Slashdot Mirror
Making the 'Best' Desktop Linux System
NorhLoudspeaker writes "Michael C. Barnes gives DesktopLinux.com readers an in-depth analysis of the technologies that make open source a great alternative to proprietary operating systems. Examining the various components that constitute a complete system, Barnes provides practical advice and instruction on how to improve your desktop experience and productivity with freely available software. He reviews desktop environments, communications using voice-over-IP, common applications, and more."
The best Linux desktop system will take advantage of the flexibility of open source and combine the ability to use any number of options.
....and I'd say it provides useful arguements for converting people from Windows and Mac platforms to Linux...but sadly, most people I try to convert use the "but this does what I want already, and that's more work, and I don't really see the benefit" excuse. It seems that people tend to suffer with what they have, if it works at all, rather than put in a little effort and change something to be much better.
Then again, I've always been a lousy salesman, so it may just be me. *wink*
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
IMHO the way we stare into a little window and operate things with a mouse and a keyboard is very very limited, and so no matter how hard you try, any desktop will basically suck....
I want the actual surface of my desk to be the desktop, one very lage touch sensitive screen.
It's pretty hard to explain to a user who doesn't care about such things why the look-and-feel is so different among the KDE desktop, the Mozilla browser, OpenOffice and Evolution. It's hard to explain the maddening complexity of clipboard issues among these apps. "Oh, you can't cut and paste between X and Y because X is a ___ app, but Y is a ___ app." That's fine for those of us who understand the differences among X, KDE and GTK, but ordinary desktop users shouldn't have to be aware of such things.
Fortunately it looks like there is a project to make OpenOffice fully integrated with KDE/Qt. Also, with both Evolution and Suse now owned by the same company (Novell) hopefully there is going to be some better integration there, too. I was somewhat disappointed when I installed the latest Suse 9.2 that there still is a confusing choice between Kontact and Evolution, and presumably Evolution isn't fully integrated with the KDE desktop, but I expect (hope) these things will be fixed in the next release.
Think more about seamless integration, less about apps. The apps are there! But the user experience is not.
These are my observations as a five-year exclusive desktop Linux user.
Damn, but that is well written! I can't think of something better to set in front of a prospective Linux user. It is concise, easy to read, pleasant, and just detailed enough not to make the reader feel like an idiot. I have saved the whole thing to a word doc as well as a pdf to send to friends who are thinking about Linux.
http://www.busyweather.com/
I want a desktop that with a browser that supports all the major video streams, right out of the box. I don't want to install, tweak or jack with shit.
The problem is that there is no "best" linux distribution. Everyone has a different definition of "best", so how can one be best for everyone? The article praises SimpleMEIPS. Except for the installation, the features he mentions are all available in a stock Debian install (he simple apt-get's the programs).
In my opinion, the article has a very "look ma, see what I can do" approach. He praises many open-source applications, but they are available the same way in any distro, and manages to knock all other distros in the process. Maybe for a newbie, SimpleMEIPS is a good distro, but it certaintly isn't the "best desktop distribution".
For the everyday family - small office user, Linux is more than ready. If everything you need to do is reading&writing documents - browsing the internet - managing email - IM - chatting - listening to music and viewing videos, well, Linux is there. Do you think it's just nothing? Well,it's just what most computer users need.
Professional users need something different,of course. I wonder why doesn't Adobe port its suites to Linux (or at least support them on WINE). And music editing and production on Linux is still at zero.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Typo in your URL, should be: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ :)
liqbase
I have offered to several people to put on a different browser, and make their bookmarks work. I get the dreaded face of 'no' from them.
Wow. You probably know more morons than me, and that's impressive :).
When I hinted people to switch to Firefox -without offering any help about their bookmarks!- it was enough to talk about simple features like tabbed browsing and pop up blocking to see my whole lab switch in mass.
I can't see why Firefox and Thunderbird are not as simple as Outlook and IE. Frankly I think Thunderbird is much more user friendly than Outlook. That's not the problem. The problem is not OO.org vs Word (OO.org is OK for 90% users). Is much more the crappy Gimp vs Photoshop, or NOTHING vs FruityLoops, or NOTHING vs Macromedia Flash, or poor little Inkscape vs Illustrator. The challenge is on professional, large suites, IMHO.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
The way I see it, is too many small businesses choose to use packages like MYOB and more importantly Microsoft Access and do there own databases. What kind of linux alternatives are there for software like this? I think if this question could be answered satisfactorily, a wide section of the market could more easily be persuaded to linux based systems.
