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 ."
./configure
make
make install
The "D," as in developers, got outsourced. Now we're all "technologists."
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
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?
Apparently they changed their name to the Open Source Technology Group.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
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.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
- 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 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
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!
The vast majority of those you see complaining on the web are simply trolling
Typical Slashdot post. No wonder it's done by an AC. This entire attitude that if you don't like and don't worship Linux you're nothing but a lemming or a troll is not only getting really old but it's also alienating the few out there who are willing to give Linux a try. It's really no different from the high school jock mentality. I've seen plenty of valid reason not to embrace Linux.
When are the fanboys going to accept that Linux is not the all-in-one solution to computing problems. Why you say? Because there is no all-in-one solution to the question of users and their PCs.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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"
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!"
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/$appname, with care taken to provide its own libraries, and giving me an easy link so I can remove the application folder, the installed support libraries, and any config files separately.
Linux has made great strides in getting the system installed, and the various distributions have creative solutions for getting the more crufty parts like X11 (which freedesktop.org is, thankfully, revamping to be much more accepting and dynamic of modern hardware), and in terms of user-application glue (remember how OS/2 Warp would remember which applications were open and all their states when you rebooted?) in ways that surpass Windows, the actual application management is still a horrible hack, largely based on designs from the mid to late 90s which don't really work in practice.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You know, we really should work on making a spyware free replacement for Bonzi Buddy.
People LIKE Bonzi Buddy, and while the spyware would irritate them, they're really not aware of it.
IM is becoming more than just instant transfering of text.
File transfers (GAIM sort of has this), webcams, plugins and games are becoming big reasons for IMs.
Sorry but saying "close enough" isn't good enough when the rest of the world can do it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I remember numerous times that there have been posts about some independent research saying that Windows is better than Linux for one reason or another. Inevitably this ellicits a bevy of posts claiming some connection between the firm and M$, 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.
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 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!)
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 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.
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!
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
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.
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!
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.
"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.
http://www.corespace.net/slashdot.jpg
That is what I see in Firefox 0.9.2 on Windows and Linux.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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".
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.
Have you ever heard of FUD?
If my huge corporation was facing competition, I would do anything possible to discredit that competition.
I would hire good writers to create multiple accounts on message boards, and these writers would be directed to create personas that were modded up as informative, funny, you know, all that opinion maker stuff... like those smarmy jocks in high school.
When pro-Linux articles came up for comment, these writers would say things like:
I run linux at home, but...
Linux is too hard to install and gave me cooties!
As much as I love Linux, it is just too hard for anyone but the Elite!
Linux is great, but without MS Office, life itself cannot exist.
My writers would also use personal attacks against anyone who tried to expose us, calling our opponents fanboys and zealots.
Online, no one can really tell who is the dog, so my writers would add lots of volume to the small number of real, genuine problems that real Linux users might actually have.
Any of this starting to sound familiar?
Good.
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
I'm seriously considering recommending Mandrake 10 to my mom - over Mac OS X.
The standard KDE 3.2 apps are extremely well integrated. The Mandrake Control Center is a match for the one in OS X, plus it provides an easy mechanism for finding and managing software. Sure, if you try to do complicated things or try out beta-quality software, it may involve digging around on the command line.
But for everyday tasks like web browsing, email, word processing, digital photo management, listening to CDs and managing mp3s, syncing a Palm Pilot, managing a calendar and a to-do list, burning CDs and DVDs, checking the weather, and instant messaging, Mandrake 10 with KDE 3.2 meets or beats the usability of any other OS - bar none.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
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.
Yes, having to think would be unfortunate :)
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
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...)
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Mandrake will ASSUME you want this and directly asks you. With a beginner install I believe the default is "yes", as well.
Never confuse volume with power.
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.
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?
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.
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.