Slashdot Mirror
A Glimpse at the Linux Desktop of the Future
hisham writes "Every now and then we see articles pointing out "what's wrong with Linux on the desktop." This one gives a nice overview not only of the problems we all know, but also where to look for solutions (app dirs, smarter filesystems) and what's out there (projects trying to change the face of Linux, like Klik, Zero Install and GoboLinux). Still, it usually boils down to things that Mac OS X already has or that are/were touted for inclusion on MS Longhorn. Fortunately, the major desktops stopped playing catch and are focusing on forward-looking Linux projects, like KDE Plasma and Gnome Beagle. Interesting times ahead."
Dear Linux,
At first, I really admired your lofty goals and pure-hearted ambitions. You spoke of freedom. You spoke of choice. You spoke of a world without limits.
But over the years, you have stagnated. Sure, you make a robust server and I'll always have a place in my heart (and my production racks) for you. But you have failed to thrive on my desktop.
Why, just last year, I tried to get you to work with my 23" Apple Cinedisplay. I was ready to return to you full-time after a long desktop-linux hiatus, if only you could have displayed properly on that Cinedisplay without screwing up the resolution. I didn't want to run you in 1024x768 on a 1920x1600 screen. Nor did I want to run 1920x1600 worth of desktop in a 1024x768 resolution where I'd have to roll the mouse all over the place to screen-off to the rest of the desktop.
And should I even mention the fiascos with various sound cards that you just didn't want to play nicely with? Or of the hardware that you were supposed to be "known-good" on that you chose not to work with at the most inopportune moments?
After seven years of courting, you still didn't achieve desktop prominence in my life. In fact, the only switch you encouraged me to make was away from you and toward a platform that "just works".
See, I've recently decided to shove you off the desk and turn you into a fileserver for my massive collection of porn, MP3s and ripped movies. Apple has found a way to give me a beautiful, slick, useful, enjoyable interface that makes everything you offer look like a rejected Fisher-Price prototype. And it slaps this onto a powerful BSD core. It's the best of both worlds. More, when I plug something into it - be it an iPod, 23" or 30" cinedisplay or anything else, it just works. I don't have to spend five days playing with LineModes in x86free.conf or massaging device drivers. I don't have to spend more time configuring and installing things than I do using them anymore.
As I said, you'll always have a place in my production racks. There, we'll always be friends. But when it comes to my desk... I think we should really stop seeing each other. In fact, I already have. I've moved on. And my new desktop is more than you could ever hope to be. Maybe someday you'll grow up and realize that "free as in freedom" and "screw the corporates" rhetoric, nice as it is, doesn't justify sub-par computing.
Maybe we can try again some day. For now, I need my space.
The biggest stumbling block to Linux on the desktop is that it is not pre-loaded by computer manufacturers such as Dell.
The average user would do just as well with Linux pre-loaded as they do with Windows pre-loaded. Add to that the lack of viruses and spyware and any productivity lost due to being in unfamiliar territory would possibly be more than made up for by the less-attacked environment.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Now how about fixing the things that I and others see as the real PITA of linux. Lack of standardization adoption for filesystem layout, software installation and configuration?
Dont believe me those problems exist? go ahead and enable MDKKDM to allow remote X terminal logins. It's massively different from XDM, GDM and KDM on it's own, oh and where the hell are the config files? certianly not where most other X configs reside (the fault there started with KDM's decision to create a new standar for themselves.)
to hell with pretty, clickey, easier to use interface. Fix the problems we have that cause even seasoned vetrans to pull their hair out.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Linux needs to get its act together
/tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
Am I missing something? How can it be forward looking when its already integrated into Mac OS X (Spotlight) and an add on for Windows (Google Desktop search)?
Linux...the CHOICE of a GNU generation!
I can see some of the points here. However, for most applications, I do not go about the ./configure, make, make install routine. I simply load my app manager (YaST), choose the app I want and it is installed.
I think the KDE and Gnome desktops are very usable with a few minor tweaks. As I often mention, my 60+ year old mother uses KDE just fine. And, hey, she's not gotten any viruses or adware.
Now, I realize that the *nix desktops are not perfect and there are some serious hardware issues, due to manufacturers bending over for big Bill, but these things are slowly changing.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
In the bit on desktops he writes:
But everybody I know likes to clutter their desktops with icons. My wife does it in Gnome. My workmates to it in windows and KDE. Everybody does it.