Mixing desktop environments, with the resulting incongruities, overlap, etc is exactly the wrong way to create a coherent environment. At that point I would tell an arbitrary user to use either KDE or GNOME, but not "both".
What I've found is that the important things for general-purpose corporate users are these:
- Driver support - One of the biggest problems has always been, as the article mentioned, driver support. It's terrible that after over a decade of this being one of Linux's biggest issues (overall), in this day and age we still have some problems with "mainstream" hardware support. That's going to take desktop Linux moving from early adopters to leading edge stage.
- Slim down, stable apps - For a corporate user, there's very few apps that most IT departments want everywhere. Those few programs should be highly stable, integrated, well-tested, interoperable, and easy to use. For most users, those applications are an Office suite (OpenOffice and/or MS Office via CXOffice), e-mail program (Evolution or Outlook/Lotus Notes via CXOffice), web browser (Mozilla and/or IE via CXOffice), and file and print - usually provided by the OS or UI (KDE or Gnome). Naturally, every user has additional apps they need, but these were the core.
- Interoperability - Of course, any corporation of a significant size cannot afford to migrate every desktop at once. One big requirement of a Linux desktop is that it must have the ability to seamlessly interoperate with the existing infrastructure and systems. That means using existing directories (AD or eDir), accessing file shares, exchanging documents, and enabling user collaboration (e.g. IM, shared meeting spaces, etc.).
There are plenty of more issues and requirements, but those were the big ones. Also, along those lines, I expect a big advance in Linux on the corporate desktop from one of the big vendors very soon -- the existing capabilities appear to be creating "the perfect storm" for just such a release."Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
I have used SuSE for several years, along with other distros - Red hat (gee, they cut us end users off though - sorry, no red hat), Gentoo, Slackware, etc...
SuSE is hands down the best distro out there for ease of install, ease of use.
shameless plug? You bet. Any truth behind it? Yes. Try it out. SuSE has some downloads available to try the SuSE 9.2 live cd right now....
have a great weekend,
dave
Some things are just as easy in Linux as on Mac and Windows. Once you have a system setup with applications you use etc it is not a problem for most users. They just click and run their things. Be i OpenOffice, Word, Mozilla, IE doesn't probabbly matter. IE does have one advantage.
:) great!
Internet Explorer is an intuitive name, Mozilla, Epiphany and Konqueror aren't. So it will take a few extra minutes to learn about that for a totally new user. It is expected and nothing to worry about IMO.
Other things are more difficult. Installing new software for example, or worse, change hardware settings.
There simply isn't a powerful enough, yet easy to use tool to change hardware things post install. Just adding a new mouse with more buttons is rather difficult for many users.
There is one field where Linux has a far way to go still. It is for photography, art and painting things. For example there is no colour management and colour calibration support for cameras, scanners, printers and monitors. Those are absolutely nessesary for this kind of work. They exist in Windows and on Mac. This is where Mac has shined for many years....
oh... just saw that Scribus has some support for colour management
[but sadly, most people I try to convert use the "but this does what I want already, and that's more work, and I don't really see the benefit" excuse.]
Here in lies the greatest challenge of linux. The general user.
For me, I am a happy windows user. Now don't be mistaken I am not a windows zealot. I would happily chose Linux over windows anytime if not for its crippling weaknesses.
Linux is a great operating system but it suffers from what i would call a geek-mentality. Linux is a perfect operating system for geeks it is powerful robust and stable. But for a normal user it is hell. It is hard to configure, and learning to configure it takes ages to find out. The value saved by the free-ness of it is taken back by the amount of time needed to learn to use and configure it. It is hard to configure and can be very daunting.
Now I see many argue that this is the very essence of geeky-ness or whatever. They say that its power and configure-ability is why so many geeks love it. Thats allright for geeks and all, but to the average user they do not care about such things. Sure they would care about the basic things that can be configured (eg. themes et al) but on the most detailed things they would not want to even bother with them.
