and then select to install a driver, navigate your way to the wierd directory it unpacked in and then install the driver.
Nice, the airo installer did upgrade the firmware without telling me (which is fine under windows but not linux).
Ok. that was windows (many hours later). Now time for Linux.
I put the Suse 9.1 CD in, choose a pretty much default setup, let it work. Now EVERYTHING but the airo card worked. I had ethernet, accelerated 3d graphics, sound, everything.
The airo card is another story. Since windows had upgraded the firmware without telling me (which took a while to find out), linux couldn't handle the card. I had to boot back into windows, get an older version of the firmware, install it, reboot to linux and it all worked.
The only thing I haven't tried is the built in modem but that's because I've never used a modem in like 7 years.
So, Suse really killed windows as far as installations go. I took about 4 times as long to get windows working properly. And also, after this the only thing I can do in windows is surf the web and read mail and use msn messanger. In Linux I can do LOT's more.
Regards,
Erik
Well, I don't know if you'd consider this a wake up call worth taking, but Granted, you only get four desktops from the Virtual Desktop Manager Powertoy.
Difficulty of installing software - Most software on OS X either uses a very friendly packaging/installation system or is simply a single icon you drag from a disk (or mountable disk image) to the Applications folder (or anywhere else you want it to live).
One of the things that blew my mind about Mac OS X was the installation process for Microsoft Office. Drag application from CD, drop on hard drive. The end.
For Microsoft friggin' Office. If there's any testament to The Way Things Should Be on any other platform, that's got to be it. Instead, we're all flying around on Windows with installers that don't always work properly and on Linux with hellish dependencies even with package management systems.
But somehow it's "more friendly" than the Mac way. Sure.
That's the cheapest thing I've ever read. Apart from highlighting situations that occur with any software (heck, that would have easily applied to the buying Red Hat, not just windows), you've just pulled things out of your ass. Linux people spouting all that nonsense shows how little about Windows they know before thinking they can bash it. The only thing your post proves is that there is no argument against the parent's post. He hit the nail right on the head, and instead of arguing why Linux is in fact superior, you take potshots at Windows and hope that only linux fanboys read it and feel happy again. Joker.
Adobe will port its software to Linux. Why? because Gimp is not Photoshop, because comparing Sodipodi to Illustrator is still a joke, because Kino is in dark ages compared to Premiere. I could continue with Macromedia's Studio MX (Dreamweaver/Flash) but that's not something I use a lot however embedded DivX movies in PowerPoint presentations I do use so... OpenOffice? :) yeah... it is great but... only as long as you don't want too much from it.
Linux IS ready! It is already way better than Windows BUT as long as Microsoft will have the silent collaboration of the other big boys (Adobe, Macromedia, etc.) Microsoft will win.
The moment the OTHERS will start using crosspatform toolkits like wxWidgets or QT and produce versions for all the major operating systems is the moment when Microsoft will loose, it is the moment when they will go down.
- Power outage
- Moving flat
- Hardware upgrade
- Kernel upgrade
It normally gets 6 month uptimes before I move or get the urge to upgrade the kernel. It gets new software updates EVERY DAY from Debian's unstable, and many things break, and I mess about with it and add new software packages regularly (I do web browsing, software engineering, graphics, video editing, sound editing, music replay, play half-life, IRC, wireless routing, etc.), but it's never needed an actual reboot for any software changes other than kernel upgrades.I just cleared out 8Gb of old package files yesterday. I really should do "apt-get autoclean" automatically, but when I did, Debian once fucked up the bonobo package and I had nothing to revert to! So I only do that manually, these days.
There's a lot of difference between being proud of an uptime (which is just a number) and pointing out that absolutely no software installation or deinstallation, or configuration adjustment has ever required a reboot, out of hundreds of thousands of packages and changes. But Windows needs reboots for some things. It loses.
So not everyone has the same intelligence or the same physical capabilities. What is better, a gui or a cli? For say web browsing. Hmm, a gui you say? WRONG WRONG WRONG, not if your blind.
Now I am just guessing here since I am not blind and only had to deal very briefly in my past with 1 blind co-worker but I think a blind persom might just be able to use linux cli (suse detects braile drivers as one of its first jobs during install) but the windows gui seems a no-no. On the other hand a person who can only manipulate a pointer and a button is probably not going to enjoy using a cli over a well developed gui.
So not everyone needs the same solution or can even use the same solution.
