Asa Dotzler on Why Linux Isn't Ready for the Desktop

An anonymous reader writes "Asa Dotzler of The Mozilla Foundation compares the explosive growth of Firefox to the anything but explosive growth of Linux and what it needs to do to get there for the "regular user" AKA mom, dad and grandma Bootsie."

Comments

Well, here's my take

[the_mad_poster]

My general take on Linux, take it or leave it or try to convince me why I should change my outlook.

Linux is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better.

The problem with Linux is not that it's not production ready, it's that it's a system that doesn't have anything special to offer and has nowhere new left to go. It has taken a large chunk of the market share away from the old, cumbersome UNIX systems, with their painful licensing models and lackluster support, but now it has no more market share to chip at because the supermajority of disk space that is left is in the form of desktops.

And Linux is just nothing special in that realm.

I speak authoritatively on the subject because my experience with Linux begins many moons ago with an old system called Linux Mandrake, now called Mandriva Linux. It started with version 5.2, a system forked from the Red Hat 5.2 release. I have since used Mandrake 6.0, Red Hat 7.0 and 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, Fedora Core 2, and variations from SuSE.

The first version I used was painful. It was a horrible system with a horrible interface and horrible documentation. Managing it was excruciating, and it wasn't uncommon for a seemingly simple change to break numerous systems in unrelated modules and drivers. The GUI was weak, disorganized, and difficult to manipulate. The desktop was hard to customize, and the interfaces were slow and cumbersome. Installing and uninstalling was nearly impossible because packages scattered files across a confusing, oblique filesystem, and it was a very common occurrence to find rpm entries had been corrupted and left unusable.

These problems I experienced were not uncommon and plagued Linux for years, leaving astute IT professionals shaking their heads, and young, energetic, and idealistic kids suffering under a burdensome system. I think it is fair to say that the rise in Linux use during the IT bubble and the subsequent pop of that bubble is not a completely coincidental correlation. Literally millions of man hours were lost in this time to troublesome Linux boxes and that sort of loss can hit new IPOs hard when it comes time to pay the piper.

It took many, many years and thousands of developers, but the system finally began to shed its inadequacies and "quirks" and develop into a full-fledged corporate workhorse. The managers who had been shaking their heads warily approached new versions and their confidence was bolstered as the GUIs began to fill out, the quirks began to shrink to the background, and more application support became the norm on new releases.

Now, Linux is a force to be reckoned with in backoffices and server racks. It is not, however, any closer to dethroning Windows as the supreme ruler of meatspace userland.

There is a very simple reason for this: it sucks.

I know, I know, I just finished zipping up the body bag on the "Linux isn't production ready" myth, but we've moved to a whole new realm here. We've gone from the terminology of fsck to frag. From SMP to MMORPG.

The problem is that everyone knows Windows and everyone's applications already run on Windows. There is no purpose in learning a new system because Windows is now polished and stable, and maintains its original attractiveness through its continued ease-of-use. Like Linux, it has shed its inadequacies and become a competent and powerful system in its own right.

So, in effect, we have the Windows system which has provided a consistent and simple interface for a decade now, and the Linux system which is an alien world to most people. Both function competently, though Linux still suffers a bit from the problem of glut thanks to its monolothic structure, and neither really offers a serious bnenefit over the other. As Joe Sixpack sitting in my cubicle, I have to think "Well, then why should I switch?" As the IT manager evaluating the cost of switching, I have to ask, "Well, how can you justify the tens of thousands I'll need to spe

Re:Well, here's my take

[PocketPick]

Mandrake Linux isn't really that old of a system. I remember purchasing the 8.0 distribution at Circuit City just about 2 1/2 years ago.

Re:Well, here's my take

[wolffman1982]

I don't think the collapse of the irrational speculative bubble of the late 90's had any real correlation with those start-ups using cumbersome Linux systems. Rather, the reason peapod/pets/...com failed was because they were given amazing amounts of money to fund business models that didn't make money.

The VC firms just wanted a company to grow as fast as possible in order to create a profitable IPO. Linux costs were a pittance compared to the misappropriation of money by these .com's.

Re:Well, here's my take

[KaptNKrunchy]

And it is not currently called Mandrake Linux either. It is now Mandriva.

Re:Well, here's my take

[PocketPick]

I wasn't drawing attention to it's current name. I simply mentioned that as short as a little over 2 years ago, they were still Mandrake and thier product was still called Mandrake Linux.

Re:Well, here's my take

[KaptNKrunchy]

Plus, Jews use Linux.

Duh, it's free! (my appologies to my fellow jews, just couldn't resist)

Re:Well, here's my take

[aussersterne]

Classic formulation: if you're not interested in adopting the Unix mindset (text-based text processing, pipes, small well-defined tools, a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces, non-data-processing devices, etc.) then why choose a Unix operating system?

Linux offers a great deal of value that Windows doesn't. As someone who works with huge databases of text at a major publisher on a day-to-day basis and who has to use both systems at varying times, I can assure you of this. Just because you don't have the needs that justify the Linux learning curve doesn't mean that no-one else does. And even if you can't even see any features that Linux/Unix has that Windows doesn't, it's fairly rich of you to assume that everyone who chooses Linux/Unix over Windows does so simply becuase they are deluded.

I can honestly tell you that for any number of large jobs in my workplace, two or three commands at a Linux command line replace either dozens of labor hours, dozens of development hours, or the $$$ to purchase a specialized product in Windows.

What I don't understand is why desktop users who have no need of the "Unix philosophy" of data processing insist on complaining about an operating system that was designed to move DATA (not icons or mouse pointers) around efficiently.

If it doesn't fill your needs, don't use it. The unfathomable leap comes when you assert that no-one else should either.

Re:Well, here's my take

[TheRealSlimShady]

I can honestly tell you that for any number of large jobs in my workplace, two or three commands at a Linux command line replace either dozens of labor hours, dozens of development hours, or the $$$ to purchase a specialized product in Windows

I guess that's the thing - those tools in a Linux command line aren't unique (except uniq :). Those tools are ported to Windows, and have been for ever. Sure, some of the shells aren't available but the big two are (bash & ksh).

If it doesn't fill your needs, don't use it.

Bingo!

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with most of you points - to some extent.

However, I've been fixing windows boxes for friends and family for some time. It seems that after about 9 months of really using windows (XP in particular), everyone gets the windows sloooow down. Some part of the system slows to a crawl. Sometimes it is the login. Sometimes just to display the desktop. Sometimes it is when you launch the browser. Sometimes it is shutting down windows. *Everyone* who really uses windows gets this slow down effect. And everyone hates it. (BTW, nothing 'fix' this issue. Not registry cleaner, virus scanners, spy ware removal) And everyone wants something the will not only 'just work' but 'keep on working'.

I believe the real reason the Linux is not adopted as fast as it should/could is because Linux system are not sold as mainstream competion windows. If users could try a Linux PC at Best Buy and *see* how it really is cheaper, then people buy. And Microsoft knows it.

I recommend all Macs for friends and family now. I will not fix windows machines anymore.

-AC

Re:Well, here's my take

[aussersterne]

I guess that's the thing - those tools in a Linux command line aren't unique (except uniq :). Those tools are ported to Windows, and have been for ever. Sure, some of the shells aren't available but the big two are (bash & ksh).

You are, of course, correct. Oh, to be able to install cygwin+GNU utilities on all my company's Windows workstations (DROOL).

Unfortunately, it seems the IT department was trained in a Windows house and has some odd conception about nature of operating systems and some kind of a priori "pristine" state. We only use "pristine" Red Hat and "pristine" Windows (and anyone caught in violation of this policy is hung from a tree) and we only add to them "certified" (i.e. expensive, with support contracts) tools.

The result is that they spend $$$ on silly tools for the Windows components of the infrastructure that perform only 1/100th as well as a few GNU utils at the command line would. *sigh*

The funny thing is that they aren't even aware of anything other than the GUI. IT will stumble past an editor or two (i.e. me) working at the command line on a Linux station and ask in worried fashioon if I am "hacking something." I am loathe to try to explain to them that I have walked all the way across the building to use a Linux station on a particular database or directory tree because in so doing I can save two days' work of data processing just by spending ten minutes with bash+perl+tools.

It's a sad world. Think H.G. Wells.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Linux still suffers a bit from the problem of glut thanks to its monolothic structure..."

...and this is about where your comment lost all credibility, and consequently my attention.

Re:Well, here's my take

[OurCompliments]

The only reason that I primarily use Windows as opposed to Linux (I dual-boot) is the number of and quality of game offered for windows. As soon as my new computer comes in I will give UT a try on Linux, but I can't see it being too good with the lackluster ATI drivers on my SuSE partition.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Eric Damron]

"Linux is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better."

It's not what Linux has that attracts me. It's what it has not.

It doesn't have a philosophy of lock in.
It doesn't have virus after virus taking my system down if I don't patch it daily.
It doesn't have a philosophy of limiting my fair use rights.
But most of all it doesn't have Microsoft with their anti competitive practices and their obnoxious licensing agreements.

Re:Well, here's my take

[cshark]

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?!

And if you're going to point out the Jews, you might as well point to the Africans, and Arabs that use it as well. Come to think of it, you also have the Chinese and the Europians, and the Indians as well. Come to think of it, it's the only thing all of the above parties will ever be willing to agree on.

You're an ass, but you do have a point.

Re:Well, here's my take

[radarsat1]

I am loathe to try to explain to them that I have walked all the way across the building to use a Linux station on a particular database or directory tree because in so doing I can save two days' work of data processing just by spending ten minutes with bash+perl+tools.

Next time try using SSH instead. ;-)

(Actually I started this just to write that snide comment, but it actually encapsulates a HUGE advantage of Linux/*nix that I've really come to appreciate in the last year or so: You can get a hell of a lot more done remotely in a Unix environment than you can with Windows. I can work on 3 or 4 computers simultaneously without moving from my desk. Which I do quite often, actually. Programming, compiling, testing under various environments, etc, even remotely operating equipment for testing purposes. With Windows I use VNC, which is hardly the best use of the network bandwidth. Meanwhile my co-workers are still running up and down the stairs... Okay so it's not an advantage in terms of exercise and health, but that's a whole other story. I know I must be lucky that they put up with me and my vices in our Windows-oriented environment at work, I don't have to deal with this "pristine" problem you have. Thank goodness.)

Re:Well, here's my take

[aussersterne]

There is no SSH on our Windows stations, and we are forbidden from installing it! (*sob*)

I must go drink now. I have to return to this environment in a few short hours!

Re:Well, here's my take

[zaxus]

Quoth the parent:

...that I have walked all the way across the building to use a Linux station...

It's called telnet.exe, my friend. It's installed by default with windows. Try typing 'telnet' at a command prompt and see what you get. :-)

Re:Well, here's my take

[TheRealSlimShady]

Dude, terminal services has been available for remote admin of Windows servers for five years now. If they're still running up and down stairs (or indeed using VNC) they're doing something badly wrong. Terminal Services is much lighter on bandwidth than VNC, and in dedicated LAN/WAN environments is great. Not so great over dial-up, but still usable in an emergency.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Gates, you forgot to sign your post ....

Re:Well, here's my take

[aussersterne]

Unfortunately, it's disabled in Red Hat by default just now, and the official IT policy is to used operating systems (including Red Hat) as-shipped, meaning no telnet. :-(

I am tempted every day to transition from editorial to IT, in order to kick some a$$es.

It's all so ridiculous! No wonder I can't help but post to /. stories like this one...

Re:Well, here's my take

[PygmySurfer]

Classic formulation: if you're not interested in adopting the Unix mindset (text-based text processing, pipes, small well-defined tools, a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces, non-data-processing devices, etc.) then why choose a Unix operating system?

Try telling that to a Mac OS X user.. :)

There's no reason Linux can't do both. Hiding all of that UNIXy goodness under a pretty UI can be quite useful.

Re:Well, here's my take

[xRobx]

Actually its sounds like you just aren't able to learn how to use a Linux distrobution effectivly. Just my take though. I use Slackware and am able to run Windows programs as well ass Windows games.

Re:Well, here's my take

[xRobx]

Actually its sounds like you just aren't able to learn how to use a Linux distrobution effectivly. Just my take though. I use Slackware and am able to run Windows programs as well as Windows games.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I think products that suck are under-rated! Specifcally, I don't believe that the quality of a product is more important than price. Microsoft got where they are because of price rather than quality.

Anyway, rather than get into an argument over what I _think_ is more important, I'll just give my thoughts on what will happen:

Computer prices will continue to decrease. The OS cost will become increasingly the most expensive "component" of the package.
At this point, _either_ someone will simply release a computer that breaks a phycological price barrier (e.g. a $99 computer) by using Linux _and/or_ a new market segment will be opened (a la iPod) e.g. (obviously this is an example) a pocket sized tablet, wirelessly connected, but marketed in a maner like the iPod to make it consumer desirable.

I believe that once this happens and is low cost enough to become very pervasive in consumer space, it will likely work its way into corporate culture that way, rather than via corporate down through small-biz to consumer.

I normally like to be optomistic about FOSS's chances, but take a realistic position... and have to conclude it isn't going to happen soon. However, I do truly believe consumers are more than ready to adopt portable, digital, wireless, "convergance"** devices, and I think open standards are the only way to make these things work and I think FOSS is the only way to make this economical! The pisser is, someone will do this and become fantabulously rich from it.... and it won't be me! :-/

**Appologies for using buzz words, but I'm trying to describe a product that doesn't exist and that I can't imagine!

Re:Well, here's my take

[chris_7d0h]

I see some valid points in the grand parent post and also think that Khasim put it rather well.

Classic formulation: if you're not interested in adopting the Unix mindset (text-based text processing, pipes, small well-defined tools, a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces, non-data-processing devices, etc.) then why choose a Unix operating system?

This argument is complete BS. from a business point of view. No one I know chose to work with Linux because primarily because it's "Unix like". They chose it because of the apps that run on it and how well those apps work on that kernel (sometimes also couples with reduced license fees).

The OS is pretty much irrelevant for anyone except a select few sys-admins. What people like mom&dad, the PHBs, the secretaries, various enterprise developers etc. are after are applications. All the categories listed previously want to do stuff, specific tasks, not muck around with the OS as that has nothing to do with their tasks.

Mom&Dad wants to surf the "Net" and send email. PHBs wants to read up on new buzzwords and marketing reports from Gartner et al and secretaries wants to spam all the people the PHBs manage, as well as typing up some word processing documents or extract a report from SAP. The developers wants to finish their next J2EE application in time so they won't be sacked and can get on another project.

Ok, there were a lot of stereotyping there, but in essence it's a pretty accurate picture. Whatever gets the job done and done in a sufficient manner is enough for these people. Since Windows is the de facto standard and 99.9% of all these people know Windows and has been working with it for years they see no reason to switch.

The most difficult thing to change is peoples' habits, which reflects on whether a start-up becomes a dud or the next "Google" (presenting something good with a low enough transition cost which Joe Average can justify).

To return to your statement "If you don't like the way Unix does things, don't use it", that falls pretty flat as well if you consider OSX.
It's Unix-like at it's core (Darwin), but I doubt many of the Mac customers buy a Mac because it *runs Unix*. I'd venture a guess that Aqua, the brand, the attention to usability details and the apps running on OSX has more to do with it.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Xabraxas]

I speak authoritatively on the subject because my experience with Linux begins many moons ago with an old system called Linux Mandrake...

Your opinion is still your opinion no matter how "authoritatively" you speak.

These problems I experienced were not uncommon and plagued Linux for years, leaving astute IT professionals shaking their heads, and young, energetic, and idealistic kids suffering under a burdensome system. I think it is fair to say that the rise in Linux use during the IT bubble and the subsequent pop of that bubble is not a completely coincidental correlation. Literally millions of man hours were lost in this time to troublesome Linux boxes and that sort of loss can hit new IPOs hard when it comes time to pay the piper.

You've got to be kidding me. Are you seriously suggesting that Linux is responsible for the dotcom bust? If anything it was the other way around. Linux was responsible for the sudden upsurge in the internet; unrealistic investment was responsible for the crash.

Why, indeed? In the end, the Linux system offers nothing of value that Windows doesn't.

That's simply not true. Linux gives me the ability to fine tune it. For example, when the newest version of WindowMaker came out the old patches I used with it would no longer work. I rewrote those patches and intergrated them into a local repository so I could install the newest WindowMaker with my revised patches through the package manager. Just the other day I made a one line adjustment to the source code of a gnome-specific piece of software to allow it to open ROX instead of nautilus. Try that with Windows. Not every user will take advantage of these capabilities but it is an utter lie to say that Linux offers nothing more.

Re:Well, here's my take

[EggyToast]

Zuh? It's not hidden. They just don't force you to use it.

All of the utils and other programs in the aptly named Utilities folder are, more or less, just GUIs for some standard command-line tool, from fsck to top and more. The catch is that they're right there, with useful interfaces, and they give you a surprisingly high amount of options without forcing you to know everything about everything, even the stuff you're never going to use.

You COULD hack at OS X using just a command line. If, at the login, you enter your username as >command, you plop into a command line and can work that way. You could set up your network, mount your volumes manually, and, well, do pretty much everything.

So yeah. There's no reason Linux can't do it. You don't need to bash users over the head with a command line. It should be there if they want it, yet a mouse-oriented computer user should be able to use the system equally well.

Re:Well, here's my take

[vettemph]

Article was posted at 8:57
Your reply was posted at 8:58
That's 806 Words Per minute.
Very Impressive Mr. Gates!

This was obviously a planned attack from MS labs.

Re:Well, here's my take

[mfloy]

In my opinion, the biggest hinderance to linux is acceptance. Windows is like any other tech "standard". People use what everyone else uses, even if it isn't the best or isn't right for them. Its like portable music players, even if something better comes along, people are going to use iPods because everyone else uses iPods.

Re:Well, here's my take

[BeatRyder]

The University I attend does not allow us to install programs for lots of reasons. How ever, I can still download putty.exe and ssh anywhere I like. for the last year I have not even logged into the schools network, save for grabbing info from the public share for homework. I have used knoppix cds, and vnc to use my gentoo box at home. Now that I have my laptop, I use a knoppix disc, usb wireless adapter and iptables to create a private access point for my self and some classmates. Linux has only made my computing life easier. Sure there are some hurdles when you first start. But I remember facing the same thing when I was 12 and learning DOS 5. Then along came windows 95, and I was GUI bound till last year when I started with Fedora Core 2. I Qucikly switched to slackware, and now Gentoo (LFS is next). When I was using win 9X I often "hacked" it to start in command line only. That way if I had a problem, which was common in those OSes, I could fix it, and start the GUI. XP came along, and lost all faith in MS. Long story short. I missed the power of the command line, I wished I started using linux sooner, sure it would have been harder. But I would have learnt much more, and possibly could have contributed more to the OSS community.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

"someone will simply release a computer that breaks a phycological price barrier"

Funny typo :)

Phycology is the study of algae... I hope you aren't suggesting that algae will start buying computers when they hit $99!

p.s. that stuff about "pocket sized tablet", it's called a PDA. Most people don't want them. I agree that free software is how cheap computers will happen, but it might go via the modified BSD route instead so and still end up with significant amounts of closed source.

Re:Well, here's my take

[vansloot]

PeaPod failed? News to me: http://www.peapod.com/

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Let me see you make a nice custom windows kernel that only has exactly what your hardware requires. And then watch your WINTENDO machine boot
and run apps AT AN IMPROVMENT YOU CAN NOTICE!
What was that you CAN'T!!! ITS IMPOSSIBLE!
That is one edge a custom compiled kernel will always kicks windows @ss in. And Iv'e done dual boots tons of times. One windows on linux. Even a bloated STock linux kernel would load hotmail.com and my emails faster then wintendo. So I think you should learn some more facts :)

Re:Well, here's my take

[level_headed_midwest]

I also run an ATI card (64MB Mobility M9000) on SuSE 9.3. The fglrx drivers will crap up your xorg config and also the suspend. I don't use them, and as a result, my graphics card performs at about 30% of what it should.

Re:Well, here's my take

[VectorSC]

The_mad_posters arguements are pretty good, guys. You have to give him that. Every point he has brought up is real, from my perspective as a Linux developer, poweruser, security consultant, and general computer dude.

I see people at home using Linux, MacOS X, and Windows all of the time. And most of what I see is trouble issues with these systems.

Because of this, I can add another point, one that may seem totally strange and out of place here, but nonetheless accurate.

Home Linux users with Windows level user ability feel trapped when they use a Linux system instead.
Why? Because Windows provides the most user friendly method of downloading, installing, and using software of the Big3.

You install a piece of software on Windows, and you get 1) a central place to uninstall the junk you just put on there, 2) An Icon on your Desktop that you can click on, and 3) an icon in the infamous start menu.

Under linux, I have to hit the commmand line more than 50% of the time, and using the 10o or so different uninstaller/installer systems that come with linux is a REAL pain in the ass for the standard user.

Under Windows, I almost never HAVE to use the command line to do something. Under linux, it's just the opposite.

Hell, even OSX is moving from an easy to use system to more convolution in installation. For example, is it a .sit file, or a .dmg? And if I just drag this onto the dock, will it have to mount that .dmg every damn time I use this program? (of course I know how to fix that, but remember, not everyone is savvy out there), and what about this installer thingy?

Some of these problems are being addressed. In fact, the SymphonyOS problem is trying to address all of these flaws and more all at once. (note the bias of a developer here, BTW.)

So, give me my cake, and watch me eat it, too!

Re:Well, here's my take

[nihilogos]

There is no purpose in learning a new system because Windows is now polished and stable, and maintains its original attractiveness through its continued ease-of-use

My mother has purchased a new laptop about two weeks ago. Over the course of those two weeks it has progrssively taken longer and longer to go from logon screen to usable desktop, and it now takes about 15 minutes. Neither myself not the retailer has any idea what the problem was, and although some sort of malware is quite likely none of the anti-virus software she has tried has found anything.

If it were a linux system, I am confident I could find the problem inside 5 minutes. Every problem I have ever had on linux has been resolvable, but I know of lots of scenarios where windows has just had to be reinstalled.

This is why I use linux. It's not a car with the bonnet welded shut.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, what a crock of shit! Clearly a MS$ employee. You think your stupid FUD is going to stop anyone from using Linux. Linux is in a vertical climb and MS$ and SCO cannot stop it. Linux will blow right past Longhorn. Windows is only for the brain-washed.
Go ahead stay behind and watch innovation pass you by :)

Re:Well, here's my take

[thewils]

I'm surprised the parent isn't -1 Troll, because there's no information in it. One person's viewpoint - Linux sucks. No argument as to why. Forget the fact that it's about $1000 (CDN) cheaper than Windows, Office and Photoshop - it's just really bad. Dammit, I guess I should fork out for Windows + apps then 'cos I've been using Linux (Gnome) as my primary desktop since Fedora Core 2 came out, and I feel like I have regained control over my computer. It does what _I_ want it to do, not what Bill wants it to do, or some anonymous hacker or virus writer. I use Windows (XP) on a Thinkpad for development at work so I have pretty good experience of both Oses.

Linux is already on _my_ computer, and it's free. and you know what? it does everything that I want in a desktop (and more) I'm gonna use it.

Re:Well, here's my take

[SPY_jmr1]

As is? No service packs for windows? *hopes this is not the case, but just in case, *pukes up some vital organ**

I'm sure i've seen a java ssh client, that you use in your browser.. But they probably except their rules and ban things like that because of the inherent risks.

Couldn't you just sumggle in a copy of putty on a floppy? Copy over telnet.exe, see if they even know the difference.

NOTE: I "told" you what to do as an educational means of explanition, and am in NO WAY WHATSOEVER responsible for resulting actions and/or consequences.

*grumble* goddamn GIMME generation...

J

Re:Well, here's my take

[gcauthon]

My general take on Linux, take it or leave it or try to convince me why I should change my outlook.

I think the idea is to convince you to get rid of your Outlook.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny

Awesome reference.

Sorry I spent all my mod points already. :-P

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, even Mandrake 5 (or Mandrake anything) was a dream to manage and use compared with my first Linux distribution installation, which was a Slackware release from around 1993/1994. Even getting X11 up and running was a job that took nerves of steel and an intimate knowledge of monitor refresh rates and other internal gubbins.

Seriously, people have been talking about Linux being "ready for the desktop" since the late 1990s and it still isn't there yet. Personally, I don't think it will ever be. The reason is that compared with a commercial organisation, the Open Source community does not have the human resource focused on the Things That Matter when developing a feature-rich, stable, GUI.

In order to test these things to death and also make sure that the features people really want are in there, you need a bunch of people who will do repetitive/boring stuff _because you tell them to, and because they won't get paid unless they do_. It takes a LOT of boring effort to produce a stable GUI with everyday features that works seamlessly from end to end. The OSS community is not up to producing such a system.... in my opinion.

Re:Well, here's my take

[lnjasdpppun]

When talking about how ready GNU/Linux is for Desktop user, there is no point in saying it's better because the source is available since no desktop user is going to care (hell most won't even know) what the source code is.

Desktop in this context means "clueless users who want it to do what they think they want", not a kernel hacker who is using a GUI.

I'm pretty sure I've posted about this before and I've been called a troll in some #linux channels for voicing my opinions on the state of Desktop distributions. It all comes down to what definition of Desktop User you want to use, for me a Desktop is something that works with very little effort on my part - recompiling anything is far too much work. Having to manually edit config files, mounting drives, stupidly named options and difficult to install programs are all too much work for a Desktop user.

Unfortunately most of the people who are good with linux don't understand this because they use a command line for everything (ie what do you need a GUI for?!?). They tell the user complicated bash commands to change the desktop background....

I run Slackware on my local server and WinXP on my desktop, I've tried many distribution as a desktop system and none have even come close to the simplicity and functionality of Windows XP. Don't believe me? Thats because your not me and your needs are different. :) Most of the time I'm not doing anything more complicated than internet/music/movies/games on Windows and Linux (at present) has trouble doing those things in a fashion I find acceptable.

Ubuntu has come a long compared to Redhat 7 I first started using but it is not an acceptable desktop OS for me at this time. On a server I wouldn't run anything but Slackware (certainly not Windows) since its what I know and perfectly usable over SSH and does everything I need in a server.

PS: I realise I indirectly called myself a "clueless user" :) and thats what I want to be when using a Desktop OS, I shouldn't have to think about anything I'm doing. It should just work.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Timtheenchanted]

Interesting, this reads like the writing of one of the shills described by PJ on grokelaw the other day. The sort that uses just enough truth in their piece to alloe them to spout numerous untruths and still seem plausable. How on earth did it get moded up so high

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here's the flaw in your take:

The "new" (new to ms users at least, no hard feelings) most linux-based OS's bring to the table is thrift with system resources, at least compared to Redmond's best or OSX.
Most any modern linux distro can make an old P2 or P3 computer quite liveable as a desktop machine, especially if one uses windowmaker or some other lightweight window manager. Running XP on those machines will be very s-l-o-w, while running win98 is a downright quaint experience at best.

One of my machines is a P2 with a 2.6 GB hd, yet it runs Debian testing/unstable with a very full-featured and multimedia oriented windowmaker desktop. I don't think you can even *fit* XP on 2.6 GB, lol.

So spend that money on minor retraining or spend it on periodic major hardware upgrades, new software, codecs, drivers, licenses, and so forth.

Re:Well, here's my take

[SmellTheCoffee]

Well, Here's my take on your take...
The computer is only as good as the user sitting in front of it. It is not important what your computer can do for you but what you can do with your computer. Windows has long had a philosophy of "making things easier" which really makes a user dumb. I use Linux at home and windows at work and let me tell you this, when people come and see my windows desktop (without icons) they freak out. Well they are just icons but windows users won't understand that. Since most windows users are required not to use their brain...they would obviously find Linux (or Unix) hard since...your computer is only as smart as you are.

And by the way, Linux is not for everybody and no linux distros claims it is for everybody...such claims are windows' forte.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

You want a -1 Troll? Ok:

Shut up. You're a moron.

Re:Well, here's my take

[NoMoreBS]

I think the question of "what things will I lose if I switch to Linux?" is just as important as the question of "what can Linux give me that Windows doesn't?"

People are afraid of not being able to use their favourite programs and not being able to access data. Sure, there are many great programs for Linux which provide the lost functionality if you switch from Windows. But some are missing.