Yes it may look ugly and cluttered but so is the physical desk I work on. That's life. Shouldn't we stop telling users how to organise their data?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Sadly, you and I are probably going to get nailed with "flamebait" or "troll", but you are essentially correct. If we were still in the day of DOS where we have to fight with IRQs and DMAs, what you mention would probably be more tolerated by new users. When I taught Solaris, I found that the people who adjusted to it the easiest were (no surprise here) mainframe users! I even taught one lady who was in her 70s how to use Solaris, and she did better than most of the rest of the class!
As would be expected, the Windows generation had the most difficulty converting. Thanks to Windows' dumbing down of the interface, people have come to expect the simplicity of throwing in a disc, letting it install, reboot if necessary, and the app is there. Issues like permissions, libraries, kernels, and so forth are going to be completely foreign concepts to the last majority of computer users that are out there.
And can you imagine what most people will think when you tell them that Linux runs X? "You mean, Linux is pornographic?!!" (That's called humor. I know that that's a foreign concept to many Slashdot mods.)
Obviously, education is the key, but that also assumes that the user is willing to learn. Not all of them are, and that's fine. Let them eat Windows. But until Linux does dumb itself down for those who fear the command line, people will look at it, them look at Windows, and switch back to Windows because of the sake of simplicity.
Alternately, I wish that more companies would offer PCs with Linux preinstalled right there in the store with a Linux desktop right there. Let the people see what Linux can do; let them get a feel for it in the store. Maybe they wouldn't feel so afraid of it. The Linux desktop is very nice as of late. MEPIS Linux v3.3.1 has one of the best desktops I've seen when it comes to user friendliness. I've actually been able to convert a few people to give Linux a try because of it. (Not many, mind you, but it's better than none.)
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
My plan9 desktop, (at 50% zoom) the open window is a vnc to my X desktop with 9wm running.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
is that they do not want something that is like windows, they just want windows. I've seen people that prefer to do very complicated things on windows rather than running a couple of unix commands. Most people do not "choose" to use linux, they just learn one way to do thing, and this will be "the way" to do things. They are more sure to use windows than you will ever be to use linux, as a superior entity (the computer seller) imposed it to them. Instead you choosed to use linux, you know that there are many OSes, so you'll never be 100% sure that linux is the right choice over all other OSes. How strange is world we are living...
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
one click app installs exist on linux from places like Linspire, so it's possible that other distros could do it as well. And a front end like synaptic makes it pretty darn easy, and is more advanced than what redmond offers.
Linux is ready for the desktop,*especially* for grandma, it just needs to be preinstalled and sold like that in the big retail shops. And frankly, with hard drive sizes like there are now, getting a computer with dozens/hundreds of apps preinstalled and available in the GUI menu tree would tend to negate any reason for grandma to even go looking for more apps. And people who actually have a need for more exotic apps usually have the wherewithal to go find them and install them, on any platform.
If you want the user to be able to determine what Taskbar/Dock type thing they want, you might want to check out DragThing as a third option, which lacks the visual style of the Dock but works a whole heck of a lot better.
I'm not a big fan of highly customizable interfaces, but man I wish I could just turn the Dock off once and for all.
"Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
"Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
I know they are various issues for linux on the Desktop, hardware beeing the most proeminent. I remember the first time I tried to install linux... The installation program asked me: "Do you want me to set the symbolic link ?" ( ln -s /usr/linux-blahblah /usr/linux I guess )
Well, install has gone a good way since. The real problem is not here, the real problem is people.
Yep.
Most people don't understand crap using a computer... They use learned sequences of actions to use their apps but have absolutely no clue of why they are doing so. Most people WILL get very confused if you switch their windows taskbar from botton to top. Try that, really.
They don't know how to orientate in the city, they just know that to go to work they should take right right left left right straight ahead for 100 meters, left left and right. Should they take a wrong turn they will be completly lost.
Most people have a hard time with mac or with windows... geez, most people have a hard time with a microwave !
You can't be ahead in technology and easy to use for everyone. It's like asking a quantum physic book to provide new theoretical breakthroughs and then complaining that your grandmother can't understand it.
\u262D = \u5350
One seldom commented disadvantage of tightly integrated desktops like Gnome/KDE is their lack of extensibility. Yes, you read that right:) As a 10+ year Linux user, the biggest advantage I've felt of using Linux is its extensibility in the 'UNIX way' - using pipes, scripts and files. The more you change these interfaces into object-oriented/middleware derived ones, the more difficult and annoying it becomes for UNIX hackers to script them - which destroys one of the main purposes of being on UNIX.