So why do we want more people to use linux? Well if you are truly behind the ideals of linux/opensource/whatever you don't. What is needed is that there is a greater diversity of OS'es out there and that not one of them has such a majority it can squeeze out the others. There are those who wish to see windows destroyed but I suggest they are the master race creators. The people I prefer to think off as the linux people just want to push Windows back a little. I never heard Linus Torvald say his goal is to destroy MS. Those of us who really like linux for being linux would just prefer MS to be reduced a little. Reduced just enough that companies who sell products for computers are selling them for computers NOT windows.
This is already happening. If you go to a hardware makers site you will see the word linux appear more and more, even just being listed with the "supported" os'es. It is not yet on the box but apparantly the bigger companies are beginning to realize they got a choice. Either support linux (even by just linking to the opensource drivers) or turn away an X% of customers to the competition.
So all we need to do is make the alternate OS'es (Apple/BSD/OS\/2/Linux) a big enough X and the days of Windows only hardware/software/services will slowly come to an end. Compare it if you like to right-hand drive vehicles. The right drive market is small and there is no reason that you can't drive a left-hand drive vehicle in england. Now just check the number of car makers that do make right-hand drive versions of their car. Despite the fact that this adds to the cost and increases logistics.
I don't think we need to convert everyone to make linux a better supported alternative.
But there is an even bigger reason against making Linux go to mainstream. Monopoly. If redhat or novell or whoever gets 90% of the market do you really think they will be any different from MS? Worse linux will then be the target of all the script kiddies and will find a juicy target as linux is just as vulnarable if you use it like a windows machine (security is at much a user problem as an OS problem).
But the one I fear most is that in making linux go mainstream we lose linux. I like the text file configuration. It means that no matter how screwed up I can still edit it and fix it. Example, tv-tuner card and tvtime sometimes I click wrong and select the wrong input (from tv to composite) it takes 3 more clicks to get back to tv but for some reason it is slow as hell to respond. No worries, close, edit the config and start app again. Good luck doing this with a registry.
Yet an awfull lot of the "oh I would use linux if only" crowd wants those text files gone and to be replaced with a registry.
So we got a choice. Either ignore these people and let them use their windows OR turn linux into windows.
I suggest a different approach. Apple ain't doing to bad. It is picking its customers so why doesn't linux do the same. Why dreg windows for users when you can get the cream to come to you? Apple is often accused of b
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You're still missing something. The dude you're talking to wants to set up a static IP manually
/etc/network/some_file. The structure is this:
/etc/hosts on all client machines. Debian uses ifup to read this information and pass it to ifconfig.
/etc/sysconfig/network/some_file. More or less the same.
I know that I'm not supposed to feed AC trolls but I enjoy the exercise.
On Debian:
Interface specific settings are stored in
iface eth0 inet static
address so.me.ip.add
netmask x.y.z.a
gateway b.c.d.e
broadcast f.g.h.i
And, of course, the appropriate host/ip information needs to be in
On LFS (and RH, I believe), this information is in
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I am at a loss to explain why you had problems with Mandrake. It is almost ready to go out of the box, with OpenOffice, PDF readers, support for mpegs,mp3 etc.
That it took a guru 4 hours to get the networking going suggests that something was way wrong with the install. Perhaps you should try again.
That is, being distributed everywhere.
It's a great installer, it just seems that no one's using it. It needs to be used by more people for it to have an effect!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Why should I have to? Again, you're missing the point.
I could try Distro A, but now my wireless card doesn't work. So i switch to Distro B and now my wireless card works, but my firewire and iPod don't. Ok, so I switch to Distro C and now my firewire works, and my iPod syncs, but, oh wait, suddenly my video card lost 3D acceleration. There are, what, 20 distros out there? Are you expecting every user to try every distro until they find one that works correctly out of the box?
If you Linux people want to make any sort of impact on the desktop, you need to follow Microsoft's example. There are only three versions of Windows: Home, Pro and Server.
Home could be an easy-to-setup distro with only *one* application per function. One web browser, one email client, one text editor. ONE single DVD. And it shouldn't even use the entire DVD, I'd recommend a maximum of 2 gigs.
Pro could be the same as Home, but with several choices for applications and some basic server functionality plus network debugging tools. This could be as large as necessary.
Server is a no-brainer, nothing but a desktop, all the server apps needed, and some configuration tools.