Personally my favourite thing about Windows is Autohotkey, basically an open source hotkey and macro program. I have looked and not found the equivalent on Linux, and until I do, I won't be switching to Linux full time.

Re:Well, here's my take

[shicaca]

I've downloaded three versions of Linux over the years. I have a x86 chip and every. single. time. it fails to install. It either just sits there for an hour doing nothing or shoots out a string of errors. This is another reason people don't want to go to it -- it's not nearly guaranteed to work with every single system. Also: Somebody PLEASE tell me why Linux (any variety) uses at LEAST 3 - 6 disks. A little excessive? I think so .... especially when you don't have the fastest burner and aren't genuinely ready to completely dump windows (in the event of not being able to use Linux for what you want/need). I'm not ruining my chances of being able to take notes for class. P.S. - Does Linux have a "hibernate" mode (or similar to such a function in Windows)? My laptop goes to class with me, but unfortunately I can't use the "suspend" mode b/c my battery gave out a little bit ago. With that being said, hibernate allows for me to unplug it and still resume. If it doesn't, how long does Linux take to boot? Love always, A person that has horrid Linux luck

Re:Well, here's my take

[Thing 1]

The automotive industry didn't revolve around people who can't drive. Why the hell should the computing industry revolve around moms and pops who can't use a computer in the first place?

Duh? Misusing a computer won't (generally) result in loss of life.

I think that's really the only point I need to make, although there are others available.

Re:Well, here's my take

[tylernt]

Putty doesn't have to be installed. It's just just one little EXE that can be run from a USB key or downloaded from the web and run in place (from your Temporary Internet Files folder).

Re:Well, here's my take

[jaypaulw]

No one is saying that 'we' should take away the enthusiest product. The point is that the enthusiest product is merely that. The real tool is the camry.

Re:Well, here's my take

[IdolizingStewie]

My Camry can go 150? Since when? Sure felt like I'd almost maxed it out at 108.

Re:Well, here's my take

[letxa2000]

Grandparent's Camry went 150 in free-fall after being driven off a cliff.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Many moons ago? Nice speak. Newbee. I have been using Linux since the early 90's. Think before Redhat. Think before CD-distribution or ISO etc download. My first Linux was one of the very first Slackware 2 floppy distros in the pre 1.0 kernel era. No GUI etc. Just the basic kernel. A shell. And rudamentary system binaries. You think you know pain? You know nothing. Coming in on the game so late you missed alot. In the 10 year span since 1995 till now Linux has come further than Microsoft in it's near 30 years of existance. You can speak authoritavely on very little here.

Sure Linux has issues. Are you honestly saying that Windows and Microsoft never didand still does not? What are you ignorant? I still remember upgrading from Windows 3.11 to 95. It was awfull! My sound card which I had never had problems with before was a nightmare in Windows 95 with drivers made for 95. God awfull. I would have to re-install the drivers every few boot ups because Windows would magically loose them. Now that was ease of use and stability. Ever heard of PNP? Plug N' Pray it works. I learned recently that Linux runs rings around Windows for support of the new SATA drive standards. I had to fight to get Windows on my SATA machine. Linux gracefully installed itself in notime flat with little to no extra intervention! You wanna know the really ironic thing here? These days with almost no real active vendor support Linux supports more hardware better out of the box than Windows ever has/does/will. And Microsoft has thousands of vendors writing custom drivers just for their OS. I am afraid you have terminal cluelessness.

Linux etc never innovate? I beg to differ. There are many concepts Microsoft borrowed from *nix land. Many of which are all the rave for home users. Fully themeable GUIs. Remote desktop etc. The list is rather long. They were in BSD/Linux/etc long before Microsoft "innovated" them.

Windows polished and stable? Since when. It is still a buggy heap that will turn to a smouldering heap within 12 minutes average of being plugged into the internet! Granted Windows 2000 was a huge improvement. One of Microsofts most usable versions to date. A decent network/desktop OS for the most part. But they are already screwing that up. XP is a step backwards. And Longhorn does not look to be any better. It will have "new" "innovative" buggy technology that has already been in relative stable use in Linux etc for quite some time now. SVG rendered GUIs etc. More eyecandy for the users. More bugs for Windows users.

Notice I am not saying Windows sucks. Just that you are clueless. You think Windows is easier to use? Here is a test. Sit a pure novice in front of 2 identical clean PCs. Give them a windows install CD and a Linux install CD. Then leave for an hour. Which one Do you think they will have installed first and working better? You might be surprised. "IF" retailers etc offered systems pre-installed with Linux like they do with Windows there would be little real difference for end users. Unless perhaps they were a PC gamer. But even that is not such an issue any more. All an end user wants is a fully working PC that allows them to internet, email, word-process, and IM. And Linux is more than adequate in those areas. It is often rather ahead and more cost-effective to boot. Windows is not better in any tangible way. Windows is fine. But not better. Maybe I am biased. I have 2 Windows desktops and 2 Linux desktops. And a linux Laptop. I spend most of my time in Linux or BSD simply because they are more pleasurable for me to use and get the job done well. I don't do all that customization really. I just need stable systems for the usual suspects. Microsoft just doesn't stack up well most of the time.

Re:Well, here's my take

[superpulpsicle]

Pretty sure there is at least 1 windows box running in a local hospital. Police stations don't use computers, no? Well, I guess these aren't important after all.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is... what was it?... oh yes, Insightful.

Fortunately for Slashdot, not everyone mods down opinions they disagree with. Discussion usually works better.

Care to reveal these untruths, or are you just trolling?

Re:Well, here's my take

[Zphbeeblbrox]

I don't usually get involved in these conversations. However everyone seems to be forgetting something. Those rough edges that got sanded off on the server side of things? It happened because some company decided to pay someone to sand them off. IBM, RedHat, Suse, and others. There will be other companies that will be willing to pay other people to sand off the rough edges on the desktop. Any Discussion about Open Source not being up to the job ignores this facet. Open Source does not automatically mean unpaid. People do and will continue to be paid to work on open source. That includes the linux desktop too. KDE and GNOME are not Linux only. Other Unix companies may decide to adopt one and help sand off it's rough edges. Or maybe a company somewhere will come up with a way to make money creating a better X-windows desktop system. The landscape of software development, marketing, and selling is changing. It's changing slowly but it is changing. The real question here is.

Can Microsoft change with it?

Re:Well, here's my take

[sundog61]

Desktop in this context means "clueless users who want it to do what they think they want" No, it doesn't mean a clueless user. It just means someone who doesn't want to tinker with stuff and just wants to run their applications. And on that last point, Linux fails the desktop test for me. Linux will simply will not run the applications that I use. Wake me up when Adobe Creative Suite runs natively on Linux.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

(my appologies to my fellow jews, just couldn't resist)

You aren't jewish, else you would have written that in yiddish. You just said that to get mod'd up instead of down like that first goy er, guy.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Breakfast Pants]

Not really sure if it failed or not. It went off the stock market (got completely bought out by a huge company). The question is whether it got bought out dirt cheap or not, anyone know? I am pretty confident it failed with respect to all the money that was invested in it its dotcom days, but I'm not sure.

Re:Well, here's my take

[typical]

There have been improvements (TS can get $$$, though, as I understand it), but it is a decidedly valid statement that Unix boxes are much more usable remotely. I fire up ssh, have GNU screen startup automatically on all remotely-initiated sessions, and have a wonderful environment to work in. It really is just like being in front of the system. I've been known to write one-liner distributed applications using netcat in the course of work.

Terminal Services is a usable system for remotely dealing with a computer in a pinch, but nobody is going to claim that it's comparable to working on the local computer -- you're looking at a big remote desktop, for starters.

Re:Well, here's my take

[steelfood]

Unfortunately, for most people, it's about the bottom line: $$$. Productivity is key. While Windows has the danger of having all sorts of spyware, most people will look at a Linux command line and immediately feel overwhelmed. Shock and awe, while nice for birthday presents, isn't good when the user just wants to get something done with as little hassle as possible.

Short-term interests always take people's attention over long-term interests. What you describe are long-term. Contribution to a monopoly, contracting virii, susceptability to being locked in--none of these are immediate problems, and as you could probably find out just by looking at today's society, people generally don't care about things that don't pose any sort of immediate threat.

The issue with Linux adoption mainly isn't about how to get users with your view to adopt. Most of them already have, for the reasons you've stated. The Next Big Thing(TM) for Linux will be for the smarter user (one who can complete a windows installation without any assistance) to start adopting it, and they won't until Linux offers more than just long-term benefits over Windows.

Re:Well, here's my take

[typical]

Okay, now I gotta know. You work in Santa Barbara, presumably (you lucky bastard -- I'd give my left nut to be back there). Last I read, Santa Barbara was full of little tech companies. Why do you keep *working* somewhere like that with so many other options? I mean, seriously, I've read of places where the IT department is an absolute horror story, and if they're making one's life miserable, instead of being miserable about it, wouldn't it be easier to just start working somewhere where they're out to help instead of hinder?

I mean, yes, it's some effort, but if someone wanted me to write software in Fortran 77 using EVE on a VMS box, I'd start looking for something else, just because this is not what I'd prefer to do with my days.

Or work from home.

Hmm.

You know, I wonder if, someday in the future, we might have "office service" companies. People telecommute an increasing amount, as it lets them live independently of the constraints of who they work with, but we're still struggling with the problem of providing a different "psychological environment" for work to help get you into a "work mode". Some people have a home office, but really, there's a legitimate argument for certain services that are only worthwhile to provide to an office -- redundant Internet connections, commercial shredding, various forms of physical security, IT services, people to socialize with at lunch, etc. But I could see an "office company" that simply provides people with work environments near their houses, and specializes in excellent telecommuting and remote access services.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Randseed]

Pretty sure there is at least 1 windows box running in a local hospital. Police stations don't use computers, no? Well, I guess these aren't important after all.

I might as well comment on this since health care came into it.

Most hospitals use Windows exclusively for user interface boxes. Their backend systems use things like AIX, Linux, or some other flavor of UNIX to run the databases and such. The catch is that universally these user (Windows) systems are overloaded, cumbersome, full of security holes, and a total mess.

Take a real life example of a hospital system that has one major inpatient facility, and a bunch of outlying clinics. Their backend uses some UNIX variant, and they use some Windows program to interface with it. So far not bad. Enter the problems.

First off, there is no unified user home directory system. (Yes, Windows can do this.) Under UNIX, the simplest way to handle it is do a networked stock setup of all the user machines, mount home directories under NFS (or preferably something better), and avoid a lot of problem. This helps with data security, because patient information (e.g., the progress note I just typed in Word) is saved under my user account with default permissions of -rw-------. Second, this means that if I go to one of the outlying clinics, I can still access my files.

I've actually thought really hard for a few years now about why these hospitals blow literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on Windows machines, when they could set up Linux machines that are better administatable for much less. After they set this up, they have to deal with all the random crap of people violating the security protocol by installing God only knows what (Gator, anyone?) which, even if it affects only their account, is still a problem.

But perhaps the biggest problem with Windows in these environments is this: The things take so god awful long to log a user in (two minutes at least at my last place of work on a 2GHz box) for whatever reason that much of the time people don't even bother to log in and out. That leaves a terminal sitting there, and makes the password protection at the OS level worthless. (Yes, obviously something is wrong with all these installations -- probably Novell -- but it's universal. I've never seen a Linux installation that bad, EVER, in ten years.)

Re:Well, here's my take

[dbcad7]

Try a knoppix disk. Runs from the CD player, only 1 disk required. no hard drive setup, which can be scary on some distros

Some distro's are better at hardware detection than others. I had good luck with Debian based (knoppix.. XFLD.. Xandros.. Mepis.. Ubuntu.. and stock Debian sarge) If you have a good net connection, all of these can be installed from one disk (base install, and then it downloads rest from net)

I am not a laptop user, however I would do a google search, and put in your laptop model, and something like "linux install" and find out what others have installed on your type machine. And see what problems or success they have had. Some distros are more laptop freindly than others.

Re:Well, here's my take

[fferreres]

>Terminal Services is much lighter on bandwidth than VNC

VNC is much lighter on "money" than Terminal Services, VNC has clients for Linux and many other OSs. And if remoting to Linux you just use SSH o plain X.

Re:Well, here's my take

[tolkienfan]

Since when is Windows "polished"???

Geez, are you biased or what?

Here's why I'd choose Linux over Windows every time - and why I advise all my non-geek friends to get a Mac:

1. Microsoft lobbies congress to remove our freedoms. I'd rather shoot myself than give them more money. Buy a computer from a company not ruled by Microsoft.
2. Windows still sucks, and Longhorn will make matters worse by making it even harder to switch.
3. Microsoft spend more money breaking things than fixing them. "Embrace, extend and extinguish". They've done it to APIs, file formats, protocols, the Java JVM.
   If they actually innovated, they'd have a decent operating system.
4. Microsoft have abused their power to destroy other companies. The harm this has done to all of us is impossible to measure, but for an example, if Netscape had not been destroyed by Microsoft's illegal activities, web standards compliant browsers would be ubiquitous, and developing web sites would be far simpler than it is.
   You wouldn't have to bend over to Microsoft to get your banking done.
5. Microsoft don't deserve anything from us. They deserve dissolution. There past and current activities call for nothing less - why do some people support them? They are immoral and unethical. They have slowed innovation in this industry to a crawl. And they are attacking us directly and indirectly. What gives folks?
6. Windows does not have a decent method of reporting errors. When Linux or an app running under Linux throws an exception, I can figure out what's screwed up. Windows does an awful job of providing information to the user, or a diagnostician.
7. Windows prejudges us as criminals. It assumes that if we aren't controlled, we'll infringe copyrighted material, or something insidious. Before you can even install it, you have to call up and prove to their satisfaction you have a legally obtained copy.
8. Linux treats us as an important part of a growing community. It provides tools, and a welcoming environment. It even encourages us to copy, modify and even redistribute it's very source code.
   It treats us like respectable adults.

Even if Windows didn't suck, I'd still choose Linux.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Thing 1]

The other responder said a lot more, but yes, you're right, police and hospitals use Windows. So? Your followup doesn't follow your initial statement at all, which was "Why the hell should the computing industry revolve around moms and pops who can't use a computer in the first place?"

So which are you in favor of? Making it easier to use, or making it less crash-prone? Or saying fuck it, if you can't learn to drive (compute) then you deserve what you get? You seem to be all over the map. Are you sober? (I'm not, so if I'm misinterpreting you, well, fuck it.)

Re:Well, here's my take

[DaedalusHKX]

---GAMING---

Trust me, its not the driver support...

I settled a debt with my brother by giving him a Radeon 9800 Pro. He placed this card within his Gentoo Linux 5.0 machine (dual AMD processors with more than enough juice to make the videocard the bottleneck).

He wanted it to run World of Warcraft (windows version). After recompiling his kernel by adding AGP GART support and typing MAKE and hitting enter on his keyboard... he copied the kernel to his /boot and added his new kernel to his GRUB conf. Since then, he runs WoW at nearly 10 frames per second MORE than he did in windows, under Gnome in Gentoo linux through Cedega (the project formerly known was WineX). Cedega costs roughly $5.00/month and is a well worthy cost to pay to keep windows off our gaming desktops (also since linux and unix are fire and forget systems, its difficult to keep modifying settings without keeping a gaming system on hand... we get complacent otherwise)... his resolution, by the way, was 1280x1024 in 32 bit color. The linux drivers significantly outperformed the windows drivers in every resolution and color depth we tried.

Cedega supports pretty much EVERY popular game, and if there is tweaking to be done, I recall my bro and I have both gladly submitted our fixes back to the community. (I must confess that I have far less patience than he does when it comes to tweaking gaming drivers, though this is probably due to my having become jaded by doing windows support for quite sometime).

---SOFTWARE INSTALLS---

Linux OS's are capable of extremely good performance and data throughput when compared to that kludge we call Windows. OS X has already proven what a unix type OS can do, Linux is merely a mixture of many voluntary and paid efforts all leading to the fine american passtime (filling your shopping basket).

Only a twit would claim that the Linux distros don't come with software to install. Short of choosing a distro because of the packaging system... non server distros offer plenty of software and the installs are relatively easy to do. Its all about knowing how NOT to screw up your system, which users, in general, take for granted. Drivers do too, and they pay dearly by dying or going to jail for DUI...
In computing, this is simply not the case (though it would make life easier if it were, harsh but true).

---OFFICE STUFF---

Fedora with Gnome or KDE and Evolution/Koffice or Evolution/Openoffice2 is simply more than enough for most people's office needs.

Even when presented with Access (for which Open Office 2 has an alternative database program), most of my past users still used a spreadsheet, whether that is Excel or Quatro or Gnumeric or OOffice, it doesn't really matter... most people just need a spreadsheet... and mailmerge often has as many shortcomings as those it claims to cure (I even ran into a user that a company I was with moved from Word Perfect to Office XP, and since then he complained non stop that he couldn't do the same things he needed to with mailmerge in word xp) However the company I was with told him to basically piss off... needless to say, I was the one who heard HIS side of the story, each time he called... and pissed off he was.

---"great" Windows IT Support---

Speaking of support... and Windows being "better"... I've worked in IT, and I QUIT that job because I was tired of dealing with the same lies day in and out. "Windows is higher performance and more secure, IE is better, more secure, AND faster than Firefox and Opera... etc"

It was ME that had to explain to users why their antivirus was a day late on the latest worm or virus that ripped through their Service Pack 2 firewall, or why they never surfed any porn and yet still got spyware from PalmOne.com (yep, palm site had spyware on it)...

I saw the same contempt towards users from windows support folks as I did from Linuxites. Support people become jaded to stupidity... but stupidity is the only thing that keeps the

Re:Well, here's my take

[nauticles]

Gentoo linux only takes a single disk, though it is not all that you want/need either. It takes longer to install than most distros also...... buuuuuuut, big but :), in the end you will have a functioning system that matches your hardware like a glove. This being the case and point to why most distros have so many disks, they often contain the majority of the supported packages of that distro! Gentoo lets you install the very basic structure of the system and configure/build your system as you see fit. This is where Gentoo really shines, the portage system, makes it easier and much more likely to have success in installing the packages you want/need. Aside from nuances like package management and the installer most Linux flavors are very similar if not identical. And YES, of course, there are tools available to handle laptop power control very nicely! Finally, my Gentoo sytem boots to login screen in just barely over 10 sec. cold!

Re:Well, here's my take

[shicaca]

Holy crap. Now by "boot" do you mean to a command prompt, or to a GUI. I'll be really impressed if you say it boots to the GUI in that amount of time. I get so freaking excited every time I download Linux to install it. The first time I installed it I dumped my system to get it up and running as a complete switch over. This was a few years ago, yes, but I'll never be doing this ever again since it didn't install at all. Bah.

Re:Well, here's my take

[nauticles]

A M E N

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Microsoft lobbies congress to remove our freedoms. I'd rather shoot myself than give them more money. Buy a computer from a company not ruled by Microsoft.

Mom and Dad's everywhere couldn't give a shit.

2. Windows still sucks, and Longhorn will make matters worse by making it even harder to switch.

Ever used XP? Why does it suck exactly?

3. Microsoft spend more money breaking things than fixing them. "Embrace, extend and extinguish". They've done it to APIs, file formats, protocols, the Java JVM.
If they actually innovated, they'd have a decent operating system.

Mom and Dad's don't care. The operating system is decent.

4. Microsoft have abused their power to destroy other companies. The harm this has done to all of us is impossible to measure, but for an example, if Netscape had not been destroyed by Microsoft's illegal activities, web standards compliant browsers would be ubiquitous, and developing web sites would be far simpler than it is.
You wouldn't have to bend over to Microsoft to get your banking done.

Mom and dad's don't care.

5. Microsoft don't deserve anything from us. They deserve dissolution. There past and current activities call for nothing less - why do some people support them? They are immoral and unethical. They have slowed innovation in this industry to a crawl. And they are attacking us directly and indirectly. What gives folks?

Mom and dad's don't care

6. Windows does not have a decent method of reporting errors. When Linux or an app running under Linux throws an exception, I can figure out what's screwed up. Windows does an awful job of providing information to the user, or a diagnostician.

Im sure mom and dad would love seeing "illegal exception: core dump at address...". And errors can be reported to microsoft. My video driver was crashing my system while playing d2, how do i know this? Reported crash to microsoft when prompted and was notified within a few minutes.

7. Windows prejudges us as criminals. It assumes that if we aren't controlled, we'll infringe copyrighted material, or something insidious. Before you can even install it, you have to call up and prove to their satisfaction you have a legally obtained copy.

Not a problem for people who actually buy a copy.

8. Linux treats us as an important part of a growing community. It provides tools, and a welcoming environment. It even encourages us to copy, modify and even redistribute it's very source code.
It treats us like respectable adults.

Mom and Dad hackers? I think not.

Even if Windows didn't suck, I'd still choose Linux

Good on ya, but this is a rant and nothing else. The short answer is, none of this is relevant to 99% of windows users.

Re:Well, here's my take

[The_Wilschon]

Personally my favourite thing about Windows is Autohotkey, basically an open source hotkey and macro program. I have looked and not found the equivalent on Linux, and until I do, I won't be switching to Linux full time.

Try xpybind for a lot of the key stuff you're talking about... As for the rest of Autohotkey's features... well, actually, I've just been given developership of a project (http://pywm.sourceforge.net/), and my plans involve a component that would certainly be capable of such things. Unfortunately... I have not really gotten much actual work done on the project yet.

However, I will keep this utility in mind, and possibly when I get the event catcher/handler to a workable point, I'll write some scripts (that's the key about this window manager, everything is scriptable!) that will try and implement at least a subset of those features, if not all of them eventually. My plans involve writing things in such a way that you could run the event catcher/handler completely independently from any of the rest of the window manager. The event catcher would catch every X event, and then pass them on to the event handler, which would be completely scriptable (written most likely in python.) So, perhaps, if I ever get around to doing anything, we will have your Autohotkey utility for Linux!

Re:Well, here's my take

[The_Wilschon]

How does an AC get mod points?

Re:Well, here's my take

[aichpvee]

So which are you in favor of? Making it easier to use, or making it less crash-prone?

Both, that's why I run Linux.

Re:Well, here's my take

[warbirdnut]

"What I don't understand is why desktop users who have no need of the "Unix philosophy" of data processing insist on complaining about an operating system that was designed to move DATA (not icons or mouse pointers) around efficiently."

Forget having no need. Let's start with the fact that they don't have a clue what "Unix philosophy" is.The ones that whine the most are the LAZIEST Windows users. Find me a Windows user that can sort a text file from a command prompt and I'll trade you a needle I found in a haystack.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Columcille]

Something like 12 years ago I did my first linux installation - Slackware from a stack of floppy disks. Since Slackware I've moved to Redhat, then Mandrake, and now Gentoo. Quite a lot has changed in the Linux world over the last 12 years. In Linux terms, 2 years is quite old.

Re:Well, here's my take

[typical]

While I don't agree with you, that was a very readable and enjoyable post.

I think that Windows will eventually suffer the same slow, withering death that all operating systems of the past have -- the manufacturer decides to increase profits "just a bit". There are so many people locked in for whom it would each cost $N to switch that the manufacturer can easily charge $N/5 for the next release. And then the manufacturer decies to charge $N/4. And at some point, they step over N (at least for some people for whom it isn't so expensive to switch), and those people move. The last remaining loners are usually the ones who end up having to spend exorbant amounts of money to keep their systems working. This has happened with DEC, with IBM, and with any number of "enterprise" software packages.

Linux serves as a possible end to this cycle, because the barrier to switching distributions is simply so low that there isn't much that a distro maker can extort from his customers.

Re:Well, here's my take

[hdparm]

I am running (at home) 4 PCs/laptops and one server (various versions of RH/FC), behind completelly open firewall on a static IP address for over 18 months. None of the machines ever got hacked into, spyware and viruses (virii?) do not exist at my place. I don't pay for OS, apps, anti-virus, excess data. I don't fear running up2date from cron because I know it will never brake anything, unlike windowsupdate. Son's PC has wine for windows games and he's happy. Gimp is more than enough for my daughter who is into that kind of stuff. MPlayer nicely embeds itself into Firefox and plays all sorts of media. I do drag'n'drop CD burning and printing, camera - no problems, scanner and printer, too. Openoffice reads everyhting I receive and all-around computing experience in my house is improved since it's windows-free so much, that even my wife uses computer for few hours a day. That's mom'n'dad environment for you.

Now, I also do Linux admin for living. Do you need an explanation on how much time and money has it saved us on server AND desktop side?

Re:Well, here's my take

[drgonzo59]

Same goes for some of the medical equipment. Some MRIs and such have often some UNIX variant installed to control them. As a general observation I would say that in a critical environment Unix/Linux systems are preffered over MS Windows. Somehow just that fact says something about the qualities of both systems.

I used to have a Windows partition until 2 days ago when my IBM 60GXP "Deathstar" died with the infamous click-o-death. I don't think I will bother installing Windows again. The _only_ thing I was using it is to play the latest games, so I'll have to do without that. My main operating system is Ubuntu Linux - very nice distro, fell in love with it at the first sight. For me Linux reached the point where I would use it on a Desktop instead of Windows.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats right, Americans are dumb and don't care what big corporations do - even if it is to them. That's why we have Bush in office and dumb shits think grandma and grandpa don't give a shit if they are getting screwed.

Your right, 99% of anything is waisted on Window users. So don't use a computer. That will be one less computer zombie that spreads spam.

Oh, by the way XP sucks the most.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

so youre a morlock?
or is everything seeming almost clockwork steampowered?

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure Porsche stick shift is difficult to drive. Does that mean we should get rid of it because the widely available Toyota Camry's can also go 150 mph?

Not really, it's just a car. If you can drive a Camry, you can drive a 911. Hell, with Tiptronic and PSM pretty much anyone can drive one. I hear the CGT is a bitch to drive, but Linux is hardly the 911 of the OS world, much less a CGT. It's more like a kit car of some type.

and btw, a Camry won't go 150.

Re:Well, here's my take

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm going to take the approach no one wants to...

I know there are better arguments to be made -- personal customization, security, different != worse, transparency, fixable, and so on.

But the real benefits are much less obvious.

The source code is available.

There are two reasons I like this:

1:

Everything is completely visible and transparent. This means that I can know EVERYTHING my distro is trying to do on my computer.

There is no way to enforce ridiculous things like copy protection on games, which is why all native Linux game ports that I've played come with no copy protection at all. Both UT04 and Doom3 need the CD in the drive to run on Windows, but not on Linux. This is because it's too easy to edit the kernel source and make a program that pretends to be a cdrom drive. "mount -o loop" was on Linux first -- on Windows it's a third-party package called Daemon Tools.

There's also no possibility of my computer doing things like phoning home without my knowledge. On Windows, the Nvidia Firewall catches tons of things the Windows Firewall let through, many of them things like explorer.exe trying to connect to the Internet while I'm doing a search on my local computer. There's also my own personal fear that somewhere in Microsoft, either in the upper eschelons of management planning world domination or simply a disgruntled employee, there will be a truly malicious easter egg. Yes, I'm sure Microsoft checks their employee's work VERY thoroughly (hmm, what's the IE bug of the week?), so that could never happen. But the more relevant point, sarcasm aside, is that on Windows, I am trusting Microsoft with my computer, and I have no sane way of verifying that trust. Yes, I could unplug my computer from the Internet, but what use would Windows be then? I use it for the games, many of them multiplayer.

Apple, despite the PR BS that is Darwin, is no better. If I want a USABLE Mac OS X system, I have to trust Apple, with no way of verifying that trust.

It doesn't even have to be MS or Apple being evil, simply negligent. Maybe the next security hole is going to be the one that terrorists use to take down the Internet. You rarely hear of such ideas, but large chunks of the Internet frequently get infected by relatively benign virii, worms, and spyware, which simply set up bot-nets. Bot-nets are to be avoided, but there is still the lingering possibility that one of these will eventually explode and format everyone not on a secure system.

2:

There are economic implications to this open-ness. If I have a problem with Linux, it is always resolvable. I can figure it out myself, or ask on forums, or if I am completely out of options (or just need it done fast), I can fix it myself, or hire another programmer.