With the evolving desktop, people stop writing general purpose tools that abstract data and functionalities as simple files and scripts, and instead write their stuff for specific desktops. One good example is synce - a program to sync WinCe devices with Linux, which integrates well into Evolution, but has no 'dangling interface' where you can just snoop in, get your data and do what you want with it. File-oriented interfaces were a given with most Linux apps till very recently. And as their number/dominance diminish, I wonder if Linux hackers will slowly switch to other UNIXes just because they'd be more UNIX-like.
two days ago, i'd like to know what do you think about.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
My biggest complaint isn't with the distributors, but with the software developers: they still hae this 1990's mindset that it's perfectly acceptable to ask the user to compile their package (and about a million obscure dependencies you've never heard of) in order to get their software to work.
If you want to target your software to the desktop (and I mean the windows audience), then give me a goddamn binary and let me use the damn software now, not three hours from now.
FYI, this article has already been ripped to shreds in the comments at Linux Today:
here
- Kevin B. McCarty
The crazy thing is that that actually was a huge win for Linux! Dealing with USB devices didn't used to be nearly that easy! But it still is a long way from being usable for any normal person.
2) My Linux Waterloo, though, is updates. I have two Linux systems: a TiBook with Yellow Dog, that has an irretrievably corupted RPM database, and a Gentoo whitebox that I can't push through to Xorg and 2.6. (The latter was switched to Gentoo after Mandrake package management imploded.)
It's been a fun ride, but I've spent enough time on treating my computer as a hobby. OS X has pretty much taken over for all my actual computer use outside of work.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
What is with the linux (and OSS world in general) with picking the most godawful, unprofessional and embarassing names possible for their stuff?
Come on! Can you imagine going to a professional conference and admitting that you run "gobolinux?"
not me. hell most of the time when asked I tell 'em I'm forced to be a mostly windows shop and have a few *coughcough*fedora*coughchoke* machines on the network. All these cutesy application names just serve to make boardrooms and administration folks not take the otherwise perfectly fine application seriously. No it's not right because they should be judged on their merits, but it is the way of the world none the less.
The world according to SComps
I recently installed Fedora Core 4 at home to run a local DNS server, DynDNS daemon, MythTV and a few other things. I'm pretty savvy with Linux and sysadmin for a living (as well as programming) so you could say I have an affinity for problem-solving.
.NET Framework, and I haven't got it installed. At no time have I ever downloaded something and it started telling me that various specific versions compiled against specific architectures are missing, and I cannot continue.
That said, I have struggled in recent days getting everything I've wanted to install working correctly. Largely this has been due to GCC4.0 incompatibilities (many apps just don't compile at all from source without patches), but also because lots of exotic RPMs (Myth being a prime example) have not yet been built for FC4.
A lot of things I have had to compile manually from sources when I had originally set out to use yum to manage everything (I've recently been converted to the ease-of-use and practicalities of RHEL and Redhat Network).
Another poster commented that Linux is perfectly capable as a desktop OS - until you need to install an application, play a game or upgrade their hardware. Joking aside, this statement is 100% accurate.
In my endeavours trying to install all of my "exotic" applications like a movie player (xine), NZB downloader (klibido) I have either run into problems where the currently available RPMs are buggy, or the sources just don't compile out of the box. How can any non-technical person be expected to deal with this?
If you contrast this with Windows, I think the only time I have had a failed installation with a piece of software I have downloaded has been when it has required
Linux will need to standardise itself a lot more if it is going to be a force on the desktop. RPM/yum/apt-get and so on is a step in the right direction, but its still voodoo for most people. Unfortunately I beleive this standardisation is in stark contrast with what most techies (myself included in some way) believe the strength of Linux to be - i.e. diversity and the "joy" of compiling things manually.
If I need a new version of a driver, I need to be able to grab it as I can on Windows without recompilation. That's unacceptable. The NDIS wrapper implementation is a good example: it works and mostly well, but to get support you have to mess with the command line and text files or even scarier stuff. What you should do is be told to insert the CD that came with the device and have linux do it for you.
The office apps are already on linux; it's already fast; much of the UI and desktop is already user friendly. Installs have issues, yes, but they're down the line and mostly hidden from the user. The user is neatly kept in their home directory. Hard disk management is complex, but not much more so than Windows and partitioning is nicely automated in most installs.