Comment of the year
did you miss the part of the comment where I said
I used to have a windows 2K server
I've had many windows machines actually seeing as I've been the systems administrator of many smaller (50 node) windows networks so, I have a pretty good understanding of them and am completly done 'giving them a try'.
As far as screwing up the system from the load, yes that is totally what its about, whether its a desktop machine or a server they all need to run great no matter what the load. The problem windows has is it has flat memory access, so one bad program is allowed to overwrite virtually any data on the system it wants, including any memory the operating system itself needs. Now I know windows has gotten better with XP, but still no where near where it should be as far as memory management, and since we are comparing linux and windows, the memory management is no where near as secure and stable as on linux. As far as securing windows as a desktop, you can read my views on windows security here.
As for your uptime, thats great, it's my fault for bringing up servers, but windows can be used without having to reboot constantly if you know how to use it correctly, but as for the topic of desktop computing, most users don't have any clue how to use it without having to reboot all the time. In contrast, a user who has managed to install linux on their own which doesn't take a tech saavy person any more as the article proved, will have a basic understanding of how to use their system correctly (logging in as a user instead of root), and therefor won't need to reboot due to their system slowing down. Now I'm not saying their computer will never go slow for some reason, just before I started posting this comment evolution started acting goofy and was taking up about 75% of my cpu, at which time I just restarted evolution. If this was windows, I probally would have had to close the program, my system would have ran noticibally slower after that than before I had opened the program in the first place, then I would have restarted the program and gone a little slower yet again.
Anyways I guess thats enough incoherent ranting for today.
If Linux developers really want to simplify software installation, they should move beyond the idea of a unified installer, and instead move to the idea of a drag and drop installation. Software installation shouldn't be harder than a drag and drop operation. There are no technical reasons why it shouldn't be possible to install an application just by dragging it to your hard disk. It should even be possible to install system wide applications through drag and drop. But none of the OS companies have made it a priority to provide this level of simplicity. OS X does have some limited drag and drop functionality for installing simple applications, but any application that can be classified as a system application is going to end up copying files all over your hard disk. And because of the myth that Mac applications don't need an uninstaller, removing system applications is a painful process. I would like to use an OS that would allow me to: 1. Install Applications by dragging and dropping a single file (or folder). 2. Store all application settings in a single directory structure that could be easily copied or moved along with the application. 3. Remove completely any application by deleting its file (or folder), and its settings directory. 4. Copy or move any application just by copying its file (or folder), and its settings directory. 5. It shouldn't matter if the application is a simple Greetting Card printer, or a complex system wide OS extension. It should work the same. Storage space and processor speed is no longer a concern with today's computers. Applications should be as self-contained as possible, only requiring those external libraries that are guaranteed to always be available in the OS. If the above ideas were implemented in Linux, it would put it above and beyond all other Operating Systems in software installation simplicity. One final note: As a developer I'm aware that implementing a universal drag and drop installation mechanism would be complicated because of Operating Systems reliance on shared configuration databases like the Registry in Windows, or GConf in Gnome. That's why a universal drag and drop installation feature would require big changes in how these shared configuration databases work. Instead of a single monolithic database, it would have to be some sort of distributed database where each application would have its own copy or branch, and then this branch would be merged into a virtual global database, with the OS automatically taking care of any conflicts.
In other words, if you have arguments as to why an emulation of Windows is the best approach for someone designing a new desktop environment GUI, please present them in a coherent matter-of-fact manner. Otherwise, don't be surprised when nobody pays you any attention.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
The problem windows has is it has flat memory access, so one bad program is allowed to overwrite virtually any data on the system it wants, including any memory the operating system itself needs
You know that is completely untrue, right? NULL pointers access kills the process under Windows as surely as it does under Linux. You can override memory that you allocated only, and shared memory of course.
If this was windows, I probally would have had to close the program, my system would have ran noticibally slower after that than before I had opened the program in the first place
Why would the system run slower after you've closed the faulty program? Never happenned to me over almost 7 years of using NT (3.51, 4, 2k or XP).
If the process is killed, Windows will free all ressources used by it. Same as for any UNIX OS.
Both of the problems you are describing were applicable in Win3.1, and - to some extent only - in Win9x.
WinNT, 2k, XP are based on a kernel that is much closer to a UNIX kernel than MS-DOS (Which is what Win31&9x are based upon)
Write boring code, not shiny code!