On a closed system, I am utterly dependent on the vendor, in this case Microsoft. I use Gentoo Linux, but if I have a problem, I don't always have to go to Gentoo; I can fix it myself or call the geek down the block. With any luck, the problem will be fixed within a day or a week. But Microsoft will likely ignore my request (I'm just a lowly end-user, after all) or refuse it outright. They might even do it Just Because, for no justifiable technical reason. Like, "How do I uninstall Outlook Express?" "You can't." Surprise! Not just Internet Explorer, but now Outlook and Media Player are now "Integrated", with no way to get them off.

There's also the issue of security. Open source tends to fix itself faster. But there's more to it than that. If I find a critical security hole in Windows, I have only four sane alternatives:
- Report it to Microsoft. Maybe they fix it, maybe they ignore it, maybe they sue me.
- Exploit it. Maybe Microsoft notices and fixes it, maybe they ignore it, maybe they sue me.
- Announce it to the world. Maybe Microsoft fixes it, maybe they ignore it, maybe they sue me. If they ignore it, maybe someone else exploits it...
- Develop a band-aid fix and sell

Re:Well, here's my take

[BlueLightning]

most people will look at a Linux command line and immediately feel overwhelmed

So then, my advice to those people would be to simply not look at a command line. For everyday tasks you really don't have to anymore.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Jesus_666]

The problem with Windows is that while it appeals to most normal users, it's a horrible platform to be a power user on. If you really want to play with the guts of your system - or just use nifty little tricks - you have to jump through several hoops.
For example, I have set up my system to let Linux und Windows share the same swap file. This file is located on a special partition, which is only there to host this single file. Nevertheless, Windows keeps showing me "helpful" popup warnings saying that I'm low on disk space. Every five minutes. With the only way of turning it off being a registry modification that turns off disk space notification for all partitions.

My whole Windows experience has been that way. MS-DOS 6.22 was power user friendly. Win 3.11 didn't need to be as it was just a graphic shell and all the interesting stuff happened at the DOS level. Starting from Windows 95, Windows has become more and more "easy" until even OS X is easier to tweak than Windows XP. Yes, I do own a Mac.

Linux has advantages over Windows: It allows you to play with everything and everything is (more or less) documented - unlike the Windows registry, which most Win tweakers have to work with regularly. Linux definitely has superior documentation (except for the KDE help system, which is as unhelpful as the Windows one).

For novice users who want a system that Kind Of Just Works Most Of The Time, Windows is a good choice. For gamers it's an even better one (except for retrogamers - all relevant systems can be emulated under Linux and OS X, too). But for power users who want to be in control of what their system does, Linux wins due to superior ease of tweaking and documentation. Besides, package management is a really nifty thing, especially when coupled with apps like yum or apt-get.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of the day, I can't recommend one over the other, but that's why I have to recommend Windows. It's already on your computer, you might as well just use it.

1. No it's not. Not at home, where time is important (too little spare time, don't want to waste any of it).

2. If you want to pay me to work with Windows, ok, I can live with being paid for wasting my time, but I would prefer to get some work done. Now, where did they put this setting? Tools->Customize? Tools->Options? Which tab? Which button to open the right sub-options-window? Ok, apparently not there, how about control panel then? Regedit? Google?

When even google doesn't bring up anything to explain how to make Windows stop wasting my time, I usually give up, and just accept wasting my time. At least I'm being paid to do so.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

OH NOES!1!!! I've been "waisted" :P Sorry, had to follow up one silly comment with another.

Re:Well, here's my take

[jbolden]

No they aren't. Take "echo" a pretty simple tool. You would think Microsoft would have no problem getting this right well...

1) echo "hello"
2) echo $PATH

neither of those works right. I

Re:Well, here's my take

[zaivala]

I have tried to install several versions of Linux over the years. Mandrake 9.0 was the first one that worked, that really installed, loaded, and didn't complain about what hardware I had or didn't. It still looks like it needs work, I was hoping that 10.0 would fix a lot of things with the new kernel, but haven't been able to get my hands on it. My best friend and linux guru has switched from Mandrake 9.0 to Fedora.

Re:Well, here's my take

[fr0dicus]

I totally agree, but sadly now you'll get a bunch of stories about people who installed Ubuntu on their sisters' friends laptop and how it only took a couple of hours to get everything working just fine (apart from CPU throttling)! The irony is palpable.

Re:Well, here's my take

[jbolden]

Microsoft actually itself has a cygwinish kind of thing (though I think cygwin is better). They might let you install Windows Services for Unix.

Re:Well, here's my take

[gilesjuk]

It does have things that Windows and Mac don't have.

Choice of a vast number of filesystems, large amount of free software available, good scalability, choice of hardware platform to run on (since it is ported to different platforms).

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, the Linux system offers nothing of value that Windows doesn't.

Linux system offers me a free, rock-solid, attack-resistant, feature-rich, light-weight server for my hobby projects. Windows is not even close to it on all the points above. Common, I was running RH7-9 for several years plugged directly into ISDN, full install, no firewalls (I was a newbie, didn't know to configure it right), and it never was cracked! Updates were running automatically nightly and no update has ever screwed the system. Add to it the powerful scripting - I can automate just everything. It just... works. And it's FREE!

Linux also offers me a free, rock-solid, attack-resistant, feature-rich desktop, that comes out of the box packed with all the software you may need, and even more is waiting for you on the Internet, most of which is also free. And you know, no viruses, no spyware, no registry cleaning if you uninstall something. You just... work.

At the end of the day, I can't recommend one over the other, but that's why I have to recommend Windows. It's already on your computer, you might as well just use it.

Internet Explorer is also already on your computer. So is Outlook Express. Do you recommend to use them, as well?

I personally recommend to download Firefox and Thunderbird when somebody asks.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Craster]

VNC is much lighter on "money" than Terminal Services, VNC has clients for Linux and many other OSs.

Terminal services for administration is a free component included with W2K & W2K3 server. There are also RDP clients available for linux.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

My $.02

Reasons why I prefer my 900 MHz Duron/1GB RAM/Geforce2 Mandrake 10.1 box over my Athlon XP 2100+/258 MB RAM/ATI AIW 7500 with XP Home:

Mandrake is rock solid. My uptime right now is 20 days and it's not acting up or otherwise being stupid like my XP Home box.

KDE isn't too hard to customize, and urpmi (easyurpmi.zarb.org/) helps avoid Dependency Hell (tm) when installing programs. It's a command line program, but I hear there's a GUI for it.

SSH. I love being able to SSH into my linux box from my parent's house (4.5 hours away) and use psftp to get a couple small files.

X forwarding. I have Cygwin installed on my XP box, and it's really cool that I can just sign in (usualy over ssh on the LAN) and start a graphical program.

Seperation of the GUI and the underlying operating system. I recently had a window refuse to close in KDE, so instead of rebooting, I just restarted KDE. Problem solved (I hope).

Security. I love not having to worry about viruses randomly invading my machine before I get a chance to patch the OS.

Lack of DRM. I don't have to worry about companies installing DRM under my radar. What's mine is mine, and what I do with it, I do. This is an iisue even with my AIW - one of the driver updates cut off the ability to stream/ play recorded TV programs on other computers. Grr.

I have a long way to go; this is my first real romance with Linux after several abortive attempts before. Each time I ran into a serious problem like Dependency Hell, a program that wouldn't install, poor documentation or some such thing.

This time is different. I've done a lot of reading (trying to mee the OS halfway) and swearing, but as good as XP is, it isn't as stable or secure, or fun. I hope to avoid Longhorn when it comes out.

I don't have the CLI skillz that some friends do, but KDE and the configuration utilities have come far enough I can meet Linux in the middle. I like that.

I would love an update for the filesystem structure. I have yet to figure it out, or find it documentation that makes a clear analagy between Linux and Windows to help me understand what's going on.

Also, I do wish installing programs that aren't wrapped in packaged was easier. That can be a real bitch.

It's not perfect, but it's fun. My prediction is that Linux, if it's ever going to make it to the desktop, will do it in about four years. If it doesn't by then, and MS gets Longhorn right (that could happen in four years' time, too, ya know ;) ) LInux on the desktop may become a moot issue.

Re:Well, here's my take

[drsquare]

Classic formulation: if you're not interested in adopting the Unix mindset (text-based text processing, pipes, small well-defined tools, a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces, non-data-processing devices, etc.) then why choose a Unix operating system?

Classic formulation: If Linux is about text-based tools, and a de-emphasis on a graphical interface and user-friendliness, why push it as an alternative to Windows?

I can honestly tell you that for any number of large jobs in my workplace, two or three commands at a Linux command line replace either dozens of labor hours, dozens of development hours

Which part of 'Linux isn't Ready for the Desktop' have you misunderstood? A home user wanting to play some games or to write an essay doesn't care about command lines or hardcore processing or development hours...

What I don't understand is why desktop users who have no need of the "Unix philosophy" of data processing insist on complaining about an operating system that was designed to move DATA (not icons or mouse pointers) around efficiently.

In which case, why are people saying that Linux is a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop, if it's one those old text-based data processing systems?

As a Linux user, I can definitely tell it's still somewhat stuck in the past. The underlying system is based on outdated concepts. My modem is connected on /dev/ttyS0. Guess what tty means? Anything to do with a modern desktop computer? Not even close. Poking around in the Linux configuration is like going back in time twenty years. I suppose /dev/com2 or /dev/serial2 would have been too obvious for the elite hackers who use Linux. And good luck finding your USB stick (hint: it's not /dev/usb, it's actually /dev/sda1. Of course that makes perfect sense.)

A lot of the programs and tools assume you're proficient with the command line. Therefore a lot of documentation talks about commands, and there aren't always enough graphical configuration tools to get things done. For a server this might be acceptable, but for a system with ambitions of replacing Windows, it's not.

And as for X windows, that's another can of worms in itself. It's a technology which has barely progressed from the days when people ran programs by putting command lines in the .xinitrc. So when X started the xterms and a clock would open up at different spaces on the screen, with no window manager. It's progressed, but all that ancient crap is still there. When you boot X you get a lovely grey static background. And when it crashes it dumps you at the command line.

Resolution changes don't work. The much-heralded 'Ctrl+Alt+plus' messes things up completely. It doesn't actually resize the windows appropriately, it gives you a small viewport on a larger screen, so when you move the mouse to the sides of the screen it shifts along. This is beyond incompetent. I don't think there's a way to change colour-depth on the fly either.

Installing the nvidia driver is a pain in the arse. You need the Linux kernel source installed, for some reason. Then you need to close X and use the command line. Yet, that's right, in the 21st century, on a supposedly 'desktop' operating system, you need to use the command line to install a graphics driver. Then you get to unzip it with tar and gzip, and run scripts. And when it's installed, make sure you don't install any kernel modules, as they wipe out the nvidia driver, so you get to install it all over again.

Linux is usable for people like me who are willing to fuck about with it, but it's a million miles away from being ready for prime time. It's just too entrenched in the ancient Unix mindset, with none of the developers willing to make a clean break in case it upsets the dinosaurs.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Decaff]

Linux on the desktop has a huge amount to offer. Apart from the price issue, which can be significant for a large company, there are major benefits in terms of support and security. Recently a co-worker came to me worried because she had heard about the latest Windows virus. I replied that because we were using Linux there was no problem (she was so familiar with the desktop she had forgotten it was not Windows).

As for the so-called training costs; I may have been lucky, but I have found that they are minimal. Users are not, in general, stupid, and can usually move from Windows to a well-set-up KDE desktop with FireFox, Evolution and Open Office with few problems. I have seen more issues arising from a transition between different versions of MS Office.

Linux is definitely ready for at least the corporate desktop, and certainly does not suck. It gives the companies where I have installed it a major advantage in terms of cost, support and security.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better

To name but a few, how about stability, reliability, security, ease of management, ease of use, freedom, free software cost and reduced support costs?

UNIX systems, with their painful licensing models and lackluster support

Have you ever used Solaris? The support is great and the licensing models are far easier to understand than anything companies like Microsoft have to offer!

I speak authoritatively

No you don't.

There is a very simple reason for this: it sucks.

Nice to see you are un-biased and have a fully reasoned argument having thought everything out well.

The problem is that everyone knows Windows

No they don't.

everyone's applications already run on Windows

No they don't.

As the IT manager evaluating the cost of switching, I have to ask, "Well, how can you justify the tens of thousands I'll need to spend in training on this new system?"

If you were really an IT manager you would have been fired already.

At the end of the day, I can't recommend one over the other, but that's why I have to recommend Windows.

I recommend you re-read that ;)

It's already on your computer, you might as well just use it

No its not.

Re:Well, here's my take

[BiggyP]

Now, you probably already know about this, but it's still worth a mention, if you want to continue with your gaming but forgo the discomfort of using windows, you can try using the freely available transgaming CVS, or purchase a subscription for cedega and point2play for a much easier option, especially for commercial copyprotected games.

http://www.transgaming.com/

Re:Well, here's my take

[master_p]

Classic formulation: if you're not interested in adopting the Unix mindset (text-based text processing, pipes, small well-defined tools, a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces, non-data-processing devices, etc.) then why choose a Unix operating system?

But the problem is that the Unix mindset kind of 'sucks' when it comes to desktop computer systems. You may be good at it as a person with a techical mindset, but you can't tell average Joe to spend his life in the command line.

Linux offers a great deal of value that Windows doesn't.

Of course it does, but then why everybody speaks about Linux on the desktop? your whole post says "leave us alone, we are power command-line users", but, as we can see in the case of MacOS X, an operating system can be appropriate for BOTH average Joe AND power users.

I can honestly tell you that for any number of large jobs in my workplace, two or three commands at a Linux command line replace either dozens of labor hours, dozens of development hours, or the $$$ to purchase a specialized product in Windows.

There is no such thing any more as a 'powerful' command line. Most applications are GUI-based. It may be that development tools and other utilities are command-line based, but have you ever seen the Unix philosophy (i.e. pipes, text etc) being applied to applications like word processors, IDEs etc? nope. And there is a reason for that: the CLI is not the most appropriate MMI for all cases.

What I don't understand is why desktop users who have no need of the "Unix philosophy" of data processing insist on complaining about an operating system that was designed to move DATA (not icons or mouse pointers) around efficiently.

The proper reply to the above is: MacOS X. Nough said.

Re:Well, here's my take

[TERdON]

You're obviously trying the wrong distro. Last christmas I helped a friend install a Debian server. From two floppy disks. The rest was downloaded directly from the net. And also, many distros contain lots of CDs because they contain more or less every FLOSS application out there. Normal users normally don't need more than the first disk - the rest of the apps are too obscure...

Re:Well, here's my take

[Decaff]

This argument is complete BS. from a business point of view. No one I know chose to work with Linux because primarily because it's "Unix like". They chose it because of the apps that run on it and how well those apps work on that kernel (sometimes also couples with reduced license fees).

Just because you don't know anyone who wants this does not mean it is BS. I know many people who definitely want a Unix-style system. They want something that is multi-user, that can be command-line driven so that it can be remotely administered even over slow connections, and that is secure. These may not be your typical users, but they do exist!

Re:Well, here's my take

[Photon Ghoul]

The reason is that compared with a commercial organisation, the Open Source community does not have the human resource focused on the Things That Matter when developing a feature-rich, stable, GUI.

Unlike.... Microsoft?

Seriously, I'm sick to death of "Linux isn't ready for the desktop". It IS ready, there just needs to be commercial software written for it and even more commercial driver support. It's not Linux, it's everyone else (in the commercial software/hardware world). Criticism is good as it leads to improvement. "Sucks" and "isn't ready" comments are completely useless.

Re:Well, here's my take

[SComps]

Ok, I'll grant you that. Maybe linux itself is ready for the desktop, but even the default distribution applications aren't ready for the desktop. They're (mostly) poorly written applications sitting on top of gtk or Qt or other core libraries that can change at any given moment. Sure that's not that far away from Win32 in that regard, but it does seem that with distributions as a whole it happens far more often, even within the distributions themselves. I run FC4 (yes I know it's going to break just because it's supposedly bleeding edge) and the last update has Evolution so broken that you can't even close an email without it crashing and wanting to start that god-awful bugbuddy that never works.

No, the current state of the linux [distributions] are not ready for the desktop. Gnome is not ready, KDE isn't ready. There's still too many geekisms and stuff that just doesn't work properly.

Don't get me wrong, I still use FC4 on my desktop. I know enough about the system to get around the quirks. If I foisted it on my mother, I'd be firmly smacked in the head.

Re:Well, here's my take

[David_W]

I'm sure i've seen a java ssh client, that you use in your browser..

You are probably thinking of MindTerm. If you don't have a web server you can stick it on, Google has some hits of existing installations that will work.

Re:Well, here's my take

[cow-orker]

Linux is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better.

Wrong. GNU/Linux is Free, you can poke around in its innards, understand and modify the complete system. This is not true of any "competitor". It's also dirt cheap compared to Windows+Office+virus killer+firewall product+all that other crap you eventually need to license.

Speaking of competitors... what do we actually compete for? Certainly not money or marketshare. Mindshare probably. But frankly, I don't want a share of the mind of an average Windows user. Many of them are stupid.

Re:Well, here's my take

[stuntpope]

I too started with Linux at with RedHat 5.2. From there, I switched to Mandrake when RedHat was in 6.x, stayed with Mandrake into 8.x and now have been with Slackware since 8.x. I also tried SuSe and Debian a few years ago. At work I have production servers running Mandrake, but they are soon to be retired in favor of RedHat Enterprise.

My experience has been quite different from yours. With 5.2, yes, things didn't all work out of the box. It took me a few weeks before I dove into configuring X. I had to buy a "real" modem to replace my winmodem. I don't think I had sound right away. I dual-booted to Win 95 and later 98.

But with Linux, I taught myself Perl, MySQL, Apache and more, and got myself a job during the "bubble". At home, I used Linux to create web graphics, program, use the Internet, and try out other software. Some of that software was available on Windows, either natively or with Cygwin. But I was sick of Windows crashes and enthusiastic about Linux.

I remember even with 5.2, FVWM was very snappy if not much to look at. Maybe it was "difficult to manipulate" if you mean customizing it with mouse clicks, but it wasn't difficult to use. Click icon, program starts. Start an xterm, do even more. BTW, I was new at all this (doing more with a computer than just running applications). I wasn't turned off or intimidated, I was excited by diving in and exploring. Documentation was plentiful. I bought RedHat, so I had (and still have) the 5.2 book. There were already substantial Linux books on the market (that's what got me interested in the first place). And of course man pages, which shouldn't make anyone snicker. Yes, they are documentation.

I found nothing oblique or confusing about the file system, and RPM allowed me to view where the files of installed packages were located. If seeing '/usr/local/include' confuses you, sorry. I _did_, however, run into 'RPM Hell' with Mandrake, I believe in 8.x, which was one reason I abandoned RedHat-like distros.

Maybe I didn't fiddle around enough, but even with compiling my own kernels I never ran into your situation of a "seemingly simple change break[ing] numerous systems in unrelated modules and drivers."

Your conjecture on Linux and the IT crash is without merit. Maybe Linux provided a lower cost of entry for anyone with an idea to get into business when perhaps they shouldn't have, but the Web craze ("this will change the entire business model, the old rules don't apply anymore") and its subsequent adjustment wasn't due to the choice of technology. The first web start-up I worked for went through the initial IPO enthusiasm and then the subsequent several rounds of lay-offs (me included). The company survived, and they continue to use Linux for running their applications. We didn't spend time at work fixing Linux, or contribute to the "millions" of lost manhours that you claim Linux caused. Since those days, I've continued to find employment at places that either value Linux wholeheartedly, or where Linux is part of the picture. Oh, and where I work now, where we have Windows desktops, I can tell you that our Help Desk staff is kept very busy.

Ultimately, all your arguments for why Linux won't catch on for home use are the same arguments I heard years ago about why no one would choose Linux at work. Those arguments have been proven wrong. Linux made huge gains in the server room, and now is making inroads in corporate/government desktop. I won't claim Linux _is_ ready for the average home computer user right now, but it's very close.

At the end of the day, I'm glad I left Windows even though it was on my computer already. There is a very simple reason for this: it sucks. Analogy time: if I bought a house with a malfunctioning appliance that wasted resources and often broke or did unexpected things, I could either keep using it (hey, it came with the house, might as well), or I could get something better to replace it.

Re:Well, here's my take

[It'sYerMam]

I think at least part of the problem with all of these "Linux isn't ready" arguments is that there is so much focus on getting "Joe Average" to switch over. I truly wonder whether Linux will ever be the right option for Joe Average - there's no doubt that with a system as customisable as Linux, there will be added complexity, and to reduce one is to reduce the other, at least at the surface level. The challenge for people like the GNOME guys has always been to balance user-friendliness against customisation.

However, would it not be better to ignore "Joe Average" or "Joe Beloe Average" at any rate, and focus on people who are better able to handle the technicalities? Of course, that doesn't mean a regression, nor ignoring Linux's current failings (such as dependencies) but it does mean moving the focus away from getting everyone and his grandmother to migrate.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Phycology is the study of algae

Doh!

Re:Well, here's my take

[KaptNKrunchy]

well shit maybe i'm not then. guess my moms lied to me all these years. bitch probably just didn't wanna buy me any christmas presents.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great there, mister politics. But how does all that help me get my daily work done ?

Who is biased ?

keep pratice

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've only got 2 PC's at home (1 desktop, 1 laptop), but I don't pay for OS, apps, anti-virus, excess data either. Both PC's are running pirated copies of Windows XP Professional. Neither have ever been hacked into and spyware has never been a problem. I don't fear running Windows Update because it has never broken anything on my PC's, unlike my miserable experiences with Linux RPM hell. They both run windows games very well, and my pirated copy of Photoshop is more than enough to handle my photography needs, unlike Gimp which makes me jump through hoops to accomplish what Photoshop can do with 1 mouse-click. Media Player Classic nicely embeds itself into Firefox and plays all sorts of media. I do drag'n'drop CD burning and printing, camera - no problems, scanner and printer, too. OpenOffice reads everything I receive and all-around computing experience in my house has improved so much since upgrading from Windows 98, that even my wife uses the computer for a few hours a day. That's mom'n'dad environment for you.

Re:Well, here's my take

[mattgreen]

Precisely. I love the idea of Linux - a free OS one can tinker around with for its own sake. I'm not a fan of the implementation. I had to mount a USB key at work, so I naively thought I could list the contents of /dev. Nope! It goes on and on and on, *despite* the fact that 99% of the devices in there aren't even mounted. Really, how is this useful? And then someone mentioned, "oh, you can't just cd into a device listed under /dev, either." Then WHY is it listed under there?

The problem is, Linux is essentially the *best* that the hobbyist community has to offer right now, and for some reason people take it personally when you say, "well, it isn't good enough." UNIX is not the end-all-be-all of operating systems. I want to like Linux, but it needs to lose its heritage, because it is needlessly archaic.

Gotta love the attitudes of users as well. An earlier comment mentions how someone can't get their WiFi card to work, and at least two people replied, "and you call yourself a power user! Ha!" Thanks for the encouragement.

We need an operating system that inherits the best qualities of Linux, OS X, and Windows, but is started from scratch.

Re:Well, here's my take

[heybo]

Well if your going to compare Linux and Windows and use Mandrake 5.2 for comparsion. Then you'll have to use Windows 98 as your Windows comparsion. Security? Stable? Windows XP doesn't hold a candle to Linux on these things.

As the IT manager evaluating the cost of switching, I have to ask, "Well, how can you justify the tens of thousands I'll need to spend in training on this new system?"

Well how much are you spending on cleaning up and protecting from virsuses, maleware, spyware, and the times the users kill the system because thay can write at will to the system files? Our TCO has went DOWN! 70% after switching.

At the end of the day, I can't recommend one over the other, but that's why I have to recommend Windows. It's already on your computer, you might as well just use it.

Nope sorry not on this machine nor most in this place. They came with Linux.

Re:Well, here's my take

[B'Trey]

I am sure Porsche stick shift is difficult to drive. Does that mean we should get rid of it because the widely available Toyota Camry's can also go 150 mph?

Who said anything about getting rid of it? I don't see anyone or anybody arguing about getting rid of Linux. (Well, Bill Gates perhaps but that's just wishful thinking on his part.)

The article is talking about Linux competing with Windows. To use your analogy (which isn't exactly apt but we'll ignore that for the moment...), if Porshe wants to compete with Toyota and Ford and Chevy, they need to make a car that isn't so difficult to drive. If they're happy making highly technical sports cars, wonderful, but then their aim isn't to take over a large section of the market.

The automotive industry didn't revolve around people who can't drive. Why the hell should the computing industry revolve around moms and pops who can't use a computer in the first place?

The automotive industry DOES revolve around people who can't drive - if you define "drive" as taking a Porshe around a track at high speeds. The automotive industry revolves around people who are utterly incompetent at pushing an automobile to its limits. Porshe doesn't revolve around people who can't drive. (Actually, there are probably lots of people who buy Porshes who can't drive - but they THINK they can.) But Porshe is a niche market. If Linux wants to remain a niche OS - one aimed at geeks and the highly computer literate, then it's doing a fine job. (And I, for one, don't think that's its such a bad idea for it to remain that way.) But if Linux wants to be a mainstream desktop OS, then its not doing such a fine job and some things DO need to change.

Re:Well, here's my take

[The Conductor]

There is another possible outcome. With Linux competing from "above" (the servers and techie users), and convergence devices from below (cellphones and pda-like gizmos), and lateral competition from Apple and Mom & Pop shops who offer Linux turn-key systems, the Windows OS might end up trapped in a market that doesn't have any pricing power. Without the ability to charge a premium for new features, they hold on to market share by competing on price.

It already appears to have happened to WinCE and XBox. Few XBoxen sold until they matched PS2's price, and WinCE lost money hand over fist.

We don't have to eliminate Windows. If Windows drops to merely 75% of the userbase, that is enough that the aftermarket of services & software can't ignore the 25% that use Something Else. Then I won't be forced to use MS's sucky stuff anymore: That is my definition of victory.

Re:Well, here's my take

[pwyll_bornx2]

First, let me just say that I only read the first 4 paragraphs of your comment. MY outlook on Linux is that, well, most people should stay away from it. Either stay away from it or shut up and learn how to use it. If you want to keep spending money on new computers/upgrades just so you can run the latest Windows OS, since you need to upgrade your OS to stay up to date with Windows software, then do it. "The problem with Linux is not that it's not production ready, it's that it's a system that doesn't have anything special to offer and has nowhere new left to go" WTF? So being able to edit the source code to certain apps, or being able to recompile the kernel for maximum performance are nothing special? I guess you just need to be someone who likes to be able to customize your OS and not have to pay for (or use a pirated copy of) your OS and software. Anyway, I've gotta get back to doing something productive. P.S. Try using something other than Mandriva or RedHat if you want better performance. I recommend Gentoo (WARNING: The installation process is probably more than you can handle, so don't worry about it, just keep your security blanket you call Windows.)

Re:Well, here's my take

[ericspinder]

Mandrake Linux isn't really that old of a system. I remember purchasing the 8.0 distribution at Circuit City just about 2 1/2 years ago.

That's like saying Ford isn't really that old of a car manufacturer because, I remember buying one a couple years back. Mandrake was my first successful Linux installation something like 6 years ago, IM very HO, Mandrake was the first 'easy to install' Linux distribution.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it you call linux a monolithic system? It's layered design would seem to be the opposite of monolithic.

Re:Well, here's my take

[hairyfeet]

I think you almost hit the nail on the head,Although i think it's becoming less and less about the software as the free open source stuff is great and getting better every day.It's the hardware. How many Dells,HP's/Compaqs,etc have a motherboard that is just different enough that any other manufacturers drivers won't work.As long as the big boys refuse to support Linux or give basic docs so that developers can make a driver how is Linux going to compete with M$ who will always have a driver made for them?This is an area Apple has been very smart with building the OS and locking it to the hardware they know their drivers will work on an Apple machine. As long as most pc parts manufacturers don't supply either docs OR Linux drivers while handing every Microsoft OS custom made drivers(A lot STILL provide drivers for 95/98!)then Linux is going to have a VERY uphill battle trying to support all that hardware.

Re:Well, here's my take

[ghukov]

I agree, I think that linux is for uber types, and that the herd should continue to play roller coaster tycoon on M$ windows. UT 2k4 runs quite well on linux for me, and it seems there are more and more games trickling in that can be played on a linux OS. With the amount of people out there who run windows on broadband with no firewall... could you imagine if they were running a real server OS for a desktop, attached directly to the internet, and leave it up to those people to update their systems? Joe average, IMHO, is the one who is not ready for linux. Not until AOL comes out with a linux distro... *shudders*

Re:Well, here's my take

[doc modulo]

Installing and uninstalling was nearly impossible because packages scattered files across a confusing, oblique filesystem, and it was a very common occurrence to find rpm entries had been corrupted and left unusable.

Read this page for a description of how to fix the installation usability/buggyness problem Linux has. It's a four-piece blog with a blueprint of how re reengineer Linux to use the appfolder system. Another way of explaining it is that the article explains how to make Linux application installation more like Mac OS X installations (installing is just dragging a folder over) but the articles go further than just using the Mac system, the resulting design is even easier.

There are already Linux and other OS systems that implement the appfolder way of installing, uninstalling and updating. The links to those as well as comments about these systems are all collected on those pages if you want a single source to get all your reading material from.

A good read.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually - Cygwin runs just nicely off of a USB thumb-drive - even under locked down Windows installations.

Generally - As long as a program does not touch the registry, require installation to "\Program Files" or "\Windows", you can get it to run. I have a whole tools chain which I use like this.

Re:Well, here's my take

[ghukov]

it does _everything_ I need it to do (at work), out of the box, and on the cheap. My windows machine had a disk failure, and it was 2 months before I could be bothered to fix it.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Xabraxas]

When talking about how ready GNU/Linux is for Desktop user, there is no point in saying it's better because the source is available since no desktop user is going to care (hell most won't even know) what the source code is.

No one said that Linux is better and no one can and say it authoritatively because it is a matter of opinion.

Desktop in this context means "clueless users who want it to do what they think they want", not a kernel hacker who is using a GUI.

A desktop user does not have to be clueless. I am a desktop user who uses Linux comfortabley. I also administer a few servers but I am still a desktop user. Just because there are completely computer illiterate people out there doesn't mean that Linux has to cater to them. In fact Linux has always been catering to a different crowd. My point was, and still is, that saying Linux offers nothing over Windows on the desktop is a lie. It probably offers nothing to your average Dell customer but then it's not supposed to, not yet at least. Linux does offer many advantages for other, more advanced desktop users though.

Re:Well, here's my take

[poot_rootbeer]

the Unix mindset (text-based text processing, pipes, small well-defined tools, a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces, non-data-processing devices, etc.)

X windowing has been around for fully half of Unix's history. Can one still legitimately claim that the Unix mindset MUST involve "a de-emphasis on graphical user interfaces"?

Re:Well, here's my take

[SComps]

Wow, I got moderated as a troll for calling something like I see it and actually having the balls to express it in public. Must be an evolution dev had mod points today.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Xabraxas]

Maybe I'm missing something but Autohotkey doesn't seem that amazing to me but I haven't used it so maybe I'm missing something. For my purposes Linux has the important things covered. Autohotkey touts the following features:

Automate almost anything by sending keystrokes and mouse clicks. You can write a mouse or keyboard macro by hand or use the macro recorder.

That's easy to do in Linux. Just write a script and then give it a keybinding.

Create hotkeys for keyboard, joystick, and mouse. Virtually any key, button, or combination can become a hotkey.

I can do this within WindowMaker.

Expand abbreviations as you type them. For example, typing "btw" can automatically produce "by the way".

I bet this wouldn't be hard to do but I haven't seen it in action yet on Linux. It's not all that useful anyway.

Create custom data entry forms, user interfaces, and menu bars. See GUI for details.

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. Data entry forms for what? The web? A standalone program?

Remap keys and buttons on your keyboard, joystick, and mouse.

You can do this with X.

Run existing AutoIt v2 scripts and enhance them with new capabilities.

Expand on open source scripts? That's the closest I could come on that one. There isn't really a need for this type of feature in the open source world.

Convert any script into an EXE file that can be run on computers that don't have AutoHotkey installed.

A bash script can be run on almost any other nix without a problem.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Cedega is awesome. I play Half Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Starcraft, Max Payne 2, etc all flawlessly and at damn near the performance my system would get running natively on Winblows.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Antimatter3009]

One word: Ubuntu. Easiest installer ever and it comes on one disk. Very nice.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Photon Ghoul]

You've just stated why it is NOT ready for the desktop while attempting to state it is ready. Its like saying an automobile engine is really a complete car and is ready for the road without the rest of the frame/tires/gas/seats etc etc

Why don't you get this? Everyone else does...

Sorry about not falling in step with your opinion. But I personally think that Linux itself is "ready". There are general-purpose and specialized apps (comes with more than Windows). Very stable. Where's the spyware? The system crashes?

What am I missing from the desktop? Games? Software that vendors won't port to Linux? Hardware whose vendors won't write drivers or open up their specs for Linux? I don't think those are problems of the Linux desktop. Those are problems with third party vendors. To use your metaphor it's like a car without after-market stereos, third-party alarm systems, window tinting and spinning hubcaps. I'm sorry but I have my frame, tires, gas tank and seats and frankly they kick ass.

What's not ready? Please don't use metaphors or generalities but give me some specifics. Specifics will help improve things. Anything else is just flamebait.

Re:Well, here's my take

[stinky wizzleteats]

I speak authoritatively on the subject because my experience with Linux begins many moons ago with an old system called Linux Mandrake, now called Mandriva Linux. It started with version 5.2, a system forked from the Red Hat 5.2 release. I have since used Mandrake 6.0, Red Hat 7.0 and 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, Fedora Core 2, and variations from SuSE.

So you used a lot of really old versions of Linux, all RPM based, and haven't touched any of the hot latecomers like Ubuntu. Where does your authority come from again?

Re:Well, here's my take

[sgtrock]

Couldn't you just sumggle in a copy of putty on a floppy? Copy over telnet.exe, see if they even know the difference.

In a lot of companies, doing things like that can get you fired. Including mine, unfortunately. :(

Besides, it's already clear from his original post that his IT group is scared of anything resembling management of the desktops. That's why they insist upon 'pristine' Windows and RedHat.

Re:Well, here's my take

[hazah]

Warning: You are TOO used to windows

So you don't understand what the /dev is there for and want to change how this is done so that it makes just a little more sense to you? That is, you'd like to just go ls /dev/usb (gui can run this command for you) and see a nice listing of files/directories? By any chance are you aware of what would that do? Strange things like all your devices not functioning will probably be the result. Why the hell are you in /dev anyway? This folder isn't for you, it's for the OS and the software, and for people that know what it's for. Currently, you don't.

The files in the /dev directory arn't meant for exploring the contents of a device. Input sent in, and output recieved from these files are commands to the devices and their results, respectively. Trust me, you have no business there. Network devices don't have "file systems" persay, but do transfer data, you have all your ports, and every connection you have a driver for. It's more of a representation of your motherboard as files or something the like.

Just mount your devices in /mnt! /mnt is your "My Computer" folder. Depending on your destribution, this might have been setup to work automatically, a la windows.

Re:Well, here's my take

[swv3752]

Under Windows if you have a real problem then you have to hit the registry. It is more arcane and not user friendly. If you do not luck upon some article describing what specifically to do in the registry, you are likely left banging about in the dark.

Any decent Linux Distro will have well commented/documented config files. The linux way is much easier in that respect. But I almost never have to configure things from CLI. If I want, I can use a GUI. This is distro specific though. I have a friend that bitches about the poor configs utils in Ubuntu. SUSE and Mandriva have really good ones.

Some programs are just zipped folders and do not go into Add/Remove Programs. Other times Add/Remove will not work. A linux Distro's graphical front end to APT or RPM will function in the same way as the Windows Installer.

Ever notice how on some Windows program CDROM, it says click Start, click run, type 'd:\setup.exe'? It is a lot easier to to have some one type something in when giving written instructions. That is why when someone give instructions on the web, it is in the form of 'rpm -U foo.rpm'.

Re:Well, here's my take

[agraupe]

As others have mentioned, PuTTY is just a single executable. If this still causes a problem (and it might; I know I can't use it at school), you also have the option of a Java based SSH client. Mindterm is the only one I know of, and it works fine provided you don't want advanced features. A quick google search will give you some options, or you can use this one.

Re:Well, here's my take

[MentalMooMan]

100% with you on this one. Linux is simply too cool to be wasted on Joe Schmoe who just wants to play solitaire. If Joe here starts using it and complaining when he gets attacked, developers will tailor linux to Joe's needs, not ours.

Linux IS ready for the desktop. I'm using it here, on my desktop, right now, and it's great. Anyone who says it isn't should try using it.
Maybe it's not ready for joe, but it's certainly ready for the desktop.

Re:Well, here's my take

[TheRealSlimShady]

you're looking at a big remote desktop, for starters

Well in a windows based operating system that's rather the point isn't it? It wouldn't be very much good if you didn't see a big remote desktop. And as far as the $$$ go, for remote admin TS has always been free. If you use it to provide user services, then it costs.

Re:Well, here's my take

[jbdearing]

I feel that these things are what make linux more exciting to use than say "big brother" 1. Security 2. Security 3. Security oh and the price $0.00 also people complain about how difficult is to install or setup or add new modules to it. I don't see that now I am not trying to state that I know everything but come on people ask some of the thousands of linux communites out there then if all else fails ask Google.

Re:Well, here's my take

[OhioJoe]

How about hearing from a layman, like me? Well, I am somewhat a geek, but not in the field anymore, and was in mamagement when I was. I fix all my family member's computers with 100% success rate, get paid to fix other's, and custom build all my own systems.

About two years ago, I 'inherited' a KDE desktop and used it to my delight to do just what I needed for a bedroom computer... Surfing the Internet and accessing email. The problem was, I was worried that if something went wrong, I'd have no idea how to fix it. I knew how to find settings and preferences, but if there was a conflict, I was just as dumb as the average user who pays me to fix their windows machines. I didn't have a clue how to 'mount a drive' or 'create partititions', etc... and command lines? Give me a break... clueless.

BUT..... what was nice about using it was knowing it was free or next to free, and I could avoid Microsoft if I wanted. So while Linux needs to be more basic when it comes to getting one up and running from an unformatted drive, it does have the tremendous advantage of being free or darn near it.

OJ

Re:Well, here's my take

[typical]

What I mean is that if you're working on three computers, you have three desktops sitting in front of you, rather than just transparently using three applications that just happen to be running on three computers.

Re:Well, here's my take

[sumdumass]

Actualy AOL branded linux might not be as bad a thing as imagined.

I used to get service calls from users who were getting popups, security alert with thier firewall, and all sorts of other issues. Aol pretty much stoped these calls for those who installed it. Their new fix it software wich isn't much more then regular maintinance and AOL file verification has reduced the number of "this doesn't work right" complaints and "my computer is slow" complaints. I have printed proceedures to do most of everythign but people just won't follow it or feel the need to talk to support while doing it.

On the surface this seems like a loss of revenue and maybe even selfish. I build my own custom computers and support them a year or two free. Sometimes i feel like telling the user to just bring the computer back and buy an apple or a dell because they're incompetent and cannot follow directions. I preinstall a trial version of AOL on these computers and about 60% of the users actualy use it wich has reduced my support time on these incompetency complaints by more then 3/4. This allows us to concentrate on customer service and take better care of the real issues wich has actualy resulted in more word of mouth sales.

I'm not saying AOL is great or that it is even good. I'm just saying thier product holds alot of negetive influences that are really no longer present in the software. An aol brand of linux should continue to follow these new quickfix, maintinance, type attitude. Aol has thier own online game (service) so some of the gamming complaints and usability complaints would be eliminated. I think AOL selling linux might be just the thing for a internet apliance type situation when the majoity of users are below average in tech skills. I have some very intelignet users who when it comes to computers are reduced to a three years olds knowledge of the world. What people are saying about windows being easy is still hard for them. These people are doctors and lawers, acountants and bankers. They are not uninteligent except when it comes to computers.

As scarry as it sounds, an AOL flavor of linux would probably be better then a windows box running AOL for these people. Of course this is just my opinion from observations. Most of the hell associated with using aol is gone. The only thing that remains is the idiots are able to use it. AOL is good at attempting to make thign easy for idiots. A controled and maintained (by aol) distrobution like i assume AOL would have might be the thing that stops zombie PCs, spyware and maybe even result in a better internet for everyone(not using AOL).

Re:Well, here's my take

[LPetrazickis]

Sounds more like spyware than a virus. The difference is that viruses are written by individuals, while spyware is written by corporations. Anti-virus applications don't remove spyware because the corporations that write spyware would sue them. You want Spybot Search & Destroy or some analogue.

Also, you should find a utility for digging through startup items. Stuff like FindFast and Office Startup needs to be eradicated. I'd recommend X-Setup, but it seems to have turned into shareware since the last time I had a use for it.

Re:Well, here's my take

[radarsat1]

You know, I wonder if, someday in the future, we might have "office service" companies. People telecommute an increasing amount, as it lets them live independently of the constraints of who they work with, but we're still struggling with the problem of providing a different "psychological environment" for work to help get you into a "work mode". Some people have a home office, but really, there's a legitimate argument for certain services that are only worthwhile to provide to an office -- redundant Internet connections, commercial shredding, various forms of physical security, IT services, people to socialize with at lunch, etc. But I could see an "office company" that simply provides people with work environments near their houses, and specializes in excellent telecommuting and remote access services. If you have never read Future Shock by Alvin Toffler, please do so! Yes, it was written waaaay back in the 80's, but man is it a great book. Anyways, one thing he predicts is something similar to what you just described. Something inbetween home-office and downtown-office, something more like a "community work environment". It's true, I could never get a lot of work done from home, but why should I travel so damn far (it's an hour and a half for me) to get to work when I just sit in front of a computer most of the time. I'd rather have a decent work environment, outside of my home, but far enough away that I'm "at work". If you know what I mean..

Re:Well, here's my take

[fferreres]

I thought W2K3 needed a separate license, at least that's what I've been told. Anyway, we agree walking down the stairs is nonsense :-)

Re:Well, here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of your points about configurability of Linux are true, but only actually important to about 3-5% of computer users.

To you, tweaking the code of an app or recompiling a kernal is "cool" and a great feature, but is worthless to most computer users.

BTW, the attitude in your post, and many of the other "ubergeeks" on here is another huge reason Linux won't get any penetration in the mainstream market.

Re:Well, here's my take

[chris_7d0h]

The only need one has regarding multiuser on their workstation is to be able to run as root and non-root and perhaps experiment in a sandbox. Windows supports all of this, thus I see that argument as void.

Command-line driven? Well cygwin works great on windows for "bash scripting". Also most of the popular scripting languages are available as well (perl,ruby,python ...).

A machine doesn't need to be command driven to be remotely administrated (though it often eases things). Take VNC for example.
To direct counter your argument, there are several SSH implementations for Windows which means you can do pretty much anything you can in Unix.

So .. I stand fast by my previous argument, if a user knows a platform other than Linux, there is really no need or urge driving them to switch.

Re:Well, here's my take

[Decaff]

The only need one has regarding multiuser on their workstation is to be able to run as root and non-root and perhaps experiment in a sandbox. Windows supports all of this, thus I see that argument as void.

You misunderstand. I mean being able to have multiple users on a machine at the same time, running applications locally and remotely, each will full access to command-line and graphical applications.

A machine doesn't need to be command driven to be remotely administrated (though it often eases things). Take VNC for example.

Yes, and that is totally impractical through long-distance connections that are either slow or have any lag. Try using VNC through a satellite-based connection for example.

To direct counter your argument, there are several SSH implementations for Windows which means you can do pretty much anything you can in Unix.

Of course you can't. SSH is nothing more than a connection protocol, and does not change what the OS is capable of.

So .. I stand fast by my previous argument, if a user knows a platform other than Linux, there is really no need or urge driving them to switch.

And I stand fast by what I said - there are capabilities that Linux/Unix provides that are essential for some uses and that Windows simply can't provide.

Re:Well, here's my take

[nihilogos]

Cool. Thanks for that.

Linux Objectives

[fembots]

It seems Linux has to be "like Windows" to attract a broader user base. I thought that is obvious and has been talked about for many years.

The thing is, how many of the developers are willing to sacrify what they have built so far in exchange for a bigger market share? Are linux developers really keen to get as many people onboard at all cost?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is, what are the objectives in Linux? What is it trying to achieve? Is world domination still the name of the game?

Re:Linux Objectives

[Rei]

I'm about to try and sell an old windows user on Linux (dual-boot with windows XP), by having it come preinstalled with about a dozen games and Synaptic on her desktop so that she can get more at will. We'll see how it goes! ;)

Re:Linux Objectives

[bedroll]

Linux doesn't have to be any more like Windows than it has to be like Mac OSX. If devs try to make consistant and logical interfaces for their applications, and make those applications useful, then people will use them. I don't think developers should change things to be more like Windows, because they should be trying to be better than Windows.

My opinion on home desktops: Microsoft can keep them. I don't want Linux to be screwed up by attempts to make it work like Windows. I don't think Linux needs to have any more of a userbase than it already has. If it gets it, then great. If it continues on the path it's been taking then it'll probably have a broader userbase anyway. Why should the FL/OSS community worry about rapid adoption? We know that we'll be around later. We just need a large enough userbase that it can't be ignored, we need it for interoperability and nothing more.

I don't agree with everything that the article says. I don't think that the desktop experience for a GNome or KDE user is so perplexing that they can't figure it out. More likely they'll have no problem at all with anything if whatever administrator that installs the OS shows them where a few apps are.

This all comes back to the user being separate from the administrator. I don't want to use an OS that confuses those two (like most Windows setups do). I'm happier using an OS where someone with a clue is the administrator and the user is kept out of those tasks.

Re:Linux Objectives

[ZephyrXero]

Well, asking what Linux is doing is kind of confusing because Linux isn't an operating system...it's a kernel. GNU's not an operating system either...it's a userland. But these things are all platforms on which you can build your operating system. Linux systems tend to be similar, but they dont' have to be. The two biggest direvatives of Linux are Red Hat (and other RPM based distros) and Debian (and deb based distros). Each Linux distro has different goals, otherwise they'd all be working together. Some focus on server type systems, while others focus on a friendly easy to use desktop that competes directly with Windows and MacOS. I know some Linux guys that desperately want it to stay underground and not get "bloated with Windows like crap", while some us (like me) really do want it to become the number one Desktop OS. To use one of Linus' metaphors for Linux...it's like asking What do car deals want? Are they trying to dominate the horse and buggy market?

PS. I'd suggest Ubuntu for anyone new to Linux ;)

Re:Linux Objectives

[Mornelithe]

Was the "objective" of Linux ever world domination?

I thought it was a bunch of people working in their spare time (and more recently, for corporations) to produce a Free operating system that they would enjoy using/developing, and, in many cases, that other people would enjoy using as well.

Many people have some political agenda when they work on Free/Open Source Software. Many people don't. Asking "what is [Linux] trying to achieve," isn't a very well-defined question, because "Linux" is not a single sentient entity. It's a community of people with many different goals and ideas.

Re:Linux Objectives

[ZephyrXero]

Unfortunately, not every household has someone "with a clue" to be that administator. I'm not disagreeing that you should keep standard user and root accounts seperate, but to pretend that everyone will be able to just figure it out is ridiculous.

I don't think Gnome or KDE are any more confusing than the Windows interface. What is confusing though is program installation. People like Autopackage and Klik are working to make it easier..but the distro guys aren't willing to give up their archaic repostitory system. Having a repository for the OS and popular libraries is fine...but keeping a repository of every single program available is impossible. The only other thing that really confuses people is the cryptic posix file structure...but some distros like Gobo and RubyX are making strides to change that already.

I think Linux is at the point the old Mozilla browser was at a year or two ago...it's great if you take the time to get used to it, but it's too complicated and at times ugly to deal with for the average person. When the Firefox equivalent of a linux distro finally happens it really will explode.

Re:Linux Objectives

[QuantumG]

So readdress the article to the companies like Linspire that actually are aiming at the desktop marketshare. Oh wait, they already are making the linux desktop look just like Windows, how about that.

Re:Linux Objectives

[mister_tim]

Many people have some political agenda when they work on Free/Open Source Software. Many people don't. Asking "what is [Linux] trying to achieve," isn't a very well-defined question, because "Linux" is not a single sentient entity. It's a community of people with many different goals and ideas.

Great, but I would never have guessed that by reading Slashdot.
Maybe that's just because on Slashdot (and in the media in general), the most vocal crowd of Linux users seem to be the fanatics who believe that everyone should use Linux and nothing else, that Windows itself is evil and corrupts people, that non-FOSS software should die a horrible and painful death, that CS degree level computer skills should be the norm in society... You get the idea

Re:Linux Objectives

[bedroll]

Unfortunately, not every household has someone "with a clue" to be that administator. I'm not disagreeing that you should keep standard user and root accounts seperate, but to pretend that everyone will be able to just figure it out is ridiculous.

My point wasn't that everyone should get a clue, or that there should be one clue per house. My point is that I don't want to have to sacrifice my computing experience because of some agenda to get everyone else to use the same system. Sure, it'd be great to share, but not at the expense of damaging the product. If a household doesn't have a sufficient administrator then Microsoft and Apple already make software for them.

Linux won't be really viable for home use until it's sold pre-installed on a lot of mass-market PCs and you can go to the store and see games and productivity software with penguin stickers, then go home and 99% of the time have it Just Work. That's a long way off, but I'm not losing any sleep over it, hopefully neither are most devs.

Re:Linux Objectives

[Mornelithe]

I wouldn't recommend forming your opinion on anything based on what the majority of people on Slashdot say.

Re:Linux Objectives

[gcauthon]

Linux doesn't have to be like Windows. But it would be nice if some of the distributions solved a few of the problems that are already fixed in Windows.

For example, it would be nice to have a simple directory structure that makes sense. The FHS doesn't cut it. The /usr/bin directory is for "most" commands? The /usr/local directory is for software installed by the "administrator"? WTF?

What's with the single threaded linear bootup process? The kernel is capable of running how many process in parallel? And yet the init daemon has to start one service at a time in linear fasion regardless of dependencies?

We've got JFS, AFS, NFS, NTFS, ABCFS but how about a filesystem that supports generation datasets? Wasn't that available on other systems back in, oh I dunno 1900? It seems useful on other systems like VMS and OS. I guess Windows doesn't have this either so here's a chance to *gasp* make an improvement past Windows!

Re:Linux Objectives

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoy using Linux, and I want to be able to use it for everything, but unless it gains a certain market share, many software packages and drivers won't be available for it. This is the only real reason I care how popular Linux is.

Re:Linux Objectives

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Too bad I don't have mod points.

Re:Linux Objectives

[ZephyrXero]

I believe it's very possible to make something easy to use while not having to give up any functionality. It's not easy, but it can be done...

Re:Linux Objectives

[bedroll]

But it becomes exponentially more difficult when you're trying to force the change based on some rushed and unrealistic time-frame. It's possible, but is it feasible right now? If we rush to usability to meet some expectation of instant gratitude will we do it right?

Mom and Pop can wait until things are done right. Sometimes that takes time. In this case, it also takes more vendor support, hardware and software, and that will come by a continued effort to do things right instead of active attempts to convert Windows users.

Re:Linux Objectives

[bersl2]

Those of us who use it as our primary desktop system want, basically, to be able to do whatever our Windows-using counterparts can, specifically, meeting the following criteria:

1. Common protocols and formats should be open.
2. Open standards and API should be preferred to proprietary and non-portable equivalents.
3. Either:
   • Produce a well-maintained, feature-complete, but not necessarily open driver, complete with a license that allows us to package the necessary parts in our distros; or
   • Give us the goddamn hardware specifications.

Of those, 1 and 2 are negotiable concerning the degree to which they are true; but 3 is completely and utterly non-negotiable. All other problems with Linux on the desktop actually working are internal ones.

Re:Linux Objectives

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the "objective" of Linux ever world domination?

I suppose one thing to keep in mind is that linux's competition may actually have that objective. And to those ends may do things to make life more difficult for the linux crowd.

I'm all for some market penetration if it increases hardware/device support. I think a lot of it comes from the perception that big user percentages need to appear in order to have enough leverage to meet some basic needs.

I don't suppose "linux" should be attempting to konquer the world. But hopefully it will work to advance its own best interest. And because of the diversity of the community that is a tough one to nail down. But the diversity is ultimately a strength. Even though I find myself cursing that x,y, or z doesn't work the same etc etc.

Fundamentally a smooth migration path would be nice because anything that makes cross platform information exchange easier is a plus.

Re:Linux Objectives

[msobkow]

Linux is going to need a serious migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.

For the mom & pop user, migration isn't really as much of an issue as it's being made out to be. I know far too many people who lost most or all of their data to a dead hard drive, a failed windows upgrade, or a virus attack.

What is an issue is that the typical home user doesn't have the technical knowledge to set up something so basic as an internet connection without guidance from their ISP, and far too few ISPs have any Linux experience. Some ISPs even go out of their way to ensure that you must use Windows-style DHCP to configure an internet connection, and poison the DNS cache if you just do a forward-first to their DNS servers.

Once a box is set up properly, the second issue becomes ease of use with websites. As dangerous as it is to do so, the mom & pop home users expect to be able to just click "Ok" when a website wants to install some ActiveX control. If they can't do that, or see an "IE only" website warning, they curse the computer as being broken, not the website as being poorly designed.

The focus needs to be on getting the overall user experience to be smooth and relatively seemless, not just spinning wheels on trying to migrate obfuscated Microsoft data.

Re:Linux Objectives

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward never has mod points.

Re:Linux Objectives

[LnxAddct]

Exactly! Why change what is best about linux simply because average users take longer to wrap their minds around it. Don't lower your standards for someone else, I think Linux is fine the way it is. It is desktop ready, but its also got a lot of power. If my girlfriend can use it than anyone can, they just have to be willing to try. If we dumb it down anymore we might as well wipe their asses too. But back to your orignal point, who the hell cares what Linux's market share is. Its not like Linus stays up at night thinking about mass appeal. This Asa person is comparing the installation of a single removable application to the addition of an operating system and an entire pardigm shift not just for one thing, but for everything. Web Broswers are fairly simple from a learning curve point of view, you enter url, click links, done. There is no comparison here.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Linux Objectives

[Tim C]

What else would you use to form it though?

To get a feel for "the objectives of the community", you must speak with a representative sample of that community. It seems to me that the easiest way to do that is right here, at slashdot.

Yes, we are all individuals, yes we all believe and want different things, but the same comments are made (and modded up to +4 or +5) time and time again. That would certainly seem to imply that "the slashdot readership" holds a certain opinion, and by extension, that (at least part of) the open source community does so too.

Re:Linux Objectives

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be honest. It is not the Windows competition, it is Linux shooting in its knee.

Witout a stable runtime plattform, without unification there will be no Desktop Linux. LSB++ is needed here. One package format for all distributions.

Guess why there is so little commercial software for Linux?

Re:Linux Objectives

[master_p]

Linux is a free Unix-like O/S. Unfortunately, Unix (and POSIX APIs) don't cut it any more, both for the desktop, for the enterprise, and for the embedded market.

I would expect open source developers to stop following Windows and develop their own APIs that are much more orthogonal than the dreadful Win32. Instead of that, they are copying Windows.

Re:Linux Objectives

[Anonymous Coward]

You completely missed a reference to a flash animation....good work!

Boatse?

[jube_fl]

Am I the only one that read that as goatse?

Re:Boatse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

insightful

[diegocgteleline.es]

So, in order to be a successful desktop OS, linux needs to be more user-friendly. Film at 11.

Re:insightful

[nomadic]

So, in order to be a successful desktop OS, linux needs to be more user-friendly. Film at 11.

Yes, seems obvious, but most of the developers never seem to actually listen to it when it's said.

Re:insightful

[cshark]

I say, let's make a graphic interface for Linux designed around Mozilla, the Mozilla toolkit, and XPCOM. It already comes damn close to being able to do it, and developing apps for it would be a breeze. Not to mention all of the software installation problems that would solve. Besides, I think it would be funny to watch all these pretentious Mozilla guys put in their place with a little bit of irony.

Re:insightful

[Mornelithe]

You don't think there's any open source developers working on software usability?