I like linux a lot and use it regularly. I don't actually believe, though, that it can currently compete against commercial OSs without a massive change to some of the attitudes about what's acceptable, and a resulting change to the way Linux works. Hardware is the area where those attitudes seem to be totally exposed to the end-user.
Knoppix is a linux distroy anyone can use, the automated hardware detection etc is supurb. The DVD 4.0 version does demonstrate a lot of the incompatability issues he's talking about though. because knoppix has ~6 gigs of applications (they're compressed on the DVD image) many of the applications are broken.
Debian is the distro Knoppix is based of of, so it has really good hardware detection, but the 'stable' version is using the 'older' proven stable detection routines. That means it doesn't configure everything perfectly, for instance I had to enable DMA on my dvd-rom, and I had to use k3b to 'configure the system' for cd/dvd burning*.
I also have the advantage of having prior experience, So I know how to install flash support for my secondary browser, and how to configure java, which isn't included in debian because it's not FOSS. Plus I knew that the FOSS drivers suck compared to the proprietary ones, so I knew where to find them, and I knew what settings to set in the 'install' script for them, because I've been messing around with X11 config files for years now...
So basically, initial set up is probably beyond most users, but the same is true of windows. Most windows users can't even install applications by themselves, and when they try to the end up with a million spyware programs.
Debian is 'ready' for the desktop. The installer is painless for geeks, and simple enough for rice boys. A few noobs might even get lucky with it. The stable version while old, has a very simple gui based app finder that anyone who can use download.com can learn how to use.
*= Because i'm lazy. I wasn't going to muck about trying to figure anything out.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- Gentoo's portage
- Knoppix's auto hardware detection and configuration
- Slackware's BSD-style rc.scripts
- Mandrake's installer and partitioning tool
There's a lot of stuff in the Linux world that could tackle the most common Linux concerns, but no one has tried combining them. Why not? Linux will not advance on the desktop without some realization that no distro is perfect, but by taking from multiple distros one can get pretty close.>> "Installing Applications is complicated"
/Applications. NOT /usr/bin, in one massive folder along with libraries and god knows what else. And furthermore, if for some reason they stick their program in ~/Documents instead, the program will still work just fine, and the computer will still find it if it needs it to open some document. If I want to uninstall an app, I drag it to the Trash: Done.
> No, it isn't. It's different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn't complicated.
Compared to OS X, it is. Most OS X installs consist of one step: "Drag to the Applications folder". And even if you don't do that, it usually works anyway; Just download and run. In my 15 years as a Mac user, I've not once had a problem with an install. The same cannot be said for my experiences as a Linux user.
>> "Directory structures can be confusing to navigate"
> Yes, Joe User and my mom don't use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please...
> And don't tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn't.
OS X's structure makes much more sense. Applications are in
>> "Interface is confusing and inconsistent"
> While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn't more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to consistency, Linux is a complete abomination compared to OS X. Cross-application consistency has always been a strong point of the Mac, and continues to be until this day. Every text field in every program works the same way, sources the same dictionary, remembers the same settings, etc. Apps use the same key commands. Hell, I can drag an image out of Safari onto Photoshop in the Dock, and it opens up fine. I can add a menu shortcut to every single Cocoa application at once. Don't like that all programs have Minimize as command-M? Change it. Don't like that there's no key command for Customize Toolbar...? Add one. People don't even *think* about doing stuff like this in any other system. All programs respond to Applescript, all programs have the same look, etc etc.
>> "Steep learning curve required to understand system functions"
> As is the case with any OS out there.
But again, OS X does the best job. Want to run an FTP server? Open up the Sharing system preference, select FTP, and click "Start". Yes, it is that easy -- And if you didn't know what to click, just type in "FTP" in the search field, or even "host files" or whatever, and System Preferences will highlight the correct preference pane for you to click. Unbelievably simple and elegant.
Want to add a new account? Click "Accounts", and click Add. Want to change the Startup Disk? Click "Startup Disk". Etc etc. I still have no idea how to change startup disks on a Linux machine.
Anyone who says Linux is as good as anything else out there hasn't used OS X. Don't get me wrong; Linux is great. I run a dual-boot Debian/OS X system. However, as a desktop machine, Linux isn't even close to the Mac.
The developers (generally) are not the zealots... they prefer to get work done instead of arguing about which is better. ;)
It's much better to think of the fanbois as Linux's PR department. Sure, they don't have the level of experience of Microsoft, but in true open-source style, they are slowly improving with time :-p
Conclusions?
1/ Mac OS X is not all that great
Way to go for the 'ole "Proof by Small Example" there.