But Windows needs reboots for some things. It loses.
So can you download a new driver - for a new piece of hardware, name my digital camera - under linux and install it without rebooting? Windows does that.
So I guess they're even.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
You know that is completely untrue, right? NULL pointers access kills the process under Windows as surely as it does under Linux. You can override memory that you allocated only, and shared memory of course.
ok, well I'm not talking about NULL pointers, I'm talking about more memory being assigned to a program than it was originally allocated. Now I know this has been improving over time, but still not perfect. Every once in a while one the kernel will assign some memory that its already allocated to something else, then when the program that was running in that spot tries to access its memory again which has been reasigned, it gets a little confused and crashes. now when you say You can override do you mean as the user? or as the program. I believe there is user seperation w/ memory on windows, but as I was saying the memory management of applications leaves a lot to be desired.
If the process is killed, Windows will free all ressources used by it. Same as for any UNIX OS.
I just flat out dont believe this and have proven it to myself many times in the past.
WinNT, 2k, XP are based on a kernel that is much closer to a UNIX kernel than MS-DOS (Which is what Win31&9x are based upon)
Just because microsoft realized they needed to add user seperation and networking support to their original kernel doesn't mean that it should be comparible to a UNIX kernel. Adding these 2 things as an after thought means that all the basic technologies had to be re-written in order to accomidate the newer ones, and knowing microsoft, probally only replaced the ones that were obviously flawed with the new stuff.
ignore lcsjk, seems to be an M$ troll.
Yes. I can even install the new nvidia drivers for my GeForce without rebooting. Try that in windows.
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
ok, well I'm not talking about NULL pointers
Me neither, I was just taking it as an example. If you write a program that allocate an array of 1000 ints and write 2000 ints in it, your program will crash, very similarly to a SIGSEGV. That's the window message that says "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be closed". It even can dump the core memory for you. In that regard, I don't see what you mean by "still not perfect". You *cannot* start two processes that would write (or read for that matter) in each other's memory. Unless they want to and then it's called shared memory. There is no major difference (apart from implementation I guess) in how Linux and Windows manage memory. Each process has it's allocated heap, and it deals with it.
I just flat out dont believe this
Well, tell me one good technical reason why a process that would hog memory or CPU could leave residual stuff once it's killed. CPU is of course released. Memory is also released. One slight possibility is that the faulty process went mad on memory allocation and after you killed it, lots of stuff will be in the paging files and the disk caches would be empty. But that's just as true with Linux (If you're using pagefile), so you just wait for the other apps to "wake up" and everyhing is back to normal.
Just because microsoft realized they needed to add user seperation and networking support to their original kernel
You didn't get your history right. Windows NT 3.51 is a brand new Kernel that didn't share one line of code with any previous one (MSDOS, Win1,2,3,95). It was written and lead by some members of the team that originally developped VMS. NT3.51 is a rock-solid OS that is very very similar to a unix system (apart from the utilities, shells, UI, etc...). It is almost not compatible at all with any version of Win9x, and certainly not at all with any Win31 stuff.
In WinNT4 and 2k, they gradually added support for multimedia in an attempt to eradicate Win9x. It took longer than they originally expected because of the huge crappiness of Win9x to be brought over and "made clean".
WinXP is the resulting OS from that migration, and I don't believe there will be a successor to WinME.
So all in all, the kernel in XP has very little to do with the kernel in Win9x.
So when you say "their original kernel", you diregard the fact that there are two different original kernels, and that WinXP's kernel is in no way an evolution of the "original kernel".
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I suppose you didn't keep your system very uptodate then, since in my experience you need to quite frequently reboot after visiting windowsupdate?
At least this part (updating) very seldomly needs a reboot in linux (kernel update).
ok, well I don't have time to argue every point you made so I'll just sum it up, in a perfect world, everyone who writes programs for windows would code it perfectly so that windows doesn't have to deal with any memory issues, but unfortianatly ( i know thats spelt wrong somehow...) 90% of people who make applications don't write them perfectly. Now by perfectly I mean a program is started and is assigned as many bits as it's requested when it initialized, now when you have process's within that application that need to dynamically allocate more memory after the program has started you run into issues. The windows kernel (the dos based one especially, but the NT kernel has similar issues, just not as severe), has to manage what section of memory it will allocate for this dynamic memory, but it doesn't do that good at picking a spot as it will sometimes chose memory that's being used by another program. Now this doesn't happen all that much, but it does happen. Now when the program that originally had that memory tries to access that memory you have a problem. Another issue is that windows isn't that great at keeping track of what memory was used by a program that crashed, so often after a crash, windows wont free up all the memory that it as using. Of course I can't argue with facts as obviously windows is closed source and if it wasn't i'm sure these issues would be fixed, so it's somewhat pointless to even talk about it.