Re:insightful

[nomadic]

That's why I specified most. It seems that too many OSS developers prefer adding new features to refining what's already been written. It makes perfect sense, the former is usually a lot more interesting than the latter. But at the end of the day you get software that often seems kludged together.

Re:insightful

[Mornelithe]

Ah, okay, granted. However, there does seem to be a significant shift towards usability in the larger camps (Gnome, KDE). I don't expect it to reach down into the Joe's Utility X, though.

Re:insightful

[asa]

So, in order to be a successful desktop OS, linux needs to be more user-friendly. Film at 11.

In order to be successful at migrating Windows users to Linux, Linux needs to be friendlier to Windows users.

- A

Quick mod him down

[syousef]

He dared to blasphemeth. He hath derided the holy OS on /. and he must be modded down -1 troll into oblivion!

Re:Quick mod him down

[ValourX]

That's some seriously half-assed Elizabethan English. Try this instead:

He did dare to blaspheme. He hath the deride of the holy OS on /. and, lo, he shall feel the wrath of yonder moderators this day. -1 troll, ye shall be known to him as destruction to Sodom and Gomorrah!

Re:Quick mod him down

[Anonymous Coward]

i saw no os/2 reference in his post

Here's how I see it

[Anonymous Butthead]

I'm tired of this "Linux isnt ready for the desktop" bs...

To be honest with you, if Linux runs on any *Desktop* it's ready. It may not be ready for Grannies system, but it is running.

Granted, this comment is totally biased, but hell, I think freeBSD is also desktop-ready. (Linux, FreeBSD, are used on desktops here)

Re:Here's how I see it

[sgant]

Really...and how do they determine it's "not ready for the desktop"?

How about setting up someone with Linux already installed on a system? Much like Windows systems that are pre-installed on machines? I know I was the one that always had to go and reinstall windows on many people's machine because it was too confusing for them...so does this mean since people can install Windows that it's not "ready for the desktop"? The same can be said for OSX.

Any person not familiar with a computer will be confused on any system...be it OSX/Windows/KDE/Gnome. No one that's never touched a computer before will be able to just sit down and run one of them without a little reading/training. Sorry folks, but that's the truth. Each system usually has a "getting started" tutorial to get people up to speed.

Linux is as ready for the desktop as any other system out there. And all this article is just BS. It's just this guys feelings. He's not doing any tests or research. He didn't go out and test 50 grandmothers and sat them down in front of a computer and see what would happen. It's just this guys feelings and opinion.

Re:Here's how I see it

[sgant]

And since when does a fricken blog rate enough to be included here as "news"? It's a blog...which is just random masturbation of words for the amusement of the blogger himself.

There's blogs out there that still claim the world is flat and that NASA faked the moon landings...let's put them on here too! Let Slashdot become the fucking Art Bell of the internet!

Might as well. I hope Taco is enjoying all the cash that OSDN is paying him. He doesn't seem to care what goes on here anymore.

Re:Here's how I see it

[chris_mahan]

I'll give you a fresh analogy:

Just because 99% of americans can't drive a car with the steering wheel on the right side of the car doesn't mean the cars 500 million drivers in the world (japan, UK, india) drive are "doomed to fail". They fill the need of those who drive them.

Also, the postal service in the US has cars with the steering wheels on the right, for different reasons. You don't hear about people getting postal service jobs asking for a leftie, do you?

It's all about the right tool for the job.

As far as granny: If is preconfigured and ready to go, like knoppix, with 1 appplication (firefox) all configured nicely to boot, launch, autologin to user granny, autolauch firefox and go to msn.com, yahoo.com, or aol.com, with a cron to apt-get update \n apt-get upgrade \n apt-get autoclean (or your variant) monthly, then I would have no problem getting granny that software.

And for me, better: I would get no more of these calls: "Sonny, the puter ain't workin', I need my email today!"

See?

Re:Here's how I see it

[natrius]

And since when does a fricken blog rate enough to be included here as "news"? It's a blog...which is just random masturbation of words for the amusement of the blogger himself.

I thought nerds were supposed to be progressive and free-thinking. It's horribly close-minded of you to think that just because someone expresses their sentiments on their blog, it deserves less attention than if they had done so on the front page of the New York Times. The reputation of the author is an important aspect of evaluating a piece of rhetoric, and being on the front page of the New York Times does give you a bit of that. In the community, Asa already has a bit of a reputation built up, which is why this rant posted by him is more likely to be put on Slashdot than mine would be, so lacking reputation shouldn't be one of the issues you have with this article. So what is it then? Are you just trying to hop on the bandwagon of Slashdotters who have an issue with blogs for some reason? How about you just read the article and evaluate it for what it actually says?

Re:Here's how I see it

[sgant]

I read the blog and sorry, never heard of Asa before so he has no reputation to me. You see, reputation is in the eyes of the beholder. And nothing in his blog changes that fact in my eyes.

He didn't really say anything. He goes on about migration to Linux when in fact you don't migrate to Windows. When you buy a new machine loaded with Windows you don't, as he put it, "carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings". Data I can see...and it's easy to transfer your data over to Linux. User settings? Who transfers user settings to a new machine? You buy the machine and copy your documents or pictures or movies or what-have-you and you go from there. You may install a program or two but in the 26 years I've been involved with computers I've never copied "user settings" to a new computer! This is a non-issue and he lists it as a major one.

His next beef is with no consistent way to load in an application. Well, he may be somewhat right for some distros. But if you bought a computer with Gentoo or Debian pre-installed, installing new apps is pretty much a breeze as it tells you right up front what's going on and what you need and it installs it for you. KDE is a "stable" API (don't you like how he words that...so someone who may be interested in Linux and is skimming the blog will just see "issue with stability" instead of just saying "no universal API" or something along those lines...but when you're spreading FUD it's good to put those points at the beginning of sentences). There is a consistent API...two of them if you want. You could use KDE and never ever even know anything about API's or what-not.

And sorry, his last points with re-writing Linux to make it match the habits of Windows is just idiotic. Linux isn't Windows. Why doesn't he deride OSX and say it should be re-written to match the habits of Windows? Just because there are a ton of Windows machines out there doesn't mean everyone has to copy them. Linux should go it's own way...it's different from Windows just as OSX is different from Windows.

Linux should be aspiring to have a better interface than Windows, but short-sighted people keep writing blogs about how Linux needs to be "more like Windows" to succeed. That's bullshit.

Film at 11

[Jooly Rodney]

The FA is yet more criticism that would be better directed at particular Desktop vendors / packages and application developers than at the mythical entity "Linux." Nothing to see here.

But they do...

[HappyHead]

But my mother and father already use Linux - mostly for the games though.

Re:But they do...

[Soul-Burn666]

But really. A friend of mine switched to linux exlusively. His dad plays all the tiny games and his mom does all office stuff she needs to do. No complaints.

Windows is not easier to use than various linux windowmanagers. It's just the switch which is tough.
Also, for a standard USER, the difference is really small, considering the one maintaining the system knows what s/he does.

Re:But they do...

[ZzzzSleep]

Quoth Soul-Burn666

Windows is not easier to use than various linux windowmanagers. It's just the switch which is tough.

Which is one of the points that the article is making.

"Linux is going to need a serious migration plan"

"When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data. Without this, the hill is just too steep to climb and Regular People will not make the climb."

Anything that makes the switch less painful is a good thing.

Re: But they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

You set your poor, innocent folks up with a Linux box to play games?!?! You sick, twisted little monkey...

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux takes a lot more intelligence to run. The reason Windows users get infected with more trojans and viruses isn't because it's hard to use, it's because it's easy to use. So more stupid people use it.

"Grandma Bootsie"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grandma Bootsie"? Is that the name of your grandma or the name of your cat?

Re:"Grandma Bootsie"?

[HulkProtector1]

Its the name of my dog...

Fundamental assumption?

[aussersterne]

All presupposing (as is so often done) that the ultimate "goal of Linux" (thereby attributing to "Linux" intentionality that it no doubt does not possess) is to woo Windows users away from their desktops, rather than to provide a superior computing and data processing platform.

I am very happy with the latter, which Linux has provided me with for some years now, and if Linux ceases to do so in favor of attempting the former, I'll happily switch to some other platform (until "I hate elitsts" n00bs who want to be elite but don't want to work for it invade and begin to transform-to-inefficiency that one as well, at which point I'll move on yet again).

Give me efficient computing or give me death. I want to manage my reams of data and my network tasks. I don't care if it jives with the [utterly inefficient] way of doing things in Windows, or if the Windows users care to adopt my methods.

I just want the powerful tools, unpolluted, task-oriented, intelligently designed, that let me talk to my computer using the language through which it can most quickly and subtly be isntructed.

It's not an elitist view, it's the view of a data processing pragmatist with a lot of tasks to juggle and a lot of work to get done.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[Soul-Burn666]

Exactly.
Not only that, but the window manager in XP is pretty damn weak.
Who heard of a system where the choise of a window being always-on-top or not is left solely to the application and not the window manager. I don't know how many times i've thanked the various devs of windowmanagers that let me choose that myself.

A friend of mine introduced me to Enlightenment (the WM), and it seems much more functional than the windows WM.
For example, you don't need to reach to the end of the window to resize it. Just press some key and drag the mouse on the window to resize it.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[Momoru]

I feel the same way...the way a lot of people on here blindly hate windows and love linux or mac...that's really not what it's all about. I could really care less what specific operating system I use as long as I can do what "everyone is talking about" without great hassle. So if everyone is using Google Earth and I can't because I chose Linux to be l33t, then it sucks. If everyone is playing WoW and I can't play it because I have Solaris, it sucks. If my job requires me to write ASP.NET code, its not very easy to bring a Mac in and work on it. People go where the applications are. Until Linux starts having a large amount of cool things that are completely unavailable on every other system, then normal people won't switch. Right now linux is still playing catch up, trying to emulate as many things as Windows does as possible. MacOS is a little more on the right track...they've had some things that made me want to switch back to Mac lately...but I honestly can't think of many reasons to fire up my linux box on a daily basis...its great as a server since MS server software is super expensive, but as a desktop it still can't replace the simple "everything just works" way Windows does.

Linux suffers from too much flexibility...too many options. If you are my aunt or grandma or mom are you going to know if Gentoo is better then Fedora? Are you going to know how to patch up to the latest kernal? What are all these crazy things talking about when I boot up? Son...why is my computer "Panic"ing? Why can't I run iTunes or any of the software I see at bestbuy?...etc... Its a great OS, but it really isn't anywhere near being ready for a layperson.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[The_Wilschon]

Good heavens, I'm sick of seeing posts (almost) exactly like these. (the almost is because your first paragraph is really pretty decent.) Sorry, yes this is a flame. That's what you get when you post flamebait. If you don't want to be flamed, then by all means, don't read this. None of it is vitally important, you're just the umpteenth post along these lines that I've seen, and yours happened to be the one that put it past my limit. So I'm flaming you.

If you are my aunt or grandma or mom are you going to know if Gentoo is better then Fedora?

Tell your aunt or grandma or mom which distro is newbie-friendly. Better yet, install it for them.

Are you going to know how to patch up to the latest kernal?

I have never needed to patch a kernal [sic]. And yes, I have recompiled my kernel several times, but patching it has never been necessary. Unless you've got some really screwy hardware, the chances you will need to patch (or even compile) the kernel (or anything!) are pretty small.

What are all these crazy things talking about when I boot up?

It is fairly easy to find distributions that hide all the kernel and init bootup messages (Mandriva for one). If your aunt/grandma/mom objects to lots of messages (nobody objects to POST messages BEFORE the OS even starts, though...), then install one of those. Additionally, the distros that do this tend to be the distros that are newbie-friendly... hmmm, coincidence? I think not.

Son...why is my computer "Panic"ing?

The only time I have ever seen my kernel panic is when I had deliberately screwed it up to see what happened. Not an issue.

Why can't I run iTunes or any of the software I see at bestbuy?

Say it with me: W-I-N-E.... No, its not perfect, but out of "any of the software I see at bestbuy", there is a significant subset that will run. Furthermore, if your aunt/grandma/mom asks you this question, then find and install the equivalent of whatever app it is that she is looking for! Then, show her how to find and install these herself! If you don't know enough to do so, then find a local Linux Users Group, and I'm nearly certain that they will help.

In other words, while I agree with your general sentiment in the first paragraph that if you have no real need or desire to use linux, you probably shouldn't, as far as the second paragraph goes, you are a) wrong, and b) parroting the same old, hackneyed misconceptions parroted by everyone else on /. who didn't get linux within the first week they tried it. Smarten up, or go away.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[Momoru]

parroting the same old, hackneyed misconceptions parroted by everyone else on /. who didn't get linux within the first week they tried it.

I'm not some random linux hater here, so it's not that I don't "get" linux...I've been using various Unixes since 95 (I used to be the biggest BSD fan...) my second portion kind of goes hand in hand with the other section... Yes there are more friendly distros then others, but my point is that how does mom or grandma find this one? If some of the other comp sci majors I work with have no idea what the difference is between one distro and the next, how will mom? First, any distro that isn't available in the store is out of the question...they are not gonna download iso's and burn them...they have no idea how big the /etc/ partition should be etc... So that's the first step for average people to really start using it is make a super friendly no nosense install that is sold in stores. I know there are a few out there... ok so once mom/grandma has this copy and assuming its been made easy to install (Read: gives them no hard options) does it come with Wine too? If grandma has wine, and she downloads GoogleEarth.exe will it run when she double clicks it? When she downloaded it, did the interface make the unix directory structure simplified so she didn't save it in /usr/bin? Will the Bicycle Card game she owns from 1995 run on it? Until the answers to these questions are yes, all i'm saying is that most Linux distributions are too complicated. When I start to see normal people even understanding that there isn't just one "Linux-brand Linux" that comes shrinkwrapped with a picture of Linus giving me a wink and a nod then I think it will be on the right track. Like others have said Linux is a great option if you want a free open source OS, but it's not quite simple enough to have clueless people switch just for the sake of switching.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[Anonymous Coward]

is to woo Windows users away from their desktops, rather than to provide a superior computing and data processing platform.

The former is a step towards the latter!

For many purposes, Windows is a superior platform to both Linux and Mac simply by virtue of being the most popular desktop platform. By default, it's the target for all new applications and hardware drivers.

When I, as a Linux user, convince a Windows customer to switch, I'm acting out of greedy self interest. The more popular Linux becomes, the better software and hardware support will be, improving my own use of the platform.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[heffrey]

What a load of pretentious drivel. "Give me efficient computing or give me death." Like anyone round here gives a shit about you.

What has the platform got to do with what tools you use? These task-oriented, intelligently designed powerful tools that you talk of, are there vast numbers of them available on Linux but not on Windows? I don't think so.

Death seems the best option!

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[Zwets]

What exactly is taken away from you if some people decide it's important to "woo Windows users away from their desktops"? Nothing. These people have different goals than you and accomplishing these goals takes nothing away from you.

I think what you're really trying to say is "every free software coder should have the same goals as I do." That's a bit of a narrow view.

Re:Fundamental assumption?

[The_Wilschon]

You know which distros are easy for newbies, yes? So tell your CS major friends. Tell your mom or grandma. Of course your grandma isn't going to know which distro to choose, or even know how to find out. However, if she hadn't been using windows, would she know whether she wanted Windows for Workgroups, Windows ME, Windows XP? Heck, does she even know which one of those she's got? This is one case where someone external (easiest choice is you) either makes the decision for her, or gives her enough information to make the decision herself. Also, most distros have an option to purchase the already burned CD, and I would recommend that highly, because what you are purchasing is a tech support phone number that your grandma can call when the cup holder breaks.

I'm not 100% sure of the state of things in such distros, but when I've used knoppix as a rescue cd, after clicking on the wine entry in the menu (I was curious), yes, windows programs did work by double-clicking on them. And it seems quite simple to eliminate that one step of clicking on the wine entry, so someone has probably done it (unless I had to do a bit of config... I don't recall).

My experience with downloading files under gnome/firefox is that most of the time, I'm not even asked where to put the file; it simply automatically goes in my home directory. You could then explain to your mom or grandma that the little icon that looks like a house (at least, in gnome) is where the files go when she downloads them.

The older a program is, typically the more likely it is to be supported by wine, so the Bicycle Card game most likely will work. Maybe not, but there's a good chance.

I'm saying that the answers to these questions is yes.

If there is any of the above that you were not aware of before, well then I've just exercised what I was pointing out in my first paragraph.

Sorry to have flamed you before, but as I said, I have read too many posts making exactly those same points, and I just got ticked off... Sorry you happened to be the target.

I'm not trying to say that switching your mom or grandma is necessary, or even a good idea. I'm just trying to point out that the reasons you have given for not switching them can easily be or already have been taken care of.

it IS ready...

[override11]

Windows was never thought of as 'easy' when it first came out. You still had to learn how to use it, what to click to close a window, the concepts of using a mouse, right click, etc. Linux is just different enough from a window PC that there will be a learning curve. Frankly, I wouldnt want another OS that was exactly like windows.

Anything worth doing is worth some effort. Just sit down with linux for a bit and you will find it can do everything that Windows can do, just a bit different.

Re:it IS ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree here. I have used windows for ages even dos for that matter all the way back to about 4.

Windows is no easier then linux, the only edege that exsist is a common form of software and package dilvery, which will soon be an issue of the past.

I would dread seeing another copy cat os that has to drum itself over as a windows clone to make a buck. If you to lazy to read manual why are you using a computer any way ? So you can be yet another internet drone broadcasting viruses, trojans, and Spam ?

Linux fs structures are no in any way difficult to understand, I don't see how anyone could think that.

Var, variable data
tmp, temporary
usr, user space no different then Program Files.

I mean, anyone else say wtf are program files when you first installed win 95 ?

Re:it IS ready...

[afabbro]

Yes, but it was possible to learn Windows because there were manuals that were in sync with the code, documentation was available, etc.

I wouldn't want another OS that was exactly like Windows...but a free (in all senses of the word) OS that was exactly like the Mac, on the other hand...(at least in a user-interface sense)

Re:it IS ready...

[asa]

"Just sit down with linux for a bit and you will find it can do everything that Windows can do, just a bit different."

My point is that masses of people _won't_ "just sit down with linux for a bit." They'll spend a few minutes on it and decide it's not good enough and go back to Windows. My post covered a few of the reasons for this.

- A

Re:it IS ready...

[layer3switch]

I think, learning curve in general is required for any computing. Heck, even Mac wasn't as GUI intuitive as one may have thought back in the days. And Mac had only ONE CLICK BUTTON!

For Desktop Linux distros, the downfall of it all, IMHO, is that they all are trying to mimic each other and at the same time forgetting to innovate with ease of use in mind. ie. worry about "function first, usage later" design. Biggest example of Red Hat's success would be KickStart/RPM/UP2DATE/GUI Package Management and at the same time, biggest example of Red Hat's failure would be 6+ distribution CD's just speaks for itself.

Re:it IS ready...

[override11]

Well thats fine, why would we want to take an awesome user supported OS and 'dumb it down' for the masses?? As soon as linux is 'accepted' by those masses, us geeks will just find a new elite OS to use and it will start all over =)

Re:it IS ready...

[chris_7d0h]

Agreed.
However computers are everyday items today, not like it was 15-20 years ago when people started carefully started getting to know IBM Personal Computers (Enterprise folks who got the company to fork out huge sums to get important employees the ability to work from home) and Apple Macintosh (For magazine people and book authors).
Most people today have already joined one camp or the other and have spent years learning these operating systems and associated applications.

Linux hasn't that luxury (at least not in the western world) of having a lot of completely "blue" people starting using it. "Linux" was never about converting people from other operating systems for the sake of it either. It has always been a geek-toy kind of like AIX Solaris and the like, a geek toy in the regard that it was created by geeks to be run and administrated by geeks (sys-admins included ;-).

Linux fills an important niche, doing the stuff that 99% of the employed workforce never sees. Kind of like the AS/400. Keeps running *other stuff* with minimal administration.

I don't know how it is in academia today, but when I went to school, some geeks in training (CS-students) in my school got to know it because it was the only option one had if one didn't want to sit in the lab spending all-nighters doing scheme and C exercises etc.

A Professor of geekology (CS) mentioned this thing called Linux, essentially a precompiled kernel and a few binary libraries and utilities which one could install on the home PC. Unfortunately only 2 students managed to get it working before the semester ended, but it was a lot of fun in a geeky sense.

As I watch Distros today, some seem to have split personalities, trying to ape MS Windows, though still failing in several aspects after ### attempts. Partly because they try to please both geeks and non-geeks and the geeks developing the distros unfortunately don't know how to do the former.

Linux is about mucking around and moulding your system to your exact needs because A) you can and B) you get a kick out of it and in some extreme cases you benefit from it professionally (if you have a geek job as a sysadmin for ex.). These are not the driving forces of the majority though, which should be respected.

Re:it IS ready...

[chris_7d0h]

please both geeks and non-geeks and the geeks developing the distros unfortunately don't know how to do the former.

I meant the latter, typo. They don't know what the average Joe wants or how to best accomodate those needs.

Re:it IS ready...

[Dystopian Rebel]

Windows was never thought of as 'easy' when it first came out.

Furthermore, people who know nothing about computers ~also know nothing about Windows~. They are utterly clueless when confronted with a problem.

So, if not even Monoposoft Windows is "universally" easy, the FA's only argument is that it's what most people are using on the desktop.

Fine, that's true.

But if the above were such a great argument, that noisome fathead Ballmer would not be so worried.

Re:it IS ready...

[cbreaker]

I agree, it's not ready for every user as the every-day Desktop. But who said it was, or had to be?

I see lots of news stories and blogs and whatever on this same topic, and they mention the same tired arguements you used. Most of us know these shortcomings.

There's a whole lot of people that don't do much with their computers besides web browsing/web games, e-mail, and writing letters and spreadsheets. These are all things that can swiftly be done with your average Linux distribution. These things would be pre-installed by any Linux system seller, or any family geek. And you really can't say Gnome or KDE are very difficult to use. Sure, there's some UI improvements to be had, but it's NOT hard to navigate the system.

After all, what average user installs Windows?

I think about my sister, mom, aunt, and most other average computer users. They use the web, and if I have any say in the matter, they already use Firefox so they don't get all that spyware. None of them have had trouble adjusting to Firefox on Windows; it's my guess they wouldn't have trouble with Firefox on SuSE either.

I hope that some of the major issues you've mentioned (most notably software installation from 3rd parties) is resolved in some way or another, for sure. It could open up Linux to the "power user" or the users that like to install all this 3rd party software. It'll happen when the people that actually write the software see enough need for it.

While drivers for that new gadget at Best Buy might not be very forthcoming, you need to acknowledge how far Linux has come in supporting hardware. You can install it on almost any normal PC and everything will work. That's a dramatic improvement since just a few short years ago, and I don't see the improvement stopping just because you say it's not good enough. Do you?

What will Linux systems become in the future? It's anyone's guess.

Re:it IS ready...

[macemoneta]

My point is that masses of people _won't_ "just sit down with linux for a bit." They'll spend a few minutes on it and decide it's not good enough and go back to Windows.

If that were true, Mac OSX would have no user base, because it's different than Windows (not "not good enough"). Different is not a problem in itself. In fact, the less technically cabable the individual, the less they care about these minor differences (they have to "hunt and peck" the menus, since they don't remember where anything is anyway).

I've installed Linux for people (even young kids), and the only complaint I hear is that installing "software X" (usually a Windows program) is too hard or not possible. If I can find a Linux equivalent (or get it to work under WINE), they are fine. Usually it's not in a repository for yum/apt, so they can't install it themselves. If I can't get an equivalent - usually a proprietary app - then they return to Windows. They don't care about the OS. They want/need to run "software X".

That situation will not be changing in the short term, anymore than it has changed for Mac OSX. Some companies don't care about other platforms, period.

Eventually, this will become a non-issue. WINE is improving daily. Application developers (even Windows-only) are being more carefuly about their code, so it CAN run under WINE. Applications are being ported to run natively on Linux. Each day, someone else's stumbling block is removed, and a migration occurs. It just takes time.

Re:it IS ready...

[colinrichardday]

What's wrong with 6+ CD's? No one said that you had to install everything.

Re:it IS ready...

[layer3switch]

I don't necessarily agree with Red Hat's approach regarding "trying to be everything" distro.

In recent years, one of the biggest selling point which Red Hat's business direction needed to attract consumers was to market specially compiled distributions, such as AS, ES, RHDB and EL Desktop, etc. However their distribution CD never shrunk, relatively speaking. Only minor difference in kernel + patches and application(s) compiled to match the distributions purpose are the differnce.

You asked, why one would need all 6 - 8 CD to install Red Hat distro. Simply because not many people can tell by looking at table files in order to know which CD will be needed to install which packages + dependancies. Surely KickStart over NFS/HTTP/FTP/HD sounds like easy task and resolve that issue I mention above, however that's anything close to what average Joe will do in practical reality.

Yes, Red Hat distributes DVD and that will most likely resolve the issue for those who can boot from DVD drive. But that's an assumption I can't bare especially when I know none of the servers I manage has DVD drives.

I believe, Red Hat should just package their specialized distro in 2 CD's as essential and leave everything else as "add-on" or "extra" GPL'd software as bonus. After all, why would one need hundred meg worth of XOrg + dependancies filling up the Web Server distro? Why should Desktop Distro CD#1 be boot disk and require users to pop in another CD to continue installing OS and packages? I've managed to package XOrg+KDE and everything else Desktop environment needs in one single CD with Slackware.

Re:it IS ready...

[colinrichardday]

Why would one need a hundred meg worth of Xorg + dependencies filling up the Web Server distro?

Because space on CD-ROM's is cheap. If you choose not to install the Xorg stuff, it doesn't make it to your hard drive. Of course, the admin still has to go through and decide what to install, but the admin would have to do this even if Red Hat arranged the packages as you suggested.

I actually miss the "install everything" option in Red Hat. Of course, this was when "everything" only took up 500 megabytes.

Re:it IS ready...

[RobertLTux]

One of the things that Mandriva does is You have the option of saving the rpms from the cds and then doing the install from your hard drive (and this happens after you have the partions setup). If you have the drive space Grandma Dottie can then pull up Package Management > Add New Software and "go shopping" also if she hits certain triggers urpmi gets run automagically.

Full Text of Asa's Post (in case of /.'ing)

[Anonymous Coward]

(posted as AC to avoid accusations of karma-whoring)

linux not ready for the desktop

After reading Massimo Sandal's recent article, The Firefox Target And The TuxMini, I knew I was going to be in trouble because I just had to blog my contrary position. This post isn't a point by point reply to Sandal's article, but rather a more general disagreement based on my experiences with Linux, Mozilla and Firefox.

It's probably worth pointing out that I'm not a "Linux person." I've only been using Linux for about 6 years. I've been using Windows for about twice that long, and I've been using Macintosh for about 20 years. I'm not really loyal to any one OS; I've used what my employer or school offered or required and when that wasn't a consideration I've used what I thought was most convenient.

OK. So what's wrong with Linux that makes it not ready for the desktop. I've tried KDE and Gnome desktops but my latest is FC4 so my criticism is focused on that (and Gnome) but I think KDE distros suffer just as bad if not worse. The issues fall into four basic categories, migration, stability, simplicity, and comfort. These issues each cover both technical capability shortcomings as well as usability failings.

The first issue, migration, is pretty serious. For "Regular People" to adopt Linux (which usually means leaving Windows) Linux is going to need a serious migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings. Regular People may be willing to take a look at Linux, but as long as all of their data and settings still lives in Windows, they're not going to stay very long -- no matter how appealing it might be. We learned this lesson in the Mozilla world. It wasn't until we implemented a very capable migration system in Firefox, which carried over the user's IE favorites, cookies, history, passwords, etc. that Regular People started moving over in serious numbers -- and staying (and bringing others over.) Linux needs to do the same. It's clearly a much bigger task for an entire OS and all of its major applications to accomplish, but it simply has to be done. When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data. Without this, the hill is just too steep to climb and Regular People will not make the climb.

The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability. I don't mean the not crashing kind of stability, I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from download.com. A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever. Developers may think it's cool to reuse as much code as possible but the user doesn't care whether it was Linux that failed to include the necessary compatibility components or Mozilla that failed to make the build work for that particular dot release of libstdc++. Regular People expect to be able to download software, install it, and have it just work. Asking them to figure out complex system library and kernel compatibility issues is a one way ticket off of their desktop.

The third issue is a lack simplicity. Just because you can include a feature doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a user preference doesn't mean you should. I don't want to start a desktop war but I really gotta say to the distros, pick a desktop and be happy. Regular People shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when they're installing your product. Regular People don't need 15-20 mediocre games in a highly visible Games menu at the top of the Applications list

Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[gelfling]

Project:
Find a Linux desktop distro which can be installed on a low end PC and function as a credible replacement for Win95/98 which previously ran on that hardware. The OS has to be semi-easy to install, relatively bug free, it has to support a modicum of normal desktop apps that the typical student or home user would use or be able to use, and it has to be relatively straightforward to maintain from the perspective of installing printers and other common devices as well as installing patches or updates. It has to boot in a reasonable amount of time and it has to recover from a 'pull the plug' shutdown with few if any messages or user intervention. No Windows OS software or partitions are preserved.

Hardware
An IBM PC750 model 6887 (mod 80H engineering model never marketed). 112MB RAM. 2 IDE drives: 6GB and 4GB. The BIOS limits a single drive to 6GB. A 40x12x16 CDRW. AMDK6-2 400 drop in replacement CPU. D-Link, 10/100Ethernet NIC, Realtek 8129 family. AWE64 ISA sound card. I acknowledge that this is an ancient machine that is neither supported nor can be affordably upgraded. It is theoretically possible to upgrade RAM to 144MB but very expensive. Video is embedded S3VG64+.

RH based:
All the RH based distros are very similar look and feel and toolset. They are require significant hardware to run well. They all boot with a failure to start the sound server. If you have the hardware to run them they are probably a good choice for a desktop. General hardware minimum recommendations are at least 128MB RAM and 400Mhz CPU. Practical minimums are at least twice that: 256MB RAM and 700 -1200Mhz CPU minimum and at least 3-4GB diskspace. Some distros check the disk and made the volume a hard requirement.. Generally, from a pure usage perspective there is little to distinguish them from one another. Some had a much easier time installing printers in CUPS for example but I did not install anything significant to see whether one had more success than another. Sound server generally failed on boot. Video cards were generally detected as S3VG64 generic and not '+'; changing resolution was hit or miss. I did not try to install or run Wine. While they install well and have an elegant look and feel they are basically unusable with this hardware.

ELX - Automatic partition, very clean. This may be an orphan product however good it is.
Cobind - Very similar, manual partition, low numbered release (0.1)
SOT/LBA - Very similar, manual partition
Lorma - Very similar, manual partition. Developed at and for Lorma College. Multiple versions for i386 and 686 but the differences are not obvious on an AMDK6
OpenNA - Installs but does not run on AMDK6

Live CDs:
Most are Knoppix/Debian based distros and with the exception of Knoppix strangely, require user intervention for installation to input manual frame buffer params. These lightweight distros all have more or less the same applications. Individual variations are minor and focus on hardware support or multimedia. There is Knoppix and there is everything else. Knoppix runs very well is very complete, in fact it's a little bloated and runs fairly slow. These distros are all pretty much the same in terms of which apps they have and they run. Feather and DSL really are stripped down, many of their apps are text based in a Window or use Dilo instead of Firefox or Konquerer. Some do not install or run at all. The only unusual one is Puppy which looks almost identical to Win98. Puppy also has a very complicated mode to install on to the harddrive - I'm not sure if it's possible. Video was detected adequately. Most are not numbered version 1.0 or higher

Peanut - Does not install, does not run on AMDK6
Feather - Good script for to hard drive. Runs either on CD or harddrive equally well. With a little more RAM you can dump the entire OS into a RAMdisk. Primitive GUI, printer installation is difficult.
DSL - Very simple, fast installation. Primitive gui. Printer installation is difficult.
Sl

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[mvdw]

Interesting that you refused to try slackware, yet that is the distro that I would first try on such a machine.

Also interesting is the statement that you couldn't find a "replacements for Windows95/98 let alone WindowsXP for the hardware". I'd like to see XP running on that hardware...

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[utuk99]

Wouldn't it make more sense to find 5 year old versions of linux to install on 5+ year old hardware? I recommend anyone still running 95/98 to just buy a new computer anyway. If they can't afford the $250, I can't waste my time with them.

Now if you were just using it for routing or something thats different, but you don't expect that to be super user friendly. Then again if you can't afford $20 for a router, don't bother me either.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Might I suggest 'Beatrix'? It is based off of Ubuntu, (meaning .deb packages) and is only 200 MB in size. I don't know how Gnome is with printers though...

the link
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=beat rix

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[zenray]

Try http://www.minislack.org/ . I've just installed it on an old Sony Vaio laptop and it works great! netpkg to updata apps worked. The only problem is that you must like the selection of the software made for you. My other systems run Slackware and I have no problems with them.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[contagious_d]

I recently had to replace a stolen laptop on a twenty dollar budget (valuable lesson learned there about dorms and renter's insurance), and my experience with linux on old and decrepit hardware was pretty good. My neighbor sold me a PII 333Mhz system with 128 megs of ram, a half-broken CD-ROM, ethernet card, Riva 128 vid card, no-name sound card and an 8 gig HD. She was also nice enough to throw in a mouse, keyboard and monitor, all for $20 and a promise to fix her XP machine's sound problem. Fedora Core 3 installed on the first try and ran well enough to use for web browsing, IM, email, word processing, listening to music, etc.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[manboy9]

Gentoo - Too many CDs, stated hardware requirements were too high

Did you even look at the Gentoo web site? The minimal liveCD iso is a mere 59M. Sure, there's some downloading to be done afterwards, but it's still nowhere near as bloated as, say, Linspire. You don't even have to install X-windows if you don't want to.

I believe it could be the solution you're looking for. I'm writing this on an 800Mhz PIII laptop wihtout any problems. I know it's not as old as your target platform, but it's definitely not new. At first, I installed Ubuntu, but found it a bit too bloated. I installed Gentoo on a separate partition, using Ubuntu's configuration files as necessary, and never looked back. In fact, I did it in such a way that I didn't have to reboot until Gentoo was fully installed, so I could always check Ubuntu's settings as a reference (I never even opened my CD drive throughout the entire process).

As for using Knoppix, of course it's slow. You can't expect a computer like that to run a desktop environment. You should use it for its autodetect capabilities so you can install a smaller or more flexible distro.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[strider44]

Install debian with fluxbox. You'll have to cut a few things down and do a few things by hand, but that's to be expected if you're going to want to run a modern operating system on a ten year old computer. Otherwise I'd get an old version of debian woody and run kde 2 or gnome on it.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[gelfling]

I didn't refuse to run Slackware, I raqn Vector which is Slackware. If Vector was unmanageable and it is Slackware + minimal usability enhancements then Slackware on its own would have been unworkable.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[gelfling]

See the point is that there should be correlation between the cost or economic value of the hardware and the cost or economic value of the software. If I had a spare $600 PC laying around, I really wouldn't care all that much about the cost of the desktop OS for ordinary desktop middle of the road duties. If I need a $600 PC to run a free OS versus a $100 PC to run a $90 OS (like win98) then I'll pick the lower cost option in toto.

Moreover one would think that a software vendor understands that if their hardware requirements are roughly 2 years back or newer that given the residual economic value of a PC 2 years old or less, that vendor could or should invest minimal time and effort into building a complete desktop environment that installs and operates out of the box more or less with the same level of difficulty as Windows.

By comparison, if you had that same $600 give or take you couldn't grab a Mini Mac off the shelf. See the difference?

This really goes to the heart of the issue. The Windows community and the Peguin community have fundamentally different definitions of 'Desktop'. They are not speaking the same language. One is not worse than the other, just profoundly different. So when we talk about so called 'Desktop Linux' we're not talking about the same kind of desktop when we talk about 'Desktop Windows' or 'Desktop Mac' for that matter.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[stuntpope]

I had no problems installing and using Slackware current on a 5+ year-old box with a Celeron 333 and 96 MB RAM. I have sound, modem works, setting up DSL was braindead easy, and it runs fast with XFCE for the desktop. I don't currently use package management tools other than downloading what I need and using pkgtool, but swaret and others are available. I used to run Mandrake and BlackBox on a Pentium 133. And I even run Slackware current and Fluxbox on an old Pentium 75 HP laptop! (but that's pushing it).

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[mvdw]

Maybe, however my experience with Vector is that it is harder than slackware, and not as refined.

Re:Repost: my Linux desktop experiment

[stevo3232]

I have had a situation similar to yours. My brother needed something decent for school, all that was available was a Pentium/75mhz. I installed DeLi Linux on this box, a distro intended for older computers. The box lacked a CD drive, so installation was done from floppies via the network. Modules for the network had to be done by hand, as did network initialization. I have done a normal CD install though, and it is much easier than this. After this, the normal install runs, which is pretty easy. Your options for packages are basically all or nothing. The only hard part is that you must manually partition the hard drive, but the installer does a pretty good job of detecting how you decided to partition it, and cfdisk isn't too hard to use. After the install, getting the resolution to something higher than 640x480 with a generic driver was a bit of a pain, but I eventually got it working. Plenty of apps out of the box for office work. Installation of a dictionary was a nightmare. Other than that, the distro worked perfectly. Printing too. If you really want your old boxes working well for students, try DeLi Linux.

When you get right down to it ...

[ScrewMaster]

Ma, Pa and Aunt Bootsie are irrelevant. The corporate world is where the money is, and that's the area where Microsoft is most concerned about losing market share to anything or anyone. Right now, people that buy a computer for home use are to a large degree constrained by what they use at work, which is most likely Windows. All this talk about Linux being ready for Joe Sixpack belies the fact that operating system acceptance begins in the workplace and filters down from there. If the idea really is to displace Microsoft, then the place to start is the cubicle farm, not the den. The original IBM PC, all those years ago, gained widespread popularity among the corporate set because it had a ready-to-go set of business applications (and, of course, the IBM name.) Everything else flowed from there ... and it's still true today. Linux really needs (and is getting) some heavy-duty office/business applications and functionality. That's what it will take.

Re:When you get right down to it ...

[Ravatar]

Microsoft isn't concerned about losing the desktop market because they have nobody to contend with, so of course they would focus their effort on the market with competition. Statements that "Ma, Pa, and Aunt Bootsie are irrelevant", are the most irrelevant.

Re:When you get right down to it ...

[OpenServe]

..the fact that operating system acceptance begins in the workplace and filters down from there.

Precisely correct. The average consumer buys a computer like any other appliance. It lasts for about 3-5 years and then they throw it out and buy a new one. (many don't even care or know how to save old data unless it's photos or a few special documents thrown on a CD) It is mostly useless to try to convert these users to Linux. The best thing to do is get them using Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, Gaim, Gimp, etc. and hope that the next time around, Dell or HP will be shipping Linux PCs instead. And how will that happen? Workplace acceptance of course!

Linux really needs (and is getting) some heavy-duty office/business applications and functionality.

Let me spell it out even clearer: rich-web integrated applications written with modern Java tools. Think AJAX / SVG / XUL on the user interface side and then consider: Are desktop platforms still relevant today? (cue crickets chirping) Have this business software be commercially-supported Open Source and Linux will quickly rise to the top in the corporate world as simply the cheapest desktop platform that runs the best web browser(s).

Re:When you get right down to it ...

[Analogy Man]

A few forces in the corporate world coupled with the evolution of network computing will work in favor of Linux.

• True collaboration is hard to achieve if folks have files in "My Documents"...Not to mention the fear on the part of legal staff and executive management of ever being able to enforce Information Lifecycle/Document Retention policies.
• Many business apps are Thin Client to Web Server to App Server to DB/Filestore. The client is a commodity that is a very low common denominator (why would executive budgeting for thousands of workstations want to meet the RAM/Disk/OS License requirements of XP let alone Longhorn for this use case.
• Documents are black holes for information and the board room is starting (barely) to realize that. A 2000 page requirement specification is useless. A product such as Teamcenter Requirements makes the information useful TcR

These and other factors may help move Linux from the raised floor area onto the desktop...but likely in a blade / web appliance form factor with the storage centrally managed.

Re:When you get right down to it ...

[westlake]

All this talk about Linux being ready for Joe Sixpack belies the fact that operating system acceptance begins in the workplace and filters down from there

If you think the office cubicle defines what sells in the home market, you are living twenty years in the past.

When Windows is the system everyone knows, it becomes very difficult to push it off the corporate desktop. For all the talk of the cathedral and the bazaar, posters here tend to be authoritarian, top-down thinkers, certain that the decree from on high will crush all resistance down below. It doesn't always work that way.

Re:When you get right down to it ...

[jbolden]

All this talk about Linux being ready for Joe Sixpack belies the fact that operating system acceptance begins in the workplace and filters down from there.

Do you have any evidence for this? Windows itself would be a counter example. At the time windows became popular in the home, large corporate workplace computers were still primarily dumb terminals running curses based apps from minis and mainframes. Microcomputers migrated: hobbyist -> home user -> small business user -> large business user not the other way around.

So what is your evidence that workplace drives home computing?

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

I would actually think that smart people WOULD go with something that is easier to use, instead of wasting time with something that is inherently 'hard'. I use Windows because every single time I have used Linux, it has given me too much trouble, and my time is too valuable to be wasted on something that Windows with half the hassle.

PS

[SQLz]

Make sure to tell that to Ebay, Google, Disney, Yahoo, IBM, and about upteen other major companies who have large installations of Linux desktops.

We get it already

[blah_ect]

Look, the year is 2005. You don't have to keep posting these "Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles rehashing the same shit over and over again.

This is like pointing out over and over again why the fat girl isn't going to the prom with a date.

We *get* it already.

-blah ect

Re:We get it already

[eggman95]

i agree. this has been discussed a million times over.

Re:We get it already

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree.

Re:We get it already

[Anonymous Coward]

I sympathesize with you. I mean you are not the only one who is fat^H^H^H, look at half of america, they can barely move ass from one side to other. Don't worry your prince charming will come some day.

Re:We get it already

[OzRoy]

And yet nothing has changed.

Chicken or Egg?

[molrak]

I remember learning how to use an Apple ][ computer when in primary and secondary school, and people weren't complaining about the interface, or why the floppy drives took so long to load. People used those clunky, green-screened machines because it had the applications they needed to use, and it was easy to pirate A][ programs.

The same was true of Windows--it had Microsoft Word (and Office), and also had Lotus' equivalent as well. 3.1 (and 3.11) were relatively easy to pirate. People used Windows at work, that's what they became familiar with, and that's what they bought when they decided to use a computer at home. Until Linux develops its own 'killer ap', it's never going to overtake Windows. If anything, the MacOS X is looking pretty inviting to a lot of users, especially with the iLife suite, but since that's not targetted at most businesses, it may not even make a difference.

Don't confuse the market segments.

[khasim]

There are 4 major market segments:

1. Servers
2. Corporate/government desktops
3. Mom/Grandma home users
4. Power users/Gamers

Linux is making huge gains in the server market. The statistics show that.

Linux is just starting to gain in the corporate/government desktop market. Expect this to take at least another 3 years.

Once OEMs are comfortable with Linux (due to large orders from corporations/governments), they will start offering it on desktops suitable for basic email/web surfing. The largest limitation is lack of drivers for new hardware. As this market grows (slowly), that will change.

Which will, finally, result in power users and gamers having Linux as an option. That means that the latest hardware will be released with good Linux drivers and the games will be available on Linux. The biggest problem here is the Microsoft desktop monopoly.

Other than that, a corporate KDE or GNOME desktop can be made to look almost exactly like a Win2K desktop so there is no need to worry about training the end users.

The value of Linux doesn't exist for the last two market segments (both home segments). The value exists for the server market and the corporate/government desktop market. But that value will drive the home adoption as people become familiar with Linux at work.

The original article is correct in that having a way to capture the info from Windows would be a major boost to Linux adoption in the home segments. But without the hardware/game support, it just isn't worth the trouble for the average user.

Firefox is worth the trouble of the few websites that don't support it because of all the great features of Firefox (no ad/spyware, very few popups, ad-blocker, etc).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

Which will, finally, result in power users and gamers having Linux as an option. That means that the latest hardware will be released with good Linux drivers and the games will be available on Linux. The biggest problem here is the Microsoft desktop monopoly.

Uh, no. I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks.

I'm an XP man, but when I used a PowerBook for two weeks, I could easily install and remove programs, connect my external hard drive, and had some interface customizations up and running in a matter of minutes.

Compare that with my Linux experience: Two months ago, I installed Kubuntu onto my laptop. It's very likely that all of the issues that I ran into are easily fixable, but the solutions were simply not apparent or mentioned on all the help sites I went to. Let me tell you one thing: Most people don't like recompiling the kernel, compiling programs, or compiling drivers. It's probably a simple process (I've never had success with it myself), but it simply should not be required for usability purposes.

First issue: Installing software. This blew ass. First, I had to find out the name of the package, and tried to use apt-get. This didn't pan out. Then I found out that the servers that apt-get was trying to use were disabled, or something to that effect, so I had to go and edit a text file to allow for this. This pissed me off quite a bit, because had I not been dual-booting Windows at the time, I would have had no way of knowing how to fix it.

Second Issue: Getting my wifi card to work. This was fairly important, as my connection utilized my campus's wireless. So whenever I had an issue, I had to reboot into Windows and search for it. I never managed to get it to work, even though I have one that's fairly ubiquitous (Intel 2100). After futzing around with the command line for a couple of hours and browsing some sites, I tried to figure out how to install the drivers derived from the intel open-source release. Then I foudn I'd have to compile the drivers or whatnot, and I gave up there until I could find someone experienced in the matter.

Third Issue: I couldn't get it to sleep. I spent a good 40 or 50 minutes to find out that I needed to recompile the kernel to include support for sleep.

Fourth Issue: Realizing that I had just wasted my time installing Linux. I could do everything I could do in Windows, except it took me twice as long. Screen space was a serious issue. Using OpenOffice at 1024x768 felt like using MS Word at 640x480. My screen always felt cramped. Image editing in GIMP just sucked. Even when using Photoshop, I felt that 1024x768 wasn't sufficient for some of the stuff I was working on, and using GIMP made me feel like I was working at 800x600.

Obviously, I'm back to XP. I'm willing to spend the extra $300 to save the time and frustration that I've had using Linux. I realize that pretty much all of these issues are 'trivial', but the fact that I ran into all of these problems in the span of two days seems unacceptable. When I used OSX for the very first time, it took me less than two hours to become proficient. XP took me 4. Linux needs to get to the point where a power user like myself can be quite proficient over the span of a day.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[TheDefenistrator]

Thats no power user....thats a space station!

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[mabinogi]

I'm not sure you can put power users and gamers in the same category.

Linux has been a viable desktop for power users from the day it was released.

Developer and admin types (which is what I'd call a power user) find Unix like desktops far more useful and powerful (and therefore usable) than a more "User Friendly" alternative like Windows...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dork! You're no power user, you're just imagining things.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've left out the only important market segment for Linux as far as I'm concerned, namely:

0. Hackers and hobbyists.

I want Linux on my desktop because it's more fun to use (for me, a diehard tinkerer) than any other system available to me. I really don't give a damn whether it's ready for "the" desktop, whatever that means. Mine is the only desktop that matters to me, and it's ready for that.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Tuqui]

Mom/Grandma home users is a very easy to revert segment. I already did for 2 machines and the users only complain is that they can't use ActiveX using sites. Anyway if you explain the security risk that ActiveX using sites exposes and propose alternatives for this sites the users will be happy that their PC will not crash or slowdown with new virus attacks.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[tehdaemon]

Have you ever tried to run Windows on a laptop without the drivers and utilities provided by the laptop maker? I have. The drivers were for XP home and we were trying 2K. Almost nothing worked. We then tried Fedora core 4 on the same laptop. While there were a few problems, most stuff worked. I am posting from Ubuntu, it is easier than fedora (IMHO)

The problem is not linux, it is manufacturer support. Windows is actually much worse than most linux distro's, but because the manufacturer supports the laptop, it (usuallly!) works fairly well. If they gave the same support to linux it would work just fine.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[mwillems]

I agree that your market segments sound real:

1. Servers
2. Corporate/government desktops
3. Mom/Grandma home users
4. Power users/Gamers

My take:

1. Will be taken over by Linux
2. Some will be taken over. Many will need Photoshop or some other app.
3. Most will need apps.
4. Need apps.

I have used all Windows versions since 1.0 (yes!) and many Linux versions since RedHat 5.0. Onthe desktop. But I keep returning to Windows - I can run all my apps. Did I mention taht I can run all my apps?

Chicken and egg: when the DOJ failed to break up MS I sighed, and knew Linux desktop would never be big.

My 0.02

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[westlake]

Linux is making huge gains in the server market. The statistics show that.

The stats show a slow migration from Unix to Linux. But Microsoft remains very strong in this market.

But that value will drive the home adoption as people become familiar with Linux at work.

Tell me how a locked-down corporate desktop that clones the W2K GUI exposes users to Linux in any significant way or drives them to use Linux at home.

You need think more clearly about users want and expect from a home computer, Does this Plix HD Entertainment Media Center look remotely like an office machine?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

Yes, I have, with decent success. Beyond my modem, I get pretty much everything running fine on a clean install of XP. I wasn't expecting video acceleration, but I was hoping I could at least get my wireless card working.

I'd read that Intel had released Linux drivers for my wireless card about a year ago. I had figured that such support would have been integrated into Kubuntu, which was the most recent distribution at the time, but I was wrong.

IMO, if a driver for a wireless card that's as popular as the Intel ones still isn't supported in a default install when drivers were released months ago, Linux still has serious support issues.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fit in the power user category- I've spent an endless amount of tweaking and organizing Windows and my files, so my brain stays happy.

I've tried countless of times to install a number of Linux distributions, starting with RedHat 5.2 and recently my second Gentoo Something.

Yet time and time again I lose interest in Linux, and go back to me well known Windows. It got everything I need, where I expect to find it, and it (well almost) all the time does what I expect it to do.

If I'm anything close to the regular Windows power user, then I think it will take a LOT more than what Linux distributions currently offers, to make 'us' power users switch.

Secondly the outlook of throwing out all those endless hours spent on niffying me Windows, "just" to switch to a Linux distribution is, alone, enough to convince it'll probably won't happen in the near future (that means within the next ten years). With a new Windows out, I can built ontop of previously knowledge about Windows, I don't see I can do that with Linux.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

I'd read that Intel had released Linux drivers for my wireless card about a year ago. I had figured that such support would have been integrated into Kubuntu, which was the most recent distribution at the time, but I was wrong.

That sounds about right. Ubuntu/kubuntu do not include any closed source drivers with their Linux distributions, and they never will.

One thing hackers will not do is sacrifice the freedom of their software for a little convenience. Until vendors cooperate, there will always be a steeper learning curve with Linux than with Windows or the Mac.

Not that learning is a particularly bad thing...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[steelfood]

Wireless card drivers aren't just a pain for Linux. I have an IOGear GWP512 and the drivers that came included with it definitely do not work with my Win2K install. I suspect Windows has determined on its own (wrongly) what kind of wireless card I have, and won't accept any changes I make to the card's drivers.

The difference, I would say, is that drivers will always be a potential problem on Windows, especially for old hardware. On Linux, it doesn't have to be. Not that Linux is necessarily better in terms of drivers, but that its open source nature means in the long run, it can certainly be.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[modernbob]

Unfortunately I have to agree with you and I run an ISP that uses linux (openna) and I use Fedora Core on my desktop. Drivers are a serious problem. Software installation has really come a long way since yum and apt-get have come along. However, seldom can one drop a CD in the drive and install a linux program.I haven't had to compile a kernel in quite some time. Here's the thing though, every distribution is just a little different. Some things are documented well and other things are horrible. Back in the day (RH5) it was not uncommon to spend a week or more on a problem. Most people are not willing to beg someone on IRC ( or would know where to beg) for help. As a general purpose desktop Os linux really does suck. However, it shines when you want to run services or learn to code. This is not what most people want to do with their computer. I can't count how many times I have had to do things in linux that a windows user would never do. Example: nvidia 3d drivers. windows: run the EXE and reboot. Linux, download tarball and extract. Edit the inittab file in /etc and change to boot to run level 3. Before you reboot make sure you have the kernel source installed in the right place or you will not be able to rebuild the kernel IE. build the driver. Reboot into init3 (CLI) and run the executable ./NVIDIA***, follow the prompts and hope you have everything right. Reedit the inittab file and change run level back to 5 and reboot. When you are done with this make sure you go into xorg.conf and change the item in the nvidia FAQ that need changed and then restart X. I mean really, until these type of things get ironed out you can't expect many people to really use this OS to do their work. The value most people have in their computer is their data and how productive they are with using it. If keeping the machine running is a struggle then Linux is not worth much on a day to day basis. One thing to mention though; windows is getting very labor intensive with all the spyware and viruses. The vast majority of virus software is really bad and doesn't find everything. System restore enabled almost ensures that you will be infected multiple times. Linux can be really good once it's set up right and you are familiar with the applications you need to do your work. One thing I always keep in mind is you get what you pay for and sometimes on rare occasion a lot more. :-)

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[zxnos]

intersting.

i am typing on a notebook wih windows xp 64-bit. everything but the modem worked 'out-of-the-box'. every system is different, you cant generalize. i am going try to dual boot with ubuntu once the summer semester is over. hopefully that goes well.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gamer4Life]

You forgot the biggest segment of the population:

5) The average user, which falls between 3)Mom/Grandma home users and 4)Power users/Gamers.

Why not create a distro that is as easy to use as Windows, easy to install the OS, and easy to install/uninstall programs?

Good design should allow the most computer-illiterate user to do what they want to do, while allowing the option for power users and tinkerers to get the most out of the system.

Most people see computers as a tool, not as a hobby. In fact, alot of them use computers as a tool to help them in their hobby.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[strider44]

Have you tried the program synaptic? The GUI package manager? It should be in your KDE menu. If not just run "sudo synaptic". For that matter, did you even read the documentation telling you in clear and simple steps exactly what to do?

When you were looking for how to make your laptop sleep or how to make the wifi card work, did you try actually looking on the Kubuntu website? I see an impressive list of laptop brands there telling you how to do different things including sleep and get wifi working.

I know, the distro web site and the distro manual. The last place I'd have thought to look as well.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[tokabola]

Uh, no. I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks.

That's funny, I set up a half dozen systems with Mandrake 10.0 and never had to use the command line once. Sure, there are some things that can't be customized without using the cli, but making those same customizations in Windows often requires editing the registry, or installing third party add ons. Personnally, the cli is a lot easier for me to work with than the Windows Registry.

To address your "issues",
First: I guess you missed seeing the graphical frontend for your package manager (can't remember the name of the one for that distro)? You could have browsed a list of available packages (with descriptions and usually a link to the projects homepage, and installe them with a couple clicks of the mouse. Personnally, I find that much easier than driving to the Windows package manager (AKA Best Buy, Comp USA, etc).

Second: The reason your Wifi card works under Windows is because the maker of your laptop did all the dirty work (like driver installation and configuration) for you. Had you purchased the computer with Linux pre-installed the Wifi would have worked "out of the box" and you'ld be whining about having to make it work when you added the Windows install.

Third: same as above. Most laptops don't function correctly on the regular version of Windows, either - that's why the maker of your laptop provided the customized install and recovery disc (or partition). Chances are your WIFI and APM stuff wouldn't work "out of the box" with a regular retail version of Windows

Fourth: it's all in your head. I've never felt that Linux is "cramped" compared to windows at the same resolution. And I vastly preferr the Gimp over photoshop for what I do - mostly web and 3-d textures. If I was a photographer I'm sure I'd prefer Photoshop - but the Gimp's "make seamless" tool makes it so much more usefull than PS for me. That's just a matter of preference - YMMV.

As for compiling things - you don't need to with most distros. I used Linux successfully and happily for a couple years before I ever had reason to compile anything.

I think the only real problem you have with Linux is that you don't know how to use it. Once upon a time you didn't know how to use Windows, either, but you learned. Now, however, you're a big bad "power user" and your ego won't let you go back to being a noob and learning Linux. To bad - your loss.

Tommy

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[nri]

"moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks"

And exactly how do you customise WindowsXP ? Change the colors maybe ?

I use debian (+ enlightenment) cause I can use the mouse wheel to shade windows when focused on the title bar and switch desktops when scrolled on the desktop. How the f*ck can you do that with windows ?

Can't be done. Sure you can change windows.ini / shell=exporer to something else (you used to be able to once upon a time), but as a general rule of thumb, Linux is more configurable, while windows is not.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gordo3000]

I think you got your example wrong. Vendors like intel cooperate just the same with windows as they do with Linux, they release compiled drivers. Why someone who runs linux feels they should get more than that confounds me.

Really, its as long as open source zealots are not willing to coexist with closed source(even though most closed source is willing to go the other way) many Linux distributions will have a steeper learning curve.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

"Have you tried the program synaptic? The GUI package manager? It should be in your KDE menu. If not just run "sudo synaptic". For that matter, did you even read the documentation [kubuntu.org] telling you in clear and simple steps exactly what to do?"

ACtually, I did.. I don't remember exactly what was wrong, but it internet updating was disabled by default, or something like that. It also didn't help much that pretty much every KDE utility consistently crashed on me. I found that a bit confusing. it may have not reacted well with my laptop, but I'm not sure.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

MS Word . . . Photoshop . . . XP . . . $300

Um, no. How much really?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[fferreres]

You can change the theme and the customize the font sizes of everything you see on screen. You should spend 2 o 3 months before deciding. I am using Windows, because that's what we use at work, but I used linux for a large while (and would come back any day). The problem is you spent 6 or more years under something that makes you think differently (a Linux mindset needs more time). If you are happy with Windows, well that's fine, no need to switch then...it's a choice.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

"Now, however, you're a big bad "power user" and your ego won't let you go back to being a noob and learning Linux. To bad - your loss."

If you actually read the end of my post, the learning curve for Linux kills it for me. I don't mind being a noob. I do mind having to spend an inordinate amount of time to get back to the level I was before. OS X took me 2 hours. XP took me 4. Kubuntu.... I spent the better part of two days and I was still as frustrated as ever.

Also, when I first installed Kubunutu, it was around two weeks after its release. Most of those solutions probably weren't posted. I did find instructions on how to get the Intel 2100 to work with my laptop, but as I stated, it required compiling, which I wasn't comfortable with.

Secondly, every time I wanted to access the internet, I had to reboot into Windows, which in itself made me more frustrated with the system. I know that's not a logical complaint, but I'm trying to demonstrate what drives someone to believe that Linux isn't anywhere as advanced when it comes to ease-of-use as XP or OS X.

I'll admit I wasn't willing to spend the time to learn. That's what I was trying to get across. I have better things to do then wrestle with my computer all day. As I stated in my conclusion, it shouldn't take someone like me longer than a day to learn an operating system if it's supposed to be 'ready'.

I'm not signing off Linux forever, though. I tend to try it every two or three years or so, just to see how it's going. I do like the idea of Linux, but until it becomes easier to learn, I don't think I'll use it.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

Educational discounts. Well, maybe it's more like $400, but the cost of XP is irrelevant to me, as my laptop costs the same regardless.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[kbielefe]

Photographic proof that a one-year-old can use Linux.

It meets every one of her user requirements to a tee: shiny stuff to wiggle around and click, and playing of veggie-tales DVDs (with a little help).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Randseed]

Vendors like Intel do, for the most part. Vendors of hardware like WiFi cards most certaintly do NOT, and I can personally attest to this. Currently, I'm having to use ndiswrapper, which is a kludge that tries to place an API over a Windows network card driver so that the Windows driver will work. This should never have to happen in the first place, because the hardware vendor should release a damned driver.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

Heh, this entire thread reminds me of a bash quote:

<dm> I discovered that you'd never get an answer to a problem from Linux Gurus by asking. You have to troll in order for someone to help you with a Linux problem.
<dm> For example, I didn't know how to find files by contents and the man pages were way too confusing. What did I do? I knew from experience that if I just asked, I'd be told to read the man pages even though it was too hard for me.
<dm> Instead, I did what works. Trolling. By stating that Linux sucked because it was so hard to find a file compared to Windows, I got every self-described Linux Guru around the world coming to my aid. They gave me examples after examples of different ways to do it. All this in order to prove to everyone that Linux was better.
* ion has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<dm> brings a tear to my eye... :') so true..
<dm> So if you're starting out Linux, I advise you to use the same method as I did to get help. Start the sentence with "Linux is gay because it can't do XXX like Windows can". You will have PhDs running to tell you how to solve your problems.
<dm> this person must be a kindred spirit of mine

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[dusik]

Yep! My dad got an Averatec piece of shit laptop with XP Home, and we tried, for a whole day, to get 2K working. The video driver (despite claiming to be for 2K/XP) consistently gave a blue screen on boot.

SuSE 9.1 worked fine.

(Eventually we gave up and put XP Pro on it, after which the laptop started having serious hardware issues - don't buy an Averatec!)

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[dusik]

Aye. Harware vendors piss me off. But I suppose I can't really blame them, since they're profit-oriented.

Although, I don't see how simply releasing the specs for a wifi card (so some very willing OSS coder(s) will write the Linux drivers *for* them) is going to damage the company. It's not like wifi technology is a huge secret. Am I missing something?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[name773]

i agree in full. i'm not really a hacker per say, but i engage in recreational use of php for somewhat simple web applications (mostly the backend, i usually put up a minimal front end). linux is great for this type of development; kwrite, ssh/scp, konqueror, and apache/php, are all great tools.

i like how you can make the system less catered to people who want the "are you sure you want to..." dialogs.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Synbiosis]

It seems like a Linux user's definition of power user and mine are quite different. This is what I 'do' as a 'power user':

1) Fiddle around with different shells (LiteStep, Talisman, etc...). Good for a little fun. Fooling around with other people's widgets is fun, too. (I'm not motivated enough to write my own, so I just modify other people's to run on my computer.)

2) Tweak my drivers. I use the Omega drivers and play around with the settings to get the most out of my rapidly aging Radeon 9000. I've probably juiced a little bit more life out of the card because of this.

3) Rip/encode CD's & DVD's.

4) Manage my (small) home network.

Pretty much anything short of writing my own drivers or apps is what I see as being a power user.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[xs650]

The problem is not linux, it is manufacturer support. Windows is actually much worse than most linux distro's, but because the manufacturer supports the laptop, it (usuallly!) works fairly well. If they gave the same support to linux it would work just fine.

In the end, it doesn't matter why it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Someone looking for a ready to use desktop system generally isn't interested in excuses.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Randseed]

You aren't missing anything. These hardware vendors are in bed with Microsoft. Nothing keeps them from releasing the specs, letting someone else write a driver for it, and letting someone else do the technical support. And before someone says that then they'll be flooded with tech support calls, they already are from users who can't get their hardware to work, or are using some kludge piece of crap like ndiswrapper and having problems under it.

One machine I have has a DLink wireless card in it. I installed the acx_100 driver, which seems to be the driver for it. Unfortunately, the manufacturer has some bogus "feature" in the hardware that causes the network card to reset itself every so often. When that happens, the network card drops off the net, and doesn't come back up until a reboot.

The proper thing for the manufacturer to do is either release a Linux driver for their card, or document the incompatability so that I can hack support for it into the driver and release it. In this case, I've done the work for them, for crying out loud.

By the way, I did call the DLink cretins and ask about this. They knew nothing. Their answer was that they don't support Linux. When you release hardware, either release drivers for the predominant operating systems (which is now Linux and Windows), or at least have the decency to release the specs so someone can cover your lazy ass. They don't do this.

I think they honestly think that someone isn't eventually going to get pissed off enough to reverse engineer the damned card, which if I can ever isolate the problem I'm going to do and blow all over the Internet, along with a message proclaiming how much their company sucks.

BroadCom is another one. They release no information about their cards, and lock users into them by building them into the laptop. So you buy a new HP laptop, and its wireless card is a BroadCom. Oops. Sorry.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[strider44]

Fair enough, it's most probably a hardware error then. Linux runs on a huge amount of hardware but it sometimes really doesn't like playing. Seriously, though, try looking at the Kubuntu wiki, there's an impressive list of laptops there and yours might be in there.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[nri]

so we do agree (other than step 2). I use standard drivers, but then again I using a ibm laptop and don't play games.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[robolemon]

One reason that people want Linux drivers uncompiled is so that they could compile it for a platform other than x86. While I'm not here to say that supporting so many platforms is the right solution from a Linux-on-the-desktop standpoint, it is the state of Linux these days, and opens up the ability to use a lot of older or obscure hardware that never could run Windows in the first place. It would probably work better if some sort of board could evaluate hardware drivers and give a rating ranging from Open Source to Unusable (although no hardware manufacturer would put the Unusable rating badge on their box!) Then Linux people could only buy hardware or complete systems that check out with a rating of Pre-Compiled Driver Available or Open Source or whatever level of support they desire. But it would need to be someone people would trust, like the FSF or someone. Although the FSF probably wouldn't make much of a distinction between pre-compiled and doesn't work.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[zymano]

Makes you wonder why all these linux distros don't work together on a good hardware recognizer just like they are doing on installing software.

I used Ubuntu and had same problems. Doesn't recognize network card . Can't get higher resolution on graphics card.

Try Xandros or lindows. You might like it. I had no problems with the Xandros. Sometimes it didn't boot but it did recognize my hardware ! Pretty cool.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[zymano]

Picture is worth a 1000 words.

the Ubuntu forums on hardware problems.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/index.php?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Vantage13]

IMO, if a driver for a wireless card that's as popular as the Intel ones still isn't supported in a default install when drivers were released months ago, Linux still has serious support issues.

So I suppose when XP doesn't come by default with drivers for hardware released two months ago that it too has serious support issues?

XP won't come with drivers for hardware that has come out after its release. The manufacturer provides the drivers. So if hardware manufacturers can provide drivers for XP is it unreasonable for them to produce Linux drivers on that same CD? On top of that they go to great effort to provide it in the format requested by MS themselves to be compatible with their OS.

Is it unreasonable for them to provide a linux driver in the format requested by Linux developers?

Is it reasonable to blame the Linux distro and not MS even though both haven't included the driver in the default install?

I don't see how these two situations are really different? XP needs third party driver for your card to work. Linux needs third party driver for your card to work. If anything, it's up to the hardware manufacturer to make sure the user experience is the best it can be. At the moment, they don't seem to be trying all that hard...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Sfing_ter]

If it was only $300. It is a lot more.
MS Office: another $500 (bestbuy.com)
Norton Internet security: $80 (bestbuy.com)

After paying for all of this, you would think the operating system/office/etc. would all play nice and work. Not so. This is why I use Linux (K6 compaq w/192mb ram, running latest mepis). Some things don't work properly, but they didn't with windows either. XP will install on this, but it is god awful slow, you would think you were using a Pentium 66 with the bad co-processor.

Mepis works fine, so does sound et. al. Cost, $0. So, if I have to do a little extra to get those things that Mepis does not provide, (I had to apt-get kdegames cuz I really NEEDED Klickety)

I can do that at the same time I am running other programs and the system does not pee all over itself when I do.(As Win-All have been wont to do).

I don't mind paying, but when I pay, I want it to work. Would you pay a premium price for a car that you had to push to work every other day, I think not.

Updates - time after time MS is leaving it's customers hanging out to dry taking months to fix code THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SECURITY CHECKED BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. TRUSTED COMPUTING. I paid for the software but you will fix it when you feel like it... great.

Windows has never sold a finished product (2K was as close as they came), most of their products are alpha quality when they are released for sale. With all their money(and ours), you would think they would set these things straight but time and time again they do not.

If I want a system that may or may not work, then I refuse to pay a premium price to do that. I still have windows boxen around, but it is just for reference when one of my clients calls and asks how to get the thingy back on the left side of the whatchama-callit. That and to time "Clean-install to Infected Bot". It's better than most fps'...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Vantage13]

OS X took me 2 hours. XP took me 4. Kubuntu.... I spent the better part of two days and I was still as frustrated as ever.

But let's compare apples to apples here. Your XP laptop was preconfigured when you got it and I assume you didn't get OS X running on that same laptop, so you most likely used a piece of apple hardware (funny how all the apple hardware works with that preinstalled apple OS). And next tried to install a different OS that was not preconfigured to run on any of that hardware and are amazed when you run into difficulties.

A fair comparison would be to get someone to set up a Linux computer for you that has all compatible hardware installed on it and all hardware working and then see if you still have as much trouble. I suspect it would take you no more time to get accustomed to using the OS as it did for any of the others.

There are companies that sell preconfigured Linux systems (though you may have to hunt to find one). I suggest you give one of them a try.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a nitpick, but your problems seem to have mostly revolved around hardware problems. Which have a large assortement of reasons from what I've managed to gather. But they basically come down to a few important ones.

Namely, the manufacturers oftently don't make linux version, even if they do, they don't always work well, even if they do work well, some distros don't accept them cause it is against their philosophy. Many debian based distros are likely like that, debian is a pretty 'free' software group. You would likely be better off getting closed source drivers from other distros, but this isn't exactly your fault for not knowing. In hindsight, I suppose it might be important for the distro makers to place a listing of drivers(devices) that the particular distro supports. This would likely save quite some people some trouble.

Furthermore hardware issues also crop up when the manufacturer doesn't release drivers ofcourse and even worse when they don't release specs, this is further exaberated by their only being a limited amount of programmers willing to do backwards engineering to create a driver. Also as stated, alot of laptops are custom designs and use special tweaks, using partially customised windows variants, usually in the driver sections, obviously.

As for usability, the only impartial thing I've ever heard of was a study that let people who had never used a computer before try linux or windows as their first learning experience. As I remember the results, windows was learnt slightly faster, but only by a bit. And the report is already years in the past now, so it's getting a bit dated. The main explanation for the small difference is probably, that we don't realise how complicated computers are anymore once you get used to them. Alot of things we take for granted are completly non obvious and arbitrary. So for a beginner linux or windows makes no real difference, and to stretch my neck a bit, considering the learning period for both was about equal, I'd make a minor wager on the learning curves being roughly equivalent as well.

The biggest difference between windows and linux is probably in how far a power user can take it to try and tweak the system. In windows you run out of options once you can't tweak the configuration or install addons anymore, roughly, hacking windows is highly non trivial so I'm discounting that as a real option. In linux that's more like only scaratching the surface and you have a whole range of more arcane developer tools still below that you can call upon to try and solve or tweak things, and while those are more difficult, it is still a more gradual thing then what you see in windows.

And I'm figuring this is why the learning curve seems so high, not because it is, but because the point where you can't do anything anymore to improve things is much later. So it's like your standing next to a gaping canyon instead of the deep ditch you were used to under windows. You are overwhelmed by the flood of difficult to comprehend, more arcane developer stuff. Though if you really are a linux power user, eventually you get to learn quite alot of it. And because of the extra controls avaiable, windows really annoys me these days, because it can be so hard to control the system the way I want to.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[tricops]

I thought the difficulty with getting specs for wireless cards was related to FCC testing. The cards are tested at certain signal strengths/etc, and the implication is that with the specs rather than just a compiled driver, you could easily play with those settings and make it perform outside of its intended/tested ranges (or maybe that was for the wireless routers themselves? hmm).

Who knows... I could be wrong, I just seem to recall reading something along those lines in a prior story thread some time ago...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Trepalium]

A lot of vendors don't consider their hardware quite as important as their software differentiation. Witness the rise of the winmodem (you almost can't find a hardware modem these days). The hardware is stupid, and does just enough to get by, while all the real workings are in the driver. It's probably no coincidence that winmodem manufacturers are among the most secretive about their hardware. The only one I'd say is even close to being a good "citizen" is SmartLink which seems to have contributed an intel8x0 modem driver for Alsa, which can be connected to their proprietary user-space daemon for providing a modem service to the system (the alsa driver alone doesn't make the modem work as a modem).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[MightyMartian]

And yet I, a guy who does tech support for a small ISP, is going to get calls as to Norton's latest piece of crap firewall and virus package is blocking all web traffic, or not letting the guy send his email. His printer will suddenly stop working, and he'll have to pay some pimply 18 year old to get rid of all the spyware he's managed to get on his system. Even worse, if he goes out and gets a new video card, he may find out that the drivers aren't quite up to snuff and performance is the shits.

Windows is no panacea. If it was, there wouldn't be an entire tech support and repair industry based around it.

As to it's GUI, that really hasn't changed, despite cosmetics, in a decade (and is still inferior to the old OS/2 WPS that was badly ripped off for Chicago). There's nothing particularly marvelous about the GUI, and half the people I deal with suddenly find themselves in the deepest, uncharted jungle when you ask them to click on the Start button. It's probably one of the least innovative GUIs ever developed. What Windows has that other desktop-class OSs don't is about fifteen years of bullying and underhanded dealings with hardware manufacturers. It scammed, threatened and robbed its way to the top, so that now anyone with another operating system is hitting a brick wall whose sole purpose is to keep MS on top. If some of these hardware manufacturers would simply give the damn specs to the open source community, that advantage would disappear. By now KDE and Gnome are at the very least the equals of Windows, and I tend to think they may be slightly better.

So, in short, is Linux perfect? Nope, absolutely not. But then again, Windows isn't either, and the advantage that it has is due to its maker being a predatory monopolist, and nothing to do with any particular technical advantage.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[dogfull]

Because:

-It is not in compliance with the GPL, and therefore illegal;
-we might want to run something other than linux one day, and porting drivers would be nice;
-none of the hardware manufacturers sells drivers, they sell hardware, dammit

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[jbolden]

What people were trying to tell you, but doing a bad job of it is that you aren't a power user in the Linux sense.

You don't have Unix experience you have PC experience. Take a Solaris power user and they can switch to Linux easily but can't figure out how to do things on Windows. You see they just don't think the right way. They expect everyting to be scriptable. So for example if they want to change what loads they might start to look for the init scripts? Where are the init scripts on Windows or OSX? If they want to do something on another computer they'll try and use network transparency.

As far as "recompiling the kernel to get support for sleep" that sounds odd to me. Generally you don't recompile kernels anymore desktop Linux kernels are loaded with modules. ACPI is compiled in to Ubuntu (and so I'd assume Kubuntu).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I am fairly new to the whole linux scene, and while I agree with your comments mostly, I think it is fair to say that the developers do realise that these issues exist and are working hard to fix them.

For example, I am currently using Debian, and with regards to installing nVidia drivers, it is now a lot easier then you mentioned. They have a tool called module-assistant, which downloads your drivers, checks you have all dependancies (and gets them if you don't), and compiles the kernel module for you.

Now if the XF86Config files were easier to edit :)

But seriously, I think that the developers will address these issues in time, and hey, if you have the skills, you could always contribute to the project!

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[IamTheRealMike]

That's correct, Ubuntu Universe is disabled by default, despite the fact that most of the packages you will want are there.

This is silly. It's been raised on the Ubuntu lists time and time again. Nonetheless, they refuse to enable it, because Canonical can't guarantee security updates for it. That's also silly, in my books, but then I find the whole idea of a Universe repository very silly indeed; it's simply not possible for a distro to ever be 'finished' like that.

Unfortunately, whilst new means of distributing software are being developed, the distribution developers generally strongly dislike them and sometimes go out of their way to cause difficulty for them. At some point there'll probably be a new wave of distros derived from the current ones that take the last "easy steps" to make Linux really usable for family and friends. Hell I'll do it myself one day if need be. Fedora is so close yet so far!

Still ... it's easy for Asa to criticise now. But think about all those years that Mozilla lumbered on with essentially zero popularity outside of the geek world. It wasn't until Firefox (which took years to develop) reached version 1 that things really took off. Linux is still in the Mozilla Seamonkey stage: cute features are being developed but that last stretch hasn't been reached yet. Arguably, it hasn't even been started.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to suffer under the assumption that the Linux desktop software is anything like as good as its server equivalents. It isn't even close. Government departments are switching to it because it's cheaper to license, and there is very little associated risk in the switch, not because it's better. Costs can be worried about seperately and outside market conditions within organisations like that. Steps three and four will simply not happen, there is little chance that a business case can be made against the potential risks and bespoke requirements. Step four is pure chicken and egg - with no market to create the demand for the software, the software will simply not be there to stimulate the market.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Tim C]

-It is not in compliance with the GPL, and therefore illegal;

That's a serious claim; do you have any proof to back it up?

-none of the hardware manufacturers sells drivers, they sell hardware, dammit

So what? It's their code, they wrote it, shouldn't they be free to release it under whatever licence they see fit? I imagine you'd be pissed if people constantly lobbied you to release your code under a closed source licence rather than an open one, why should they react any differently?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[rjshields]

I'm an XP man

That says it all, entire post summed up in four words. Linux is a unix-like OS for unix-like people. You're not going to get on very well with it if you come along expecting it to behave like windows. You say you are a "power user" but you seem remarkably naive.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[dogfull]

That's a serious claim; do you have any proof to back it up?

From the GPLv2 (I'm sure there is a better quote, somewhere, but IANAL).

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Which means the original source code. You can't link to a GPL'd program if your program itself isn't released under the GPL. Executable drivers aren't.

LGPL should solves that problem, therefore it might be fair to release the kernel under that license.


So what? It's their code, they wrote it, shouldn't they be free to release it under whatever licence they see fit? I imagine you'd be pissed if people constantly lobbied you to release your code under a closed source licence rather than an open one, why should they react any differently?

They have all the right in the world to do that. But no reason.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect this to take at least another 3 years.

Sorry, made-up bullshit. Start over, try again.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[drsquare]

1. How much freedom have you sacrificed by installing a driver? I mean, compare a computer without a driver, and a computer with a closed-source driver. How does the former give you more freedom than the latter. Installing a driver doesn't take anything away. You can still read 'ls.c' if you want.

2. Having your computer actually work is more than a 'little convenience'. Unless you think that using your hardware is a luxury, a mere trifle which isn't as important as peering through source code of software you don't understand anyway. For people in the real world, the whole point of a computer is that it works, and we can use it to get our work done, not to read source code for the hell of it. A computer without working hardware is useful only as a doorstop.

3. It's not a learning curve. Having your hardware not working is a learning WALL. You can't learn anything when your computer doesn't do anything.

4. There's no benefit to learning something which should be automatic. Do you still mill your own wheat between rocks? There's nothing to be gained by spending hours searching documentation just to make your computer sleep when it's supposed to.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[lsdino]

Good starter list, but I think you're off on ripping CDs (DVDs sure, but CDs are so mainstream. Even *I* don't rip DVDs and I write C++ and C# code for fun and for a living).

To paraphrase a famous "redneck" comedian, you might be a Windows power user if you:

• Install anti-spyware software (if only users would do this!)
  
• Use cmd.exe
  
• Write batch files, .vbs, or .js files for automation
  
• Organize your start menu (again, if only...)
  
• Tweak "Group Policy" on your personal PC (e.g. to disable shutdown from the start menu or other random tweaks)
  
• run Regedit to make modifications
  
• Install the Power Toys pack (come on, it's got Power in it's name!)
  
• Inspect Start->Programs->Startup & removing bloat on a regular basis.
  
• Running msconfig to remove more programs from startup
  
• Running Server 2k3 instead of XP
  
• You've resized your task bar, or moved it to anywhere other than the start.
  

Fun topic! I'm sure others can come up with more...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd read that Intel had released Linux drivers for my wireless card about a year ago.

Yes, but with a licence that made re-distribution of those drivers by the distributions impossible. So again, we're back to the stupid-vendor problem. Non-existent or poorly managed Linux support by vendors. None of this is "Linuxs" fault. Go talk to Intel and ask them why they don't support Linux in a form that is useful.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Mycroft_VIII]

Umm if they know how to make it work, why don't they.
Untill then it's still broken for laptop use.
Unless of course thier just listing fixes for things that have come out since the last release and it will be fixed in the next for 90%+.
RTFM is ***NOT*** acceptable by joe user and most people who actually have a life and don't need to spend hours just to get thier computer to do the basics it did out of the box when they bought it. They'll go back to WinXp and being a wholy pwnd subsidiary of spammers are us first.

Mycroft

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[drsquare]

I think by customisation, he means useful things, not graphical fluff. Everyone knows that enlightenment is a barely-usable eye-candy demonstration.

Yeah, Linux is configurable, but people want to configure things without playing with obscure files and commands. People want obvious things to work by default rather than having to fuck about to get it to work.

Whether you can change desktops with the scrollwheel is so insignificant it doesn't matter at all.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[L.Bob.Rife]

Vendors like intel cooperate just the same with windows as they do with Linux

Some Vendors will spend the same amount of time writing drivers for windows, which 97% of their customer base uses, and linux, which 3% of their customer base uses.

I wish I could think of one that did... in the real world drivers for linux do NOT get the same level of attention.

Thats the reason why linux users prefer drivers be open source, so they could fix the broken, buggy code that only works right on one version of Red Hat. Not to rip off somebodys freaking device driver. We just want our hardware to work.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Second Issue: Getting my wifi card to work. This was fairly important, as my connection utilized my campus's wireless. So whenever I had an issue, I had to reboot into Windows and search for it. I never managed to get it to work, even though I have one that's fairly ubiquitous (Intel 2100).

Your beef here is with Intel. Their firmware is EULA-restricted. This prevents Linux distributors from including a working IPW driver out of the box.

Note that if you clean installed Windows XP, it wouldn't recognize your wireless either. You have to install the Windows drivers. If your wireless chipset has on-chip firmware, it might work out of the box on Windows; but it'll also work out of the box on BSD. (Can't speak for Linux, haven't tried.)

By the way: OpenBSD, which I use in my laptop and self-made wireless router, has much better wireless support than Linux, especially as of late. Other BSDs are probably very good for this also. Also, since you mentioned sleep, OpenBSD supported my laptop's sleeping and suspend to disk when Linux never could. Linux may have more drivers, but BSD drivers are just more robust. Unlike Linux, BSD doesn't expect you to recompile the kernel just to get a driver working. And most (all?) drivers are in-tree, not developed separately.

As for the rest of the system, I wouldn't recommend BSD for casual Windows users who can't handle a serious Unix. But maybe, if people sold BSD machines with X and KDE or Gnome preinstalled (because let's face it, it requires Unix knowledge to install them on BSD), and a graphical frontend to a ports tree or something, it would be a feasible alternative to Windows.

Earlier this year, my girlfriend started dual booting Windows XP and Debian, which I installed for her. She liked it. But eventually decided it wasn't for her. She didn't like how she couldn't install software without my help. (Though she did install Adobe Acrobat and some other commercial stuff by herself) Maybe if I had shown her a more friendly distro, her experiences would have been better. She sometimes says to me that she regrets getting rid of her Linux partition.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[fa2k]

Did Irda work :P I'm still a little pist off about all the hours I spent with irattach, syslog, ppp and the likes to get mobile (GPRS) internet on my laptop. I got it working in the end, but then I had an accident and killed my laptop :/

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[ultranova]

Uh, no. I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks.

Yes, and being a power user is a problem with Linux.

If you are a newbie, you don't try to install Linux into a laptop - you let a hacker do it for you. That leaves you a stable, virus-proof environment to surf for porn, write emails or whatever it is you do.

If you are a hacker, you know what you're doing, and know how to find help if you don't. Again, you will end up with a stable environment, with the added benefit of being able to customize it for your specific needs. And, of course, a real hacker likes hacking - that's how he became a real hacker.

But if you are a power user, you will try to install and configure Linux by yourself. This is not a problem usually, since installation programs are pretty good at guessing correct settings for standard hardware. However, problems start when you try to do unusual things (like install into a laptop), since no program can possibly have correct procedures for every situation. But even when installation is done, a power user will want to customize everything, without actually knowing what he is doing. The result is a badly misconfigured, possibly severely crippled computer.

So, what can we learn from this ? Does this imply an inherent flaw in Linux ? No, it implies that installing Linux on uncommon platform might require more knowledge than a Windows power user has. Not surprising, really, since being a power user in Windows doesn't say anything about ones skills with any other system.

In any case, your statement about a presumably correctly preinstalled PowerBook being easier to install programs to than apparently badly misconfigured Linux system does not really say anything, if you think about it.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[rikkards]

I think the only real problem you have with Linux is that you don't know how to use it. Once upon a time you didn't know how to use Windows, either, but you learned. Now, however, you're a big bad "power user" and your ego won't let you go back to being a noob and learning Linux. To bad - your loss.