No offense, but the problem you just suggested seems like one of those "whooptie do" problems.
Mac OS X is designed like any other platform to be a lock in platform, that is, it uses the same file format everywhere. Even iPods are formatted HFS+. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to burn a disk or reformat an iPod, it just means that you *NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLATFORM TO USE IT*.
Just because the way you use computers isn't the same as the way Mac users use their computers, doesn't mean your opinion is magically better than theirs. It means you are looking for something else. If you like compatibility, stay on Windows. Everything in the world runs Windows. If you like to tinker, use Linux. If you just want to use your damned computer, use Mac OS X. It's that simple.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
I want my Linux desktop to get away from the focus on "applications". I want to deal with my data, not the tools I use to deal with the data. I want to open "documents", or pages, or multimedia collections of data. I don't want to have to remember which applications I use to edit or view them. I don't want to have to pick one tool, and exclude the rest. If I need to edit the text of a page, retouch the images, then upload it to my server, then serve it, I don't wnat to have to open the page in a series of different, mutually exclusive contexts. I want to open the page, and have combined menu items (or other GUIs) for all the operations from which I'll select to work on that collection of data. Or add new data. I'm really tired of feeling like I'm the janitor for a bunch of applications, finding/opening them in the right sequence, having to choose which app I'm working in, with its shortcut keys, default window positions, and exclusions of operations I'll have to do "later", when I open the other app to do those other operations. Then return to this app when I need to do these kinds of operations again. I can't even keep a single document open in multiple apps, alternately using them on the single doc, because each doc has a single datatype that's tied to a single app (or a few), and each open doc has its own saved instance - which doesn't refresh the open instances in the other apps.
Linux uses apps which mostly have three tiers: storage, engine and UI. They've got lots of IPC, mostly standardized. The desktops have more IPC options, too. I want a desktop which lets me find multimedia documents by bookmark, metadata searching, or virtual hierarchical views of my storage. When I open a doc, it can include live data, including data updated in realtime from distributed storage (or generation, like web services or streams). I want to work from menus (or other GUIs) that contain all the valid operations for all the valid datatypes in the doc. When I want to add new datatypes, I want to add from GUIs integrated with the doc scope in which I'm working. When I want to store my doc somewhere on the network, either as a resource, or a person, I want to merely send it to that object name, with its default transport (SMB, NFS, email, WebDAV, FTP, HTTP-PUT, SMS/Content-Disposition, whatever) automatic, unless I select another. I want to subscribe to versions of multimedia docs across the network. And I want to diagram how data flows through my document components into each other, including filters and logic, with dataflow/workflow templates that are just other docs that people with whom I work send around.
No more "apps". The Mac paradigm that Jobs swiped from Xerox PARC was supposed to be "doc centric". Apple and IBM started a grand partnership, Taligent, to put "OpenDoc" on every desktop, but they gave up when HTML and the Web supposedly offered a simpler, more popular way to do it. But it's 2005, and I'm more expert in operating a stable of complicated apps, each its own little world (with rickety bridges to some, but not all, other worlds), than I am in my own data. Let's slice up the apps into their features, each with their GUIs hanging out, then rebundle them into a desktop "meta-app". Which is the sole context, representing many different nonmodal contexts, in which I have to work on all my data.
--
make install -not war
Who the hell modded this up? My mac reason FAT32 just fine. It is the fault of Windows for not bothering to support HFS+. As for toast, your coworker is a dolt. There is an option right on the screen that says "Burn for Mac", "Burn for PC", or "Burn for Mac and PC". It's very prominently displayed, and in fact, you can't even turn it off.
What are the odds that the system was trying to preserve metadata attached to the files that only HFS+ would be able to store?
Actually, Qt does offer a compromise. They offer expensive licenses, which raise the barrier for entry considerably. Basically, two classes of people can develop for KDE:
- GPL developers.
- Developers working for large corporations who can afford Qt commercial licenses.
This rules out:- Small companies wanting to do a cheap *NIX port of their Windows / Mac app.
- Freeware / shareware authors.
- BSD or other GPL-incompatible Free Software developers.
If not everyone can develop for a platform, then those that can't will develop for something else. Anyone can develop for GNOME, since it it LGPL'd - even commercial developers.Ironically, GNOME is an official GNU project, while KDE isn't.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't care if OSX only has one desktop environment. If I were on linux or solaris or any other system, I'd still only be using one desktop environment. I may have the choice to use others, but I'd settle on one and use it. Well, guess what? I settled on OSX so it doesn't matter if there are alternatives to it or not. Plus, it's pretty damn configurable (functionality-wise).