However, you seem to have missed my point entirely.
Your instructions were to insert a "command" that you happened to know about into a "form" that you happened to know about.
I maintain that you(we) will never have a desktop if software designers try to give users a list of commands to insert when they want to do something. If software designers can point users to a menu where the solution lies, then perhaps that desktop will evolve.
I don't know if I would call myself an armchair software designer, since I am not a software designer at all. I just design those little "thingies" that make the software work (analog and digital circuit design).
On the side I teach normal(?) users how to "cut" and "paste" and how to "download" and "install" and things like "right click". Believe me, working with non-techies over thirty years old is a real learning experience, and that learning experience tells me that the "command line" is out and that the "menu system" is in.
Software is designed and written for users, not engineers like me nor designer/programmers like you.
You have persistently misunderstood the parent post. (And missed his point entirely) His instructions:
"Try adding the following to your style sheet:
FORM { margin:0px; }
or adding style="margin:0px" to you form declaration."
were for the WEB SITE DESIGNER, not the end-user. It was simply a helpful hint on how to fix layout problems on a web page that is incorrectly formatted. It was not about desktop software AT ALL!!!!!
God is imaginary
Firefox/Mozilla has it's share of rednering problems as well. Opening or closing a form tag automatically adds the equivalent of two . I would be more than happy if someone can correct me on this.
Wrong. Don't like M$. I was pulling for Linux back when RED was still bareheaded.
Well, since I installed my XP box 9 month ago, I haven't have to reboot for a windows update yet. For sure, it warns you that you may have to, but it doesn't. Except for the first time, just after installing the OS, where it spent 2 hours downloading all the cumulative patches after prompting for a reboot.
I must have a WU every other week, so that's a lot of them without any reboot.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
ok, well I don't have time to argue every point you made so I'll just sum it up, and I call it bullshit.
WinNT kernel was made right our of a UNIX kernel. It was (The original one, WinNT 3.51) almost POSIX. Memory allocation you are describing is the stuff a 5 years old would write. Give me a break.
I tried as hard as I could to give facts, and then you just reply with a " Now when the program that originally had that memory tries to access that memory you have a problem" or a "so often after a crash, windows wont free up all the memory that it as using" which is so irrelevant (Because even if it happenned, and it does because of Shared Memory - not Windows fault, Linux has the same issues - then the pages that are left can be paginated because nobody accesses them) than it made me laugh.
Anyways, have agood night. And when you don't have anything else to say, don't say anything. It'a always better.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
That's a good idea.
You should probably study up and become an investment banker, and then convince every company selling Linux distributions to join in a big merger and become one company. I'm sure all of them will be pleased, and you'll make a lot of money.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
Well to start off I was busy at work earlier when I posted the last message, but felt the need for a quick response, so I'll try my best to formulate a good argument this time so that I don't dissapoint you.
WinNT kernel was made right our of a UNIX kernel.
The NT kernel did not originate from unix, it originated from OS/2 and even before that, VMS which was another non portable OS that was developed for VAX machines. The only link I can possible link I can find from unix to NT is that NT's chief architect, David Cutler, originally designed OS's for PDP-11's, which is what UNIX's first release was designed on. David designed the RSX-11M OS on the PDP-11 which would later be incorperated into the NT kernel. From there David went on to become one of the initial developers for VMS which was the OS for VAX machines. From there he went on to be the cheif architect for the NT project at microsoft. You can read the full origins of the NT kernel here. Now as you can see that in no way makes NT any sort of decendent of UNIX.
It was (The original one, WinNT 3.51) almost POSIX
Calling it almost POSIX is a far stretch, the initial idea of NT was to support for portions of the DOS, OS/2, and POSIX API's, which you can also see in that posted article.
Memory allocation you are describing is the stuff a 5 years old would write.