Unfortunately this is the problem. When he was a "noob" he had no other (real) choice. He had to learn Windows. Now he has a choice stay with what is comfortable or go through the whole noob thing again. I would say your "regular user" would stick with the former than the latter.

It's like taking a new job. If you are already working why go to a new job where it may involve a pay cut/worse environment? If you aren't working then you are more likely willing to suck it up, grit your teeth and do it.

That is the problem. Joe User is going to need to be motivated to move from Windows to Linux. Linux can't be just as good, it needs to be better and have the smoothest transition for him so that there is no learning curve. He needs to be able to do all that he could before in a similar manner before he will volunteer to migrate.

Someone posted before that there was a path that needs to happen and I think he was spot on as you will need to see more business involvment with Linux on the desktop. If Joe User has to use it at work where he has no choice on what he can run, he will get exposed to it and be more willing to move to Linux at home. This is how personal computers really took off in general for the masses.

Kind of funny that an OS that is built around choice could end up becoming more competitive with Windows by not having a choice.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[rikkards]

Problem is that 90% of the market is that type of user. How do you expect to get them over?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[eyeye]

I use debian (+ enlightenment) cause I can use the mouse wheel to shade windows when focused on the title bar and switch desktops when scrolled on the desktop. How the f*ck can you do that with windows ?

bblean? http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/ .
probably one of those fancy stardock apps will do it too.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[SComps]

I haven't stepped through the licenses for Intel drivers so I'm really asking an innocent question here.

Is the license making redistribution of those drivers impossible or merely distasteful to the package managers? (ie: Debian if it aint 199% free it aint here)

Sometimes the zealots (boy I hate using that word but it fits here) do more to hold their distributions back than the manufacturers themselves. Nobody is going to force a profit generating company to do something that will minimally effect their bottom line. Period. The linux userbase just isn't large enough to create that level of impact, and the zealots--there it is again--aren't helping.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[jedidiah]

Any Linux desktop, enabled by default by any modern consumer distribution, will expose to the end user via the GUI much more things to customize than either WinDOS or MacOS10. You fools are trying to base your criticisms on 10 year old versions of Linux.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

After twenty years of MS/PC-DOS, Amiga, and Unix use, I am bemused at seeing self-described "power users" balk at editing text files.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[jedidiah]

Any version of Xfree in the last 10+ years has been willing to have it tell you what your video card is capable of. It's also been pretty simple to do. There's really no good excuse to admit failure in this.

It's like you are trying to describe Linux from a total Windows frame of reference as if you had never even touched Linux before.

It's Unix. Yout get to tell it what's going on rather than being stuck with whatever lame conclusions it might have come up with.

At least you can get Linux to tell you what a bit of hardware is before a driver is installed. This bit of Win2K/XP is highly annoying.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[jedidiah]

I dunno. I've always consulted the documentation.

AppleDOS? Commie DOS? Atari GEM? SunOS? VMS? MS-DOS?

It always helps if you figure out where the system designers were coming from. The knobs aren't always in an obvious place (even for a total n00b).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[City Jim 3000]

What is WinDOS? Is that a Linux distro?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

-It is not in compliance with the GPL, and therefore illegal;

Sorry, I've lost you. Are you really claiming that releasing a driver for Linux, but only as closed source, is illegal?

-none of the hardware manufacturers sells drivers, they sell hardware, dammit

No, they sell whatever they give you when they take your money. For some types of hardware (e.g., graphics cards), the drivers are a crucial part of that package, and good drivers are a major competitive advantage. As others have pointed out in the past, the difference between a $200 "gamer" graphics card and a $2,000 "workstation" graphics card is usually far more about software than hardware.

Now, that being the case, what sane graphics card manufacturer is going to give away one of their most valuable and expensive-to-develop assets -- the algorithms used in their display drivers -- just to appease a group who think having the source code is a prerequisite to software being useful? Depending on the details, doing so could even be viewed as negligence on the part of the management.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[lpcustom]

Exactly, for all those downing Linux for hardware support, start looking at the one to blame. Your hardware vendors are the ones not supporting the OS. Its not the other way around. A lot of coders in the Linux community have spent plenty of their free time back-engineering devices to write drivers. It used to be a lot worse but slowly hardware manufactures are releasing Linux drivers. Windows has all those drivers because the hardware people support Windows. On a side note: I have Debian and Windows on my PC. I have Windows to play two games that I can't get to run in Linux using Cedega. When I installed Windows I spent 20 minutes trying to get the right sound card driver downloaded from Windows Update. When I installed Debian, everything was detected correctly and worked. Linux has come a long way. It's done it without the support from hardware vendors that MS has. Imagine how far it would go with that support.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gordo3000]

but the driver doesn't have to be given out under the GPL. That is the difference. Of course you can't release something under the GPL that is just an .exe, but there is not rule that you have to do that. Now if they included some of linux's source code in the writing of the driver, then it would be a violation of the GPL, but there is no need for them to do that.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

lmao @ "When you release hardware, either release drivers for the predominant operating systems (which is now Linux and Windows)"

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[psyon1]

AMEN! I was thinking the exact same thing! Oddly enough, I have a Canon scanner right now that refuses to work on my wifes WinXP system. I plugged it into my box, and SANE picked it up and it works great :)

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, man! Amen!!

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[SCHecklerX]

Uh, no. I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks.

That is incorrect. In fact, you got it backwards. If I want to change the UI in windows, or make it behave differently, I have to be a pretty damned knowledgeable programmer! On my linux box, using a combination of windowmaker and ROX, it is *TRIVIAL* using simple scripting. No intimate system knowledge necessary. Try again.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

If linux had the same monopoly microsoft has (impossible since its a kernel, not a company), Dell and the other OEMs would be installing it with all their hardware preinstalled and none of these issues would be bothering you.

If you bought an xp disk for your laptop at best buy, and tried to install a fresh xp yourself, with some hardware the os didn't know about, you'd be downloading drivers and having the same sorta issues. If the OS couldn't deal with your network card out-of-the-box, you'd be dead. Windows or no.

I have lost count of the number of "power users" that have paid me $50 an hour to straighten out their Windows XP machines and install drivers for them.

Users are users no matter what the OS. Any user trying to do everything for himself, that's not dealing with an OEM installed windows (A la dell or gateway) is destined for some frustration.

I have heard more than one (in fact just about all) say that "windows sucks"... for you and these people "computers suck". The OS is not relevant, only how well your box was put together for you.

I think linux is perfectly fine, what it needs to "catch on" with users like you, is for OEMS like dell to preinstall it for you and supply a good recovery disk. This isn't linux's fault. If the OEMs gave people the option for linux preinstalled, with no hardware issues, you'd be singing a very different tune.

Hardware is a bitch. People don't think it is on windows because the OEM's do all the work for them.

The preferences (what you use to skin xwindows, set your screensaver, etc etc etc) are in a folder called "Preferences" under applications button in gnome.

You'd need to be blind to not see it.

The xwindows people do need to do some work on video driver installation, I'll give you that. Them and the distro's need to cooperate so that when you upgrade your kernel, the vid driver modules get auto-recompiled. This would kill it for most users, the first time they ran up2date, upgrade their kernel, then windows doesn't start?

Disaster for most users...

This is probably the biggest issue I see. Other than that, I did a fresh FC3 install 2 days ago... didn't need to open a prompt at all.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem is more likely sitting in front of the computer rather than what's installed on it. Stupid fucker.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Tanaric]

So, Win2K, a 5-6 year old OS, wasn't as easy as FC4, which came out less than a year ago? Say it isn't so!

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[swv3752]

No, no I did'nt have to do that in Mandrake for my Nvidia card.

I booted of the CD and it installed everything.

When I upgraded the driver, I downloaded it, extracted it and ran it from a console. I selected the defaults and restarted X.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[rufus t firefly]

You mentioned that you had to use apt-get on the command line to install software when using kubuntu; this simply isn't the case. There is a nice frontend to apt in the form of kynaptic, which is installed by default on new kubuntu systems.

Out of all the Linux desktop distributions, I've found k/ubuntu to be the one distribution which seems to really "get it" when it comes to the desktop. Even people who have had issues in the past with systems like Linux-Mandrake and Fedora Core seem to like it. Even some hardcore Windows users that I know are seriously considering using it (partially due to software packages like Mozilla Firefox, GIMP, Inkscape, GAIM, etc).

You *can* use the command line to do things with k/ubuntu. The nice part is that if you're an ex-Windows user, you don't have to ... there are nice guis for just about every important part of system administration, unless something goes extremely south. But then again, if it did, you'd be doing regedits on your Windows box, which are arguably more cryptic in many cases than the Linux command line could *ever* be ...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because it's terribly damaging to the integrity of the system? One of the biggest bitches in the community about all of the closed source 3d accelerator drivers is that when the manufacturer (cough cough ATI) gives you a half assed binary only driver, you can't use it on new kernel versions, and moreover, they're unstable and all these talented OSS developers that can make your Linux system otherwise run without reboot for YEARS (save for hardware failure) can't do a damn thing about it.

All we're asking for is the goddamned specifications to the devices we have to talk to, that we paid money for.

Sorry, we don't want to swallow the same crap everyone in the closed source camp does, which is why we're willing to write our own OS.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, I'm back to XP. I'm willing to spend the extra $300 to save the time and frustration that I've had using Linux. I realize that pretty much all of these issues are 'trivial', but the fact that I ran into all of these problems in the span of two days seems unacceptable. When I used OSX for the very first time, it took me less than two hours to become proficient. XP took me 4. Linux needs to get to the point where a power user like myself can be quite proficient over the span of a day.

It's not an extra $300 that you are spending

Microsoft Windows XP Pro $300
Adobe Photoshop CS2 $599
Microsoft Word $195

Total before tax $1094

All of your major complaints span several software solutions so this total would be much more accurate. That is... assuming you pay for all your software like any honest person would do. I would rather spending 5 minutes to read the help file to openoffice to figure out that you can decrease the size of the document/typeface on the screen or spend the extra couple of hours figuring out the gimp instead of spending over $1000 just to do commonplace editing of pictures and documents.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[t35t0r]

thank god for ndiswrapper

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Lodragandraoidh]

I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks...

"Windows Poweruser" is an oxymoron...

The difference between Windows and a Posix Compliant OS is that Windows is, and will always be a toy slot-car, whereas *nix is Ferrari. Of course *nix is difficult - if it were easy any blockhead could be a computer scientist. Nevertheless, it is much easier to put a governor on a Ferrari engine, than to fit a Ferrari engine in a slot-car. And that is exactly what the Linux community is doing with some of the newer distributions. It is only a matter of time - there is not enough time for Microsoft to learn how to build a proper and consistent OS (and furthermore there is no impetus to do so from management) underneath the 'pretty' exterior.

I don't see that changing unless Microsoft changes the way they do business - which is not likely.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[swv3752]

Emperor Linux will not only sell preconfigured Linux systems, but will configure your already purchased system.

No affiliation, just have a friend who swears by them.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Saxerman]

I'm not signing off Linux forever, though. I tend to try it every two or three years or so, just to see how it's going. I do like the idea of Linux, but until it becomes easier to learn, I don't think I'll use it.

Just so we're all being honest here, what you really mean isn't that Linux needs to be "easier to learn" merely that it needs to be "more like Windows."

I agree that the transition to Linux isn't as easy as learning a few new keyboard shortcuts and directory names. While I tried to play the dual-boot game for awhile, the transition process for me didn't really start until I set up a personal Linux gateway/firewall machine to handle my new broadband connection. It took me several days to set up that meager functionality following the advice from some online howtos and getting semi-helpful emails from a local LUG. And it took almost a year of playing with that box before I felt comfortable enough to ditch windows entirely.

Today, I relate the process of installing new software on windows to the process of compiling software under Linux. I merely download the source, configure/make/make install and the software is installed. Sure, I might need to install a few new pieces of software to support the new program, but I relate that to the process of needing to update ActiveX or some other driver to support a new game under windows.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[sulli]

Linux is making huge gains in the server market. The statistics show that.
Linux is just starting to gain in the corporate/government desktop market. Expect this to take at least another 3 years.
Once OEMs are comfortable with Linux (due to large orders from corporations/governments), they will start offering it on desktops

Funny, I remember reading posts like this on slashdot in 2000. Has anything, at all, changed?

Let me tell you, the comment by another poster that you have to recompile the kernel to make your laptop sleep is reason enough to forget all about Linux for another three years.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[coolGuyZak]

It's a bit of both, really.

Debian is a rather "Zealotrous" distribution, as you so eloquently put it. They have rules of conduct, and those rules state explicity that Debian will not distribute non-free/non-oss software. However, Debian is more like a "staging" distro... it's largely a standard distro that is built on by other distros. My bet is that other distros, such as Ubutnu and Kubuntu, etc., do not distribute for the same reason.

Other distros take a less pragmatic stance (gentoo in particular) concerning closed-source inclusion. These distros are still hampered, however, by bad licensing terms for the closed-source driver. For instance, I can get my nVidia graphics driver, and I can get the Intel 2200/BG driver fine. However, because Intel chose to use a non-transferrable license for the 2200/BG's firmware, I have to download that on my own. (It still installs automatically).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[coolGuyZak]

Some Vendors will spend the same amount of time writing drivers for windows, which 97% of their customer base uses, and linux, which 3% of their customer base uses.

I wish I could think of one that did... in the real world drivers for linux do NOT get the same level of attention.

Nitpicking here, but nVidia does a damn good job with their geforce drivers. (I can't speak for nForce, as I use VIA boards).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[zifferent]

Linux zealots, like me, prefer source code for several reasons.

1.) If something is wrong with the driver it can be tweeked or fixed, even well after the manufacturer has officially closed support for it.

2.) I can compile the driver on any system I'm on and it will work. Whether it be ppc, sun, X86. Too many times, I've been working on a ppc variant of Linux and was unable to install or use some functionality, because the driver or program was compiled only and supported only on X86 hardware.

3.) When a program is compiled, it can be tweeked to run faster than a generic build from the manufacturer.

4.) It's about having power over your own computer, and not giving up control and trust over it to someone else.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[spitzak]

This is false. Microsoft can and will get the source code to any vendor's driver they want. To Microsoft the drivers are not closed source.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Lorkki]

Why someone who runs linux feels they should get more than that confounds me.

I got an AMD64 box early this year. Since the 64-bit Windows was a late release candidate and a free-beer download back then, I thought I would try it out.

Most mainstream hardware worked after a few downloads, but I have some devices (mainly two digital cameras) that still lack drivers, despite that even the release version has been out for months. I indeed feel like I should get more than this.

There's also lots of hardware which is not very old per se, but the vendors don't manufacture it anymore and would much rather have you buy their newer models. If they have kept their APIs reasonably similar, you might have better luck with future support, otherwise prepare to say goodbye to either software updates or your cash. It's not your interests they are pursuing, after all.

And not to sound trollish, but the native Linux distribution I also installed had everything working right out of the box. I see no need to worsen the situation.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[pwyll_bornx2]

You aren't a power user, you're a Windows Yuppie. I think all people who say Windows is better than Linux should just stick to Windows. If you actually spend a week on a Linux box and are somewhat competent, you can get everything configured properly. The only trouble you might run into is hardware support. Then again, we may just have different opinions of "power user"...

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[PastaLover]

There are 4 major market segments:

1. Servers
2. Corporate/government desktops
3. Mom/Grandma home users
4. Power users/Gamers

You forgot:
5. Embedded market
which is bigger than the desktop market and one of the area's where linux is really stirring things up. The wealth of software available for the linux platform gives it an edge in this market. And it's customizability is a real plus... Most people here seem to forget about embedded all the time, but it's a place a free or open source software philosophy really shines.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a power user too...

and I don't give 2 SH*** about wheather my hardware will work right away or not as long as there is some way to get it to work eventually. It just means I have to learn.

The problem is that I can't use most of my power user software - Dreamweaver, Visual Studio, Everquest 2, etc.

Some of it runs in WINE, but not well enough and that's just not acceptable.

I think some good first steps would be better development tools who's gui does some of the work for you like in Visual Studio... but not *all* the work like in Visual Studio.

And how about a Dreamweaver type of tool? I don't need Flash, Fireworks, etc. all in one tool, just the basic WYSIWYG HTML editor!

WineX is doing a good job, but it would be nice to have more MMORPG support.

All in all I think it comes down to this... Open Source is great, but we need more people who *really* know what they're doing that would do some stuff like this.

(Before you say it, Gambas SUCKS.)

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[cthulhubob]

Actually, the reboots aren't necessary. Only in Windows. :)

The command to switch into runlevel 3 is: /sbin/telinit 3

Then to switch back to runlevel 5: /sbin/telinit 5

No editing of /etc/inittab is necessary, no reboots. You do have to edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf, but removing those reboots from the equation saves you a lot of wasted time.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[modernbob]

Basically you are making my point. There are a whole bunch of ways to do this and few of them are clear. They are different from distr to distr. This makes for a serious amount of confusion. This is but one example of what is wrong with linux on the desktop.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gordo3000]

I guess I should clarify, I mean end user linux users and end user windows users. Both see the same thing. What companies do between themselves I have no knowledge of though I don't doubt at all that a company would share its source to let MS test it and tweek its own products(when it is a major piece of hardware).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gordo3000]

nice play on words, but my question remains, if the driver is pre compiled and works fine for both windows and linux, why does a linux user feel they should have more than that. It was a simple question. I'm not talking about worsening the situation. I'm talking about including working drivers whether they are open source or not for a level of ease of use(to support already paid for hardware).

Now what you are saying is a good reason to release detailed specs for the hardware, except a lot of it could be trade secrets.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[cthulhubob]

It's not different from distro to distro either, telinit has been a standard utility in Linux distros since Yggdrasil. It was a Sun OS convention originally, I believe.

I think it says to use telinit in Nvidia's documentation (I haven't read it in years, but I do read README files for things I'm not familiar with, although I had an ATI card when they first started supporting Linux, so maybe the very first TNT2 driver they distributed said to reboot).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Wicken_Fen]

This discussion started out speaking to "power users" in general, not "power linux users" or "power windows users". The "XP man" is a power user for a certain platform due to the amount of use and exposure he has to that platform. He "knows" systems well and has a grasp on "technology" just like many of us in the IT world...but due to the differences in the platforms, he has "trouble" with Linux when he attempts to migrate to that platform, and suddenly he isnt considered a "power user" anymore? That is shortsighted and rather obtuse a viewpoint. As someone mentioned earlier, there are different classes of users IN GENERAL...take the platform specifics out of it and you can then grasp what XP man and several others were addressing. Think about the "power user" XP man and his knowledge of systems and the issues he had that he didnt want to bother working through, then think about Ma and Pa Kettle who just want to boot up and read email and play solitaire.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Lorkki]

What is "working"? PowerPC Linux users don't have nVidia's or ATI's binary drivers, let alone wrappered network drivers, even though the hardware is mostly the same. Problems on the x86 platform depend solely on how well the builders of the black boxes have anticipated my run-time environment.

You try to make it sound like we're talking about two entirely different things, but the disadvantages of closed-source drivers are the same either way. I happen to think they outweigh their advantages enormously on many fronts.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[nri]

use for me. I have several terminal windows open aon one screen where I'm editing source code and compiline. Its nice to be able to shade different windows with the wheel. Then when I want to run the app i switch to another screen byt scrolling on the desktop.
on yet anpther screen i have terminals for isql etc for the database.
on another screen I have rdesktop to the pc next to me.

also, on my notey I have those 4 screens accessible using 4 hotkeys as well.

I guess usefullness depends on what you use your computer for.

This will probably get shot down and I'll lose some karma for this, but my definition of a power user is somebody that writes programs / compiles programs. Not an end user playing games with their computer. Unless you are writing OpenGL programs, then playing with graphics card drivers doesn't make you a power user.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[asa]

Still ... it's easy for Asa to criticise now. But think about all those years that Mozilla lumbered on with essentially zero popularity outside of the geek world. It wasn't until Firefox (which took years to develop) reached version 1 that things really took off. Linux is still in the Mozilla Seamonkey stage: cute features are being developed but that last stretch hasn't been reached yet. Arguably, it hasn't even been started.

Ahh, friend. You've hit on exactly my point: It is _the_ right time for Linux to try to do for itself what Firefox did for Mozilla.

How did we do that with Firefox? Well, there were four things.... (did you read my blog post?)

- A

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gordo3000]

oh I don't know, having to live with an intel CPU and have a working nvidia graphics card seems far above not having the graphics card at all. Yes, I agree. I never said there weren't disadvantages. all I said was that you get the same treatment. It seems everyone thinks I didn't say that. just read the original post, that is all it said.

I'm not arguing which is superior, I'm not arguing which gives the most flexibility, and I'm not arguing which is the most profitable(because these probably contradict). I simply said that the intel drivers, as a poster said, existed and worked and the only reason that someone gave that they weren't included was that it somehow impinged on the freedom of their linux box(which it in no way does, a person is free to not use that driver).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[NateTech]

Just so we know and your comparison is fair:

Have you ever done an installation of XP on that same laptop WITHOUT the manufacturer's modified installation media? i.e., from regular XP disks?

If yes, did everything work? Were any devices not working properly?

This is one of the problems, sometimes. It's rare for an end-user to ever install a raw OS from bare drives. And then they compare that "good" experience with a pre-loaded pre-configured machine to loading Linux from scratch.

Just checking, perhaps you have.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Lorkki]

If you were, as I understood from your original post, looking for reasons why Linux people insist on open source drivers, you have gotten many. I'd think your post was a raging success.

Many of the good things about an open source OS are simply lost when you start plugging in black boxes on a low level, and not just "freedom". Display drivers I can still barely take, but if the only way to make a USB/Bluetooth/CardBus device work is a platform-specific binary driver, something is seriously wrong. If Joe Consumer has a friend running Linux on, say, a slightly older PPC Mac, he'll be confused if the WLAN NIC doesn't work when it did on his Linux PC at home (if this seems too far-fetched, imagine the same situation with digital cameras in my current Windows scenario).

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah, I read it. All except the last paragraph - whoops :)

I totally agree with the general thrust of your post though, now is the time. But who will run the last mile? Who will step up? I don't know ... we need superheros and they're badly lacking right now.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[gordo3000]

I wasn't actually looking for these common reasons why open source can be superior from a "I want to help as many people as possible" point of view. I'm wondering why even though there is a working closed source driver, even if its limited in its scope(only X86, only ppc, only whatever), why open source people would rather make it hard for others and not make those drivers also available. It's a completely different question. People confuse the two points constantly. I have read slashdot. I've worked with open source. I know the advantages, I also know the disadvantages. I am wondering why put one more hinderance in the way of making an open source program work more seemlessly simply because a part must be closed source(ie, the driver).

This is a different question than why use open source drivers in general. Let me illustrate. The response to my question I originally got was simply that ubuntu people didn't want to hinder the freedom of their machine by including the driver. Besides the fact that this is senseless(no one is forced to use that driver, simply because they aren't forced to buy that particular piece of hardware), that is no reason to put one more roadblock in the way of someone that loves linux but doesn't have the money to buy new hardware just to transition to new software. In this case, I would have just dumped that version of linux because it didn't make itself usable when it could have. Mine was a question on why be senselessly hardheaded. The advantages of open source to this discussion are irrelevent becasue there isn't and won't be an open source driver for the near term.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Lorkki]

I'm wondering why even though there is a working closed source driver, even if its limited in its scope(only X86, only ppc, only whatever), why open source people would rather make it hard for others and not make those drivers also available.

Essentially because there's the probability of a snowball effect if you make binary-only development comfortable. You might find yourself in a situation where suddenly most of new "support" is scope-limited binary packages, which again destroys the point of having an open source base system.

I don't think this is just paranoia, either. Some argue that ndiswrapper is the prime reason why programming specs and open source drivers are so scarce for WLAN interfaces (seriously, what's there to hide in the APIs?). I've even met developers who think "it runs with WINE" constitutes a level of Linux support.

The response to my question I originally got was simply that ubuntu people didn't want to hinder the freedom of their machine by including the driver.

Ubuntu includes the open source drivers for both Nvidia and ATI cards, as well as the binary drivers as installable packages. What exactly are you missing? Why would you be forced to throw away your video card simply because not all of its features are enabled after install? How exactly does this differ from the Windows treatment where you get a crippled driver preinstalled and spend time fetching driver installers off the net manually?

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded you troll for a simple reason: you'd really better check your ways of installing nvidia drivers dude, 'cause you suck with this, and make unknowning people believe that it's that hard. Just an advice.

Re:Don't confuse the market segments.

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds more like you are not a so-called power user.
First off recompiling kernels and such is not needed, you can very easily get by without it. I've been doing exactly that with a Fedora Core3 box for awhile now. Just install yum or apt-get, and if you are too lazy to manually click the rhn update button, or to type in sudo yum update; there is a service available on the system to have it do a nightly updates..

and it doesnt require a whole lot of shell interaction for customization if you don't want to. granted this assumes you have a decent windowing system loaded such as gnome or kde. From kde's control center you can tweak just about anything in the same fashion as the control panel in windows or whatever OSX is calling its control panel thing these days. Yes there are occasional things that you may have to do by editing a text file, but they are well documented in the man pages.

sleeping? a. who cares if it sleeps? log out and turn off the monitor.. but if you really need it to, then there are many guides around that will show you how.

wireless card problems? i really wonder what problems you had. in every install ive ever done, from redhat 7.3 to a recent gentoo install my wireless card has always been spotted and handled properly without any intervention; on gentoo i had to intervene but only because i was choosing to build my entire system.
screen space? try virtual desktops, closing unneeded toolbars, and getting new fonts

yes they are trivial issues, and yes you ran into them in a span of two days, but i'd be willing to bet had you resolved any of them you wouldn't have run into many issues at all in the future. Once you get the system runnign how you like it, its smooth sailing.
don't complain when you ask to be able to customize things and then realize that you don't want to customize them lol
all in all, im pretty convinced you arent a power user.

as an aside it sounds like you are doing this all on a laptop which for new linux users does tend to complicate things becuase of finding drivers.

heres a great analogy, for all you people who drive automatics who never learned how to drive a stick, start driving stick right now lol.. what you mean you run into problems? you stalled? what theres a learning curve? egads. How many times did you stall in your first two days? now flash forward to a couple of weeks later when you've gotten the hang of it, and maybe even gasp.. like it.
IMHO expecting to become a master at something in the first day or even week of use is quite often absurd for complex things... how many people master golf or guitar in a day? much like othello, it takes a short period to learn (the basics) but a lifetime to master

Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[tktk]

Windows has the Blue Screen of Death.
Longhorn has the Red Screen of Death.
Mac OS 9 had the Sad Mac and the Bomb.
OS X has the big power button in the background. (And maybe one more.)

And Linux? I don't know what it's got.

Linux users need some iconic way to know that they've really fsck'ed up the their computer. Then they can be satified when they haven't seen it in a while.

We need something....like a dead penguin. Or maybe a slightly stunned penguin. I don't know, get a Japanese manga artist to draw it.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should just intentionally program bugs into the kernel, so that way Windows users can feel at home.

I have Windows XP, and I get a nice warm feeling everytime it bluescreens at me, its like a Husband reminding his wife that he loves her, after savagely beating her once again...

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[gromitcode]

No need to intentionally program bugs into the kernel, have you seen the amount of kernel patches released this year for linux :-(.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[nyabutid]

Sounds good to me. Sometimes you wonder if you are doing everything right if you don't get any errors or warning messages. Windows users love that. It makes them more aware of what is going on with the system. I propose a dead penguin to show up once in a while even when the problem is too obvious.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[snorklewacker]

How about the silly HHGTG face from Linux Sparc?
Damned if I can find any screenshots of it though...

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[antiMStroll]

"And Linux? I don't know what it's got."

LILILILILILILILILILILILI.....

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Volvogga]

How about the Bill-Borg "laser-eyeing" Tux untill he bursts into flames? That way we can have an icon to know there is a problem, and still blame Windows!

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[ErikZ]

"I don't know, get a Japanese manga artist to draw it."

I suppose a Penguin being violated by a tenticle monster would do the trick.

You would hear about any problems really, really quickly. Unless the user enjoys that kind of thing.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[222]

"Linux users need some iconic way to