As for linux on the desktop not being the focus of developers . . . that doesn't matter. If I need a truck to haul things in, don't bother trying to sell me a mini-cooper. Telling me that the manufacturer's focus was on little sporty roadsters and not hauling vehicals is not relevant, if I'm looking for a hauler and not a roadster. My needs are my needs and the developer's justifications for why it doesn't meet them does nothing to... well... meet them.
LIkewise, I don't care if linux is free. My time isn't free. This is precisely why, after seven years of heavy linux use, I finally decided to move away from it this year. Great - I saved $129 on the operating system. But how many hours have I spent troubleshooting, maintaining, fixing and configuring it? $129 is only a few hours worth of work at the office and I couldn't even begin to calculate the value of my time that I've put into getting linux to work properly over the years.
In short, don't make excuses for why linux isn't ready for the desktop. Don't try and justify why I shouldnt' need the things I need or why I should put up with inconveniences. If you want linux to spread and be more popular, do things that make people want to use it. I've been using linux for seven years. I've been using computers since my VIC-20 in 1984, when I was seven years old. I'm a software engineer that works almost exclusively on solaris at work and have used a dozen distros (preference to Debian - which is what I run on my production server and Slackware which I haven't used in years). I've also used Windows a fair deal. A little 3x, a bit of 95, a bunch of 98 and onward.
If a hardcore techie and geek and long-time linux user is tired of dealing with linux and moving away from it, what do you think you have to battle against to get your average-joe to move to linux?
The same ol' arguments from windows users. You know what? I've seen people who were clueless about computers, being more perceptive to linux than windows users. Windows users react, because it's different, and they usually refuse to read even a single paragraph of a help file, because that's how they're used to from windows.
/bin for binaries /sbin for system binaries. whats so confusing about it?
Oh, I see it now, C:\Program Files for binaries and C:\Windows\System32 for system binaries is better, yes? /boot is confusing? maybe it's better to have them scattered all over the place like in C:\boot.ini and in C:\Windows\System32 as well as in the registry?
From TFA:
Installing Applications is complicated
I hear this argument all the time and it really is starting to annoy me. It's just different from windows, that'a all.
A typical windows installation:
You first need to download the installer application or insert the cd where the app resides.
A window pops up welcoming you to the installation, you click next.
Then the program's license pops up which you need to click accept and click next.
Then you need to choose whether you want another installation target folder, other than the default C:\Program Files\ and click next.
Then you choose the name of the start menu group and click next.
Then if the program installs any DLLs which are outdated you'll be asked whether you want to keep or overwrite the some2423_app.DLL or not and click next.
If all goes ok, you'll click next for a few more times before finishing the installation by...clicking Finish
A typical linux installation:
Depending on your distribution you type:
apt-get install thisapp
or you might have to type yum install thisapp
or emerge thisapp.
In all cases, the app will be downloaded and installed for you. That's it.
Directory structures can be confusing to navigate
No they're not. It's just different from windows, that'a all.
Or maybe the fact that you have your kernel and boot loader in one place under
Or maybe the slash(/) is confusing? Although you use slash for URLs and pretty much anything, why not use the backslash for browsing directories like in windows, eh? Better, yes?
I'd say that *nix directory structure is the standard and anything else that uses backslashes and obscure directory structures is plain wrong and confusing.
Interface is confusing and inconsistent.
No it's not. You're coming from windows, that's all. Infact I can find hundrends of inconsistencies with the windows interface. Like for example to shut down your pc you need to click Start. Huh?
And if you're talking about how desktop enviroments are different, like Gnome and KDE, well, they're meant to be different! Use the one you like. There is no reason why everything should look the same. You want simplicity and ease of use? Go with Gnome. You want eye candy and many options to tweak? Go with KDE. You want fast response times(if you're on old hardware)? Go with Fluxbox or IceWM. You want super duper eye candy and fancy effects while you don't care so much on stability? Go with Enlightment.
There's something for everyone, and I think this is alot better than trying to fit all sizes in one shoe.
Steep learning curve required to understand system functions.
Oh, common! How much easier can system functions get? Is it easier on windows? If so, why? Maybe because you've spent so many years learning how to use every system function? Do the same on linux (RTFM/learn) and then come back and tell me if it was at all difficult. You see, it's different but it's not difficult. Don't expect to know-it-all on your 1st day. And don't expect to "just figure it out" without even reading a single sentence of a help file.
When you started driving, did you just took the car into town, expecting to just figure out things without trying to learn? Didn't think so. But you w
VStrider.
I'd hardly call HFS+ "lock in"... if you or your OS vendor wants to write code or drivers to support HFS+, all they have to do is look at the unencumbered documentation available here. You may not be able to do this personally, but your OS vendor certainly can.
If you want to do the same with NTFS or Microsoft's SMB... well, get ready for a lot of reverse engineering and compatibility bugs, and be prepared for the idea it may never work at all. That's a little closer to what I'd call "lock in".
I'm also just a little bit confused as to exactly what the person from the grandparent post's anecdote did to get OS X burning CDs as HFS+. It sure does seem that the CDs I've burned on my mac in the past have come out ISO 9600. Perhaps I've been doing something strange without realizing it?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I run Windows due to some hardware issues, and I feel like I have put in enough effort trying to make stuff work.
However there is no ting which annoys the hell out of me in Windows than the pressumed useful and slightly forced data-organization.
Why on earth would I put my music in a folder called "My music" in a hidden folder called "My Documents" when I obviously want it in a common, shared folder? Not to mention I keep my system and data on clearly seperated partitions, and Windows insists on putting everything on the system-partition.
Add to this that a lot of applications now have started applying this idea and you get "My downloaded files", "My shared files". Even "My Virtual Machines"! You would think that if you did virtual machines, you had enough clue and brains to organize your files.
Here's hoping (not believing) that the removal of "My" in Longhorn may put an end to this madness.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
There never will and never should be a "linux desktop". Linux is a kernel, and last time I checked, kernels don't have desktops, unless it's Windows, and the desktop is active desktop, a feature of IE, embedded in the kernel itself. What we will probably see in the future, however, is a distro-independent package manager based on autopackage instead of .deb or .rpm. At this point, that's probably the most praticle thing to focus on. It'd also be cool if said package manager could set up some sort of /Applications symlink folder.
That's the pragmatic approach. A kickass 3rd-party package manager. It's a bit too late and probably unneccessary (not to mention futile) to tell every OS developer and distro where they *must* put everything.
Joe User should care less about filesystem hierarchies anyway. Just give him a nice frontend to resolve all this chaos down below.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Why?
... my distribution has those libraries, and I just need to install them, right? After installing a series of library packages using the built-in package manager the make file should work regardless, right?
.tgz files would do it (/usr/lib versus /usr/local/lib, /usr/include versus /usr/local/include). This breaks the makefile that comes with the package, which couldn't find the libs and the includes although they were on the system.
.tgz source file for every library, and then edit the makefile of the application.
... the makefile. What a piece of *&(&(( . If you edit it without paying attention to the difference between tabs and spaces ... your makefile is ruined, and the error messages don't give you a clue about what happened. Everyone who tried that once either learned or quit ... but it's still in use. And then the gloriously obscure syntax linking targets to source.
... the package installed without further errors, and things worked ... up to a point. It's functional, but it still misses out on a graphics library.
Because I find it a pain! I'm thoroughly computer literate, I can program in about 5 computer languages (scientific work / console applications only; don't ask me about GUI's) , but I'm new to Unix/Linux, and I'm certainly not an admin. And I definetely shouldn't have to be to install an application. If it takes me 2 days to learn about and fix, how will a real end-user fare?
Example: I recently had to spend 2 days installing JGR (a Java Gui for the statistical package 'R') by hunting down and fixing all library dependencies. Now admittedly, the maintainers of JGR haven't gotten round to providing an installer for Linux yet. However
No such luck! The Linux distro I use (SuSE 9.3) installs the packages in a slightly different place from where the
This forced me to learn about the workings of Linux / Unix, hunt down, download, and install a
Ahh
After installing every library from source
The same package installed under Microsoft Windows in about 5 seconds and then worked just fine. Go figure.
Linux ready for end-users? Only if they stay with the packages that come with their distro.
I can't believe no one has mentioned Symphony and it's eadically different interface. SymphonyOS
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
My input requirements:
1) Don't confuse eye candy with usability. A corrolary is don't confuse trendy with usability. OSX has a lot of eye candy, but it's usability really isn't all that stunning if you look at it objectively.
2) Don't make the unwashed newbie your core audience. Newbie friendly isn't synonymous with usability. Everyone grows up, and no one stays a newbie forever. It's hard to believe, but it's true. You don't want to frighten away the newbie, but neither do you want to force him to abandon your desktop in disgust once he graduates to an intermediate or advanced user.
5) Don't dump legacy functionality. Just because you don't use the network connectivity of X11 doesn't mean no one else does either. If you haven't noticed, "the network" is getting bigger and more heterogenous every day. If I can't use your desktop over the network, it's going to suck.
4) I don't use Linux, so don't make a Linux-only desktop. Most of you developers know this, but unfortunately there's enough of you that don't to make things a real pain in the butt.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
-AT
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
The saving grace of Linux is that, due to it's openness, it can be modified to give everyone what they want. It can still be my vodka screwdriver while we water down another version to the Shirley-Temple-on-the-rocks-with-extra-sugar that will be demanded by the GUI-only crowd.
But rockier coastlines are in sight. The effect, I predict, will be called "distro drift", with certain distributions falling off the Linux bandwagon altogether...when you've reduced it to a toy, it can't be called a "real system" any more! So we'll have the "two Linuxes", the weak-n-easy camp, and the Real-computers camp. This is happening already...who today can look at Mandrake and Debian and identify them as the same system? Maybe so, for a while longer, but it's getting to where some Linux distros have as much in common with each other as they have in common with...any other operating system!
Must we go this way? Or is it just time for us Linux fanatics to tell everybody to just go away? Why torture Linux and try to mold it like a bonsai tree until it becomes something else? Why not just BUILD SOMETHING ELSE, and let Linux be Linux? What is the point of switching from Windows to Linux, if you demand that Linux become the exact, duplicate, genetic clone of Windows?
Yes, I'm a Linux fanatic...and even I, since day one, have told people "Linux is not for everyone". If all the computer is to you is an entertainment device, used just to play games and chat online, you need something that caters just to those needs. Get an Xbox and a Web TV. Get one of those new cell phones with a screen on them. Get an Ipod.
You will only meet with failure if you keep beating on the computer trying to hammer it into something that's a completely different shape from a computer!!!
The only other possible outcome: we slash Linux down to a shadow of it's former self, abandon it to the Suits, and go off and build our own cool operating system again. Then the cycle will begin again...have I explained this clearly enough, at last? Can everybody clearly see what the path leads to?
I disagree. I think the real problem is that many developers, administrators, and users don't like the idea of trusting an application to install itself correctly on a system....
.package file and have it update all instances of X library. Autopackage doesn't have update abilities yet, but in the future his may become a possibility.
.package file, regardless of their distro). The ability to just click on a .package file and have it install itself and any dependencies is a big advantage. But autopackage also lacks things that rpm and deb has, and so autopackage isn't a replacement for rpms or debs, but rather a partner with them to make installing certain pieces of software easier.
Autopackage allows one to install a package without a root password, so it must install it in the home directory, thereby avoiding any conflict with existing files. I'm not aware of any mechanism that rpm or yum has to automatically detect 'tampering' of already-installed files (such as through a worm or virus). I'm not aware of any measures autopackage takes to ensure that a package is not a virus or spyware, but in theory they could have developers register in a 'trusted packages' list that autopackage would ping each time a user tried to install a package. Then if the package isn't from a 'trusted source' than a dialogue would pop up to warn the user of potential danger associated with installing this package. Then of course, there is the probelm of statically linked libraries. There does seem to be a potential security issue with that, and it would be more of a hassle for the user to update all his apps to plug a security hole. Then again, autopackage could hold a database with a list of all installed libraries across all installed apps, and then one could download a
You can double click a rpm file and have it install itself, but it requires the root password to do so, and it doesn't handle dependencies like autopackage does.
Really, the three major advantages that autopackage has are cross-platform compatiblity with other distros, the resolution of dependencies without being required to go to yum or Synaptic, and faster distribution of software among different distros (one doesn't have to wait for their repos to be updated with the package, one can just go to the developer's web site and install it from their
The more testes the better,
At the moment I'm merging everything with wine, but in a week or so there should be lots of testing to do...
drop me an email at oliver_stieber@yahoo.co.uk and I'll let you know when enough works been merged into wine that many games should be playable.
Sofar the Directx 9 playable games include:
Halflife 2.
Rolercoster tycoon 3
Teenage mutant ninja turtles
Colin Macea rally 2004
Kohan 2
Axis and Allies
The increadables
Warhammer 40k
Evil Genius
Pirates
Robots
Settlers heritage of the king.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.