This proves my point, the MS kernels don't keep good enough track of memory to avoid this problem, which can lead to escalated privilege exploits, not to mention programs just flat out crashing, or the entire system crashes (BSOD?). To say its only in code a 5 year old would right is just stupid. Any programmer knows that it's easy to make mistakes, and granted it's harder to make this mistake than most others, it still does happen, especially when you've been working on some code for 16 hours straight. The linux kernel on the other hand seems to have a much more advanced paging system that won't allow this to happen.
"so often after a crash, windows wont free up all the memory that it as using" which is so irrelevant (Because even if it happenned, and it does because of Shared Memory
I won't try and argue this point as I don't have any facts other than my experience with windows to back it up, the only reason I mentioned it in the first place was because as I was typing my comment, my mail client in linux started going nuts, taking up a bunch of memory and cpu utilization; closing it fixed it, and I was just thinking that if that had of happened in windows, my system would still probally be all lagged, which is actually probally more of a case of defunct windows system process's such as rundll.
The NT kernel did not originate from unix, it originated from OS/2 and even before that, VMS
Well, if you had read the article you just linked to, you would have found out that the NT kernel doesn't have anything to do with the OS/2 kernel. They just planned (plan which was later dropped) to support most of its APIs. NT is derived from VMS, not OS/2, and that's what I missasociated with UNIX in my previous post. Fact is, VMS is not too different from UNIX, but that's besides the point.
the initial idea of NT was to support for portions of the DOS, OS/2
The idea behind the NT kernel was certainly not to support DOS or OS/2. That might have been an early option, but was clearly dropped along the way. The idea was for microsoft to finally have a kernel. DOS is nowhere close to what I would call a kernel.
Memory allocation you are describing is the stuff a 5 years old would write.
This proves my point, the MS kernels don't keep good enough track of memory to avoid this problem
Well, that one is interesting? How my analogy with a bad programmer proves anything is just beyond me.
In my experience, BSOD in the NT kernel are due to two problems:
1. Bad drivers. Linux isn't exempt from problems in that area either. The BSOD is called a Kernel Panic.
2. A stupid architecture problem which lets any program override system dlls with "updated" ones. So let's say the foo.dll installed is v1.2 and a program needs foo.dll v1.3 to run, then the program will override the system dll (Yes, the program will override some of the code used by the kernel) with it's own version of the dll. Of course, when you deal with serious vendors, those dlls will have been properly tested. But when you deal with poor vendors, the side effect is that those poor vendors end up installing buggy dlls, making the kernel buggy along the way.
This was a huge issue until XP, which disallow this practice by keeping all versions of the dlls. So the kernel only uses the code that was written by MS.
The BSOD is just a materialization of a SIGSEGV sent to the kernel, nothing else, proving that the memory allocation works the way it should by killing processes that try to access memory in a segment they don't own.
This has nothing to do with a kernel that "don't keep good enough track of memory" (again, you serve me that vague sentence). Otherwise how would you explain my system being up since 4 month? Or my server being up since 2.5 years? How can that work with system that vaguely mistake system pages with program pages?
and I was just thinking that if that had of happened in windows, my system would still probally be all lagged
Well, I have never encountered that in almost 8 years of heavy NT usage. Maybe it's just me then.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
We Linux users ought to take to heart the warning being issued by the multitude of Windows fanatics that have apparently descended on Slashdot despite the image of Bill Gates made up to look like Locutus. Because a warning is exactly what they're offering amid all their griping about user friendliness...we shouldn't wish too hard for Linux to take the greater marketshare away from Windows. Not at the cost of having Linux distros BECOME the new Windows. Not at the cost of sacrifing those things about Linux and Open Source apps which we find most desirable...choice, versatility, etc. No, let Windows be the choice for the common man, and let Linux be only for those who want it bad enough to seek it out.
You must be kidding me. First off, windows is extremely lazy about unloading dlls from memory, that means it is quite snappy and responsive at first, but as time goes on and memory fills up load time for apps go through the roof.
and i cant count the times when an app crashes and windows cant clean it up correctly.
Windows 3.1 and 9x werent operating systems, they were graphical shells. dos was the operating system. And the NT kernel is very close to UMS, not UNIX.
Now why would I want my Mom to have to use a command line.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I did some looking, and Fast User Switching (FUS) is available in KDE.
Go to the K Menu, and select "Start New Session"
To switch between sessions, use Ctl-Alt-f#. Your original session will be at f7. The next session will be at f8, and so on.
Also, last week an initial version of Expose for KDE came out. It's called Kompose, and it's available here
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen