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 ."
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,
Most open source applications can be installed on OS X using those very same commands. Are you saying OS X isn't ready either?
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
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.
Until Firefox renders every page just like IE does the public isn't going to care for it.
I hope that this day never comes. IE makes some bad bad mistakes in the way it renders and handles pages. Unfortunately people have built their websites around that IE functionality.
Try './configure --help'
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!
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"
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.
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.
My Kodak doesn't work in Linux. I plugged it into XP and it worked. Hmm. That didn't come preinstalled as I just bought it in December.
Really? I don't. Can you name any offhand?
The example I will continue to use is http://slashdot.org/. When it stops forcing a refresh to fix the sidebar then I will believe Firefox is "acceptable". It's amazing how many Firefox zealots ignore this with a brush off. General Windows users will not.
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.
And again, you are dealing with people magnatudes higher in computer literacy apparently.
I use Photoshop, 3ds max, and Premiere every day I go to work. I've done that for 8+ years now. There is no collection of software on Linux that will allow me to get my job done to an equal level of quality and to file formats that I can share with my coworkers and get integrated into our final products (games).
Linux is not ready for my corporate desktop. The GIMP and Blender are interesting tools, I'll freely admit that. They are not replacements for industry standard tools like 3DS Max and Photoshop, though.
The author's marginalizing of apps he doesn't need doesn't at all imply that the apps aren't needed. The article is quite biased towards the author's views and needs. It does't present full picture of the problem.
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.
I understand that there are many programs out there that use ./configure make make install. But the LSB has already proposed a standardized package managment system to be used across distributions.
This way the instalation of a program will be the same as windows: a double click of the rpm file.
However, after installation I believe that there are some issues about how the program should be made available to the user. This is an area that needs more standarization.
Some add a directory to the GNOME/KDE menu.
Other programs programs install a program to a directory in $PATH. Others don't make any chances and force the user to find the program and make changes accordingly.
In order to help linux make it to the desktop market, package management should eliminate the problem of. "Ok, the program is installed, what do I do next? How do I use it?" A possible extention is to enforce an additional "user discovery" such as a standardized start menu, a "most recently installed programs" directory, a unread README files, etc. etc.
#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!)
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
IE makes some bad bad mistakes in the way it renders and handles pages. Unfortunately people have built their websites around that IE functionality.
*wry grin* Bingo. People are designing their webpages according to IE because it was there first and was the better browser for years. I've tried converting people to FireFox, particularly after all this publicity about browser exploits, but the fact is it doesn't always work the same and even if that's the result of Microsoft not properly handling HTML, that's what people are used to. I think it was Brinks in The Mythical Man Month who noted that when you tried to replace a system, you had to not only have it make all the correct responses, but also have it create the incorrect ones that people were used to. In that case, he was talking about people using the "garbage" in the registers when the OS started because it had some predictable properties.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
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.
In fact, I need more than just CAD, I need AutoCAD to work, or Solid Edge. My suppliers and clients need AutoCAD/Solid Edge files. I haven't got the balls to risk the company going out of business because my FreeLinuxKAD 0.0.1-alpha doesn't write 100% compatible files.
I need data acquisition. In fact I currently use PC's with data acquisition cards running windows to acquire test data, then transport it to Linux systems for data analysis.
I need PDF workflow tools. I need tools to assemble and build PDF documents from separate files. I can export PDF from OpenOffice, and I can export PDF from graphing applications, but I can't simply make one PDF document with both those pages in it. I need to use Windows and Acrobat.
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).
Uh, I had my parents install RH9 by themselves with only the advice you gave "If you don't know what to do, just click Next" and when they were done they had a fully functional OS, Office suite, paint program, web and email applications, and (for my Dad, who is a math lecturer) complete working TeX system, complete with editors desgined to work with LaTeX.
The end product worked fine, and they continue to use it very happily.
Really, everything beyond Gentoo and Debian (though I hear the new Debian in staller is much better) can be installed by just clicking "next" when you don't know what to do, and it pretty much always results in a perfectly functional system. The only time it presents difficulty is if you are trying to preserve an existing Windows install, but then you can't install an existing Linux install when installing Windows by "just clicking next", so...
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
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
For most distros, it's easier than that.
:)
For slackware, you can download just about anything from here, and just type "installpkg [filename]"
Gentoo, you'd emerge it, without downloading it first "emerge [package]"
RedHat, you'd get the package, and use RPM to install it.
Debian, you'd apt-get it "apt-get [package]"
Updates are even easy in Slackware. We have one server on our network which updates it's packages nightly, and then 100+ other servers collect their updates from a cron running "slackupdate.sh -nc -l 2". For us, it's much more polite to have our own repository, than to have 100+ machines beat up the publically available ones.
You can do something similiar with Gentoo or Debian. I'm not sure how RedHat handles these.
But, for the stuff that doesn't come in packages, ya, three commands are pretty easy. All things considered, it's faster to type those, than to unzip, and click the annoying click-throughs to get a Windows program to install.
People are afraid of the kernel, but hell, all you have to do is download the kernel, and use the pretty menu driven configuration to pick what drivers you need, and just a couple commands later, you have a kernel optimized for your machine. With Windows, good luck getting out all the drivers that you don't need.
Most Windows users that I've talked to simply won't get away from Windows because they're too lazy to learn something new. Hell, they won't stop using MSIE, even after getting the spyware or virus of the day because of it. One guy I know got a virus from a site because of an MSIE exploit, and continues to use MSIE. He was fighting with it for two days to get rid of the virus. He simply won't consider Mozilla/FireFox or Opera. Why? Because he's been using MSIE for years.
It's very similiar to the people who held out on advancing from Windows 3.1 for so long. Why change, when it does things they like? It won't be until the "killer app" shows up for Linux that doesn't work anywhere else. Unfortunately for this process, most people are porting their applications over to Windows, to let everyone enjoy, so the "killer app" probably won't ever be a Linux-only application.
Several large banks still run OS/2. Why? Because it works for them. You'll still find lots of people running Win98. Likewise, you'll find people running very old versions of RedHat, because they're afraid of upgrading.
We've only recently started a campaign to upgrade our old Slack 7.0 to Slack 8.1 servers to Slack 10.0. I made a bootable CD to make this easy. It takes 1/2 dozen commands (including mounting the cd and destination partitions), and takes 5 to 10 minutes. Users rarely notice the downtime, and appreciate than things are faster now. How much pain would I be in upgrading from say WinNT to WinXP?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
"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.
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".
Which Windows? Windows ME? Windows 2000? Windows XP Home? Windows XP Professional?
There's significantly less of a difference between all versions of Windows than between the various Linux desktop. I mean, not internally, and not from an admin point of view, but from that of a user. Specifically, in the versions you mention there are only two flavors of GUI: the Windows 9x look, and the XP look. Note that XP can be set to look like Win 9x, and many of the folks where I work have done that.
Also, your comparison is unfair, because the versions you mention span several years. Currently, there is only Windows XP Pro and Home available for the desktop, Win 2000 and ME are obsolete. Or conversely, there have been a multitude of versions of every distribution mentioned.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
People at work have no idea why you can't click on the the stuff in the Window, they have no idea that they are running a program off a server 1000 miles away under a completely different OS
That's not a Linux-killer. We have the same problem here, in a 100% Windows shop, with Remote Desktop connection. People don't understand why files they save to the HD in the RDC aren't accessible when they're using Outlook on their local machine.
Eventually I helped them map network drives and told them to use those.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
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.
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.
Yeah I agree. I believe there will always be a place in the world for proprietary Apps and OS's. For example I never burn CD's under anything but Linux. It is just easier, more intuitive and it just works under Linux / K3b. In windows I have never been able to get a bootable CD to burn correctly.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
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
No. Not at all.
But let me mention this....
I just built a shiny new Athlon64 box with an nVidia chipset and nVidia graphics. WinXP installs fine. Then, I just load some drivers and everything works.
Now, if I wanted to install Linux, first I have to be paranoid about hosing my XP partition (oops). Second, if I want to use the nVidia drivers (which nVidia actually provides, bravo!), then all I have to do is RECOMPILE THE KERNEL! This is not a process that I wish to undertake, as I am not sure that I am competent enough to handle it. And I have been playing with Linux for a couple of years! I use Unix every day at work, and I am very comfortable around a command line. So I have had my new machine for a month, and have had Knoppix as the only Linux on it (which does not recognize the integrated gigabit ethernet port, so no web browsing for me).
So, it is possible to get all of my hardware working under linux? Yes. But, it is possible for ME to do this comfortably? No. Therein lies the difference.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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
See, the responses to your question below are exactly the problem with linux. You made a compelling argument for why linux can't take over the desktop unless it becomes more user-friendly, and the response you get? Of course you can have it log in automatically. You mean to say you didn't know that a CS student in Sweden recently published a series of replacement libraries that you can install after recompiling the kernel? All you have to do is wade through the configuration text files and employ this particular fluke of his desktop management software that allows what you're trying to do! Duh!!!
Of course I'm exaggerating to make the point. But the point remains: it's not about whether it can be done. Anything can be done...it's all just moving bits in a chip.
In the olden days, I understand when someone complained that they're *nix box couldn't do something in a research lab somewhere in the world, the standard response was: "Hey dum-dum. All you have to do is write a short C program yourself that does X, Y, and Z. Duh!" This is still true today...except Grammy-Maw's not writing a C program, man. If her options are: (1) write a C program, (2) keep abreast of every CS student's contributions to open source, or (3) use Windows, which option is Grammy-Maw going to choose, do you think?
And before a /. loudmouth responds with the snarky and ever-counterproductive, "Don't use Linux, then!" take a look at this thread first, in particular the "Care to write it?" comment and everything by user killjoe.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Of course you have some reputable source backing up these numbers and you just forgot to mention it, right ? You wouldn't give made-up percentage numbers just for appearances sake, right ?
Standard HTML, ensuring the visibility of the page to everyone and thus maximum visitors ? Or, if the looks of the site are more important than content, use Flash - you get much better control over what it looks like, you get maximum visitors (Flash is available to Linux users), and the whole thing is much less likely to break with the next browser update.
There is no reason to pervert HTML to serve purposes it was never meant for when there's languages born perverted for these purposes ;).
Numbers again, but still not a source...
Yes, because we all know that Windows and IE don't come preinstalled on almost every computer, making their price a hidden, bundled cost. No, people uninstall the Linux distributions the computers came with and install store-bought Windows on its place, glad to be free of popup blockers and tabbed browsers, welcoming spyware, adware and malware with open arms.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word "toy". In this context, "toy" would mean that Linux on Desktop was slow, unstable, only fit as a bunch of graphics routines for games, and that Windows would be the OS of choice for serious work.
In reality, of course, the situation is reverse: Linux is stable, fast and reliable, whereas I wouldn't dare putting anything mission-critical on a Windows machine because the complete lack of these very features - unless, of course, you count the fact that you can count on it crashing and developing interesting problems regularly :). Nor would I wish to put up with the myriad stupid popups telling me to clean my desk, hide unused icons or any such crap. The default behaviour of new Microsoft programs, of hiding menu items, does nothing to endear them to me either - they're already confusing enough without me having to wonder if I missed whatever I was looking for because it was hidden.
No, the term you were thinking of was "a rarity".
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The funny thing about your example is that 64-bit Windows is still in beta while various x86-64 Linux distros are considered stable. So you're not really using all your hardware in Windows either unless you're comfortable with pre-release operating systems, which would seem odd for someone so worried about hosing their disk.
The nForce3 ethernet chipset will be in the next kernel release, it might even be in the most current one, I'm not sure. Within about 6 months, it will probably be supported by whatever distribution you use. Consider that open source developers can't really do anything for hardware until they get their hands on it, so there's usually a time lag in support for bleeding edge stuff like yours.
Windows users are to damn lazy to learn anything new
It's not necessarily that Windows users are lazy - it's that they have a different set of priorities centered around the activity they want to complete, rather than the process of getting where they can do the activity they want to complete.
The applicable lesson is one in management. What's the most efficient way to send a large package? Most people would say weigh the package, find out the postage, etc, then call FedEx. The executive is the one who says: I call the mailroom - that's their problem.
To a large extent, the average Windows user is the computer-centric version of the executive. They don't care about the details that are peripherally related, they just want to get something done. Anything that stands in the way (ie., having to dig in the OS to get a package running) is a frustration.
Goal oriented vs. process oriented.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
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.
Maybe I am living in another world than you are, but how is typing "emerge ${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE}" harder than:
1) googling "${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE}"
2) searching through bad results to find site containing ${SOFTWARE_PACKAGE}
3) hoping through about three or four pages before finally getting a download link
4) download software
5) remember where I put installer, run installer
6) read and accept licence agreement
7) fill out name and other personal data
8) tell it what features to include
9) tell it target install location
10) after waiting for it to finich installing, hit finish.