Until such time comes that Linux is ready for mainstream use. I would beg the linux people to not push linux into the mainstream. The reason is the same reason as why it is not good for U2 to have a unfinished version of their song spreading about on the internet. When people have tried it they get a first impression. They would get scared away by linux. If they try it at first they would get confused and be scared away. If ever you try to convince them again to try it they would remember their first experience and would not try it again. First impressions do count.
So I would like to ask the slashdot crowd. Linux is not ready for use with the general user yet. And until it is ready do not push it down the throat of the general public. It is bad for linux, it is bad for you(since linux would not get the acceptance you desire) and it is bad for them.
-
As a personal comment in regards to security, viruses et al., I would say that the amount of viruses, spywars, adwares depend on the market share of the operating system. The greater the market share the greater the amount of viruses, spywares etc. Though I could be wrong. The theory will come about when linux does gain a large market share and is ready for desktop use.
I migrated to Fedora from M$ a year ago. I find linux faster and more secure, and I like being able to configure everything. And I like the fact that everythings free. But I've crashed my hard drive three times cuz I didn't know what I was doing when I took the plunge. I still find the shell cumbersome sometimes. In the U.S. anyway, most of the Cheeto-munching, reality-tv-watching, Coors-drinking communications majors are just going to want to point and click.
What the hell was I supposed to be doing? I was going to do something, and now I'm on
Anyone I've tried to talk into using Firefox has not switched. Anyone who I've installed Firefox for and shown them how easy it is has switched. No exceptions.
People hate to change or commit themselves to anything. It means that they have lost control. They 'just want to have it fixed'. When you asked, you asked if they wanted to change...and the obvious response is 'no...just fix it'.
Here's my suggestion;
Now, show them Firefox and how nice and simple it is to have the group of tabs.
Let them know that Internet Explorer is still there and is the default browser...but if they want, they can make Firefox the default by answering the question that appears when they start Firefox.
Works like a charm.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
i have been using different variations of redhat for almost 5 years (6.2 - fedora 2). i'm impressed by the advances but none have come close to what i consider desktop ready. the average user doesn't want to think. they want to play their mp3's (not supported in fedora 2?), they want to edit office documents at home (open office is close, but not there and why should they need to know the different programs like abiword and gnumeric?) linux will be desktop ready when people stop supporting their favorite distro and begin to support common software. take the lesson from apple - the less a user thinks or needs to know the happier they are. before you release software do a user test with your grandmother, if she can sit at the machine and browse the web, play music, send email, and use office apps without ever needing to think, linux is ready. until then i'll keep my iBook, i like getting stuff done, not worrying about dependencies, libraries, or if my laptop will see my windows machine
A little bit of basic marketing will tell you that there's something called "market pull / technology push". The first is when the consumers seek certain qualities (e.g. GHz numbers). The second is when technology pushes new qualities (e.g. dual core systems).
The first one, you really only have to satisfy. The second, you need to market. You need to actively go out and explain to them why this would be better (on the ex facto assumption that it is, that's another discussion). Linux is very much a technology push. If you don't market it, people will not know that a better alternative exists.
Ever had one of those features/services, that you never requested (that is, up front you wouldn't be willing to pay for that feature), but turned out to be wastly superior to old ways of doing things? Because of that, it is right to market Linux despite there being no market pull.
Of course, that is under the assumption that Linux is better. If you look at general usage, I'm not entirely convinced. Remember that most people have *one* PC. If you come to a situation where "Uh oh, Linux does not support this (at all)", we would run it on our Windows box. They would wipe Linux and install an OS that does what they want (less EULAs and DRM, oh well).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There are two issues which I've come across with convincing people to stick with a desktop linux.
1. Too much choice for an un-informed audience. When you install a distro, you get choices of what you want to use for a task. Which is great, for an experienced user. But when a new user is presented with 4 programs to perform the same job, they tend to get frustrated. There's nothing worse than using something wondering if it's actually the best tools to use for the task. Personally I'd like to see a desktop linux with a select version of each app installed, a single window manager, single browser, single word processor. Once the user gets the hang of it, build their confidence, then they'll look for alternative applications and improve their linux knowledge a little bit futher.
2. Integration. Make everything talk to each other properly. Fix the clipboard issues between applications. Windows users are used to being able to select stuff in one application, copying, and pasting it into whatever they want. All of a sudden they're faced with the problem of not being able to do this anymore.
Task Mangler
This gut has shown that there are many programs that make a useable Linux environment. That's nice, but I think the main advantage Windows has over Linux is that in Windows it's very easy to transport data from one program to another using the Copy and Paste functions. In this way it's a breeze to copy a picture from ACDSee to Word, for instance. Now try to copy a picture from GQView to OpenOffice. As long as this doesn't work in Linux it will not take off. People need this kind of functionality. On the other hand, we Linux users have gpm which works a lot better for copying texts that the Copy/Paste system in Windows!
-- Cheers!
Personally, I think KDE is way better than XP as a desktop environment. And anything you don't like, you can configure. For instance:
Multiple desktops, Klipper, Select & Middle-click paste, and if you drag/drop a file, you get a very helpful tool-tip asking whether you want to copy, move, or link it, which is far better than the MS way of:
if (different disks){
copy, by default
}else{
move, by default
}
BUT if (shift){
do the opposite
}
Incidentally, there is nothing so dreadful about the Linux copy-paste system. Just get used to the fact that there are really 2 clipboards. It can sometimes be really useful to utilise this behaviour!
Also, once Linux is installed, no-one needs to ever use the Shell (my Aunt certainly doesn't!). But it's great that bash is still there - I for one find it can be extremely useful!
YES! Same here, so let's expand on this more; I think it's important to recognize exactly what it is that turns off people who actually make an effort to switch to Linux but get repelled.
On paper/in writing, Linux is great. People say lots of good things about it, it has ideological advantages, installation and hardware support have improved by leaps and bounds, etc. So what's the problem?
It's not easy for geeks to understand; it still isn't easy for me to understand, even though I was the one going through it. In the end, I did emerge triumphant from the guts of my computer, and said, "See? I did it! What's so hard about that?" Then I thought to myself, "Hey, waitaminnit, I just spent seven $#*$#ing days trying to install something that should only take 30 minutes. How can I say that it was easy?"
In fact, it was so hard for me to answer such a simple question that I started keeping a diary while I was installing. (It's in bits and pieces on various Linux forums; someday I'll post it in one big piece.) The answer is this:
When installation/use of Linux goes well, it goes very well. When something goes wrong, everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
Example: I install a Linux distro; it autodetects my monitor hardware and sets the resolution. It's wrong. After installation, I boot up and the monitor is wonky --I can't see anything.
What I should have done: press Ctrl-Alt-Plus or Minus to step to the next monitor resolution to get the screen to appear, and then I can use the GUI to permanently set the resolution to the correct value. Or press Ctrl-Alt-F1 to get to a text screen, and then manually set the XF86config file.
What the newbie would do: nothing. What can a newbie do? Call his friend over and get him to reinstall Windows. What else can you do when the screen is wonky?
But notice what I, as a geek but Linux newcomer, will do. I search the Internet from my other computer, find the solution, and correct it. I realize: "Ah! I clicked the wrong choice when I installed Linux --I thought they meant 'desired resolution' when they really meant 'maximum supported resolution'." If appropriate, I reinstall, this time clicking the correct option, and everything goes well.
And I discount the problem that I just encountered.
"It was my fault," I say to myself. "My mistake caused this installation problem with Linux. See, the second time I chose the correct option, and everything went well! Linux is so easy to install!" And besides, those people at Mandrake/ Fedora/ SuSE/ LibraNet/ MEPIS put so much work into making this a nice-looking distribution. "It would be a pity to just ignore the excellent interface and all that F/OSS on the desktop just because I couldn't install it properly! Let's mark it down: this is a nice distribution."
But you know what? If the newbie encounters a problem, it's a showstopper. If you can't see the monitor, who cares if Firefox has tabbed browsing or OpenOffice.org can export MS Word documents to PDF?
This, I think, accounts for the wide discrepancies between people's experience with Linux. Even in the comments for this very Slashdot article, we have people saying, "I had big problems with Linux!" "What are you talking about? I had zero problems!" It's because, when there *is* a problem everything comes to a grinding halt.
We Linux supporters have to work on this: make sure problems are not showstoppers for newbies. When there is an error message, tell the newbie where to go next. Make it work in degraded mode instead of not working at all. Make it easy to recover. Example: I can't write to my addressbook in KMail. The problem? "Can't write to addressbook" is the message. Like, thanks a lot, KDE! Can you be a little more obvious? Example: in Ogle, it can't identify the sound device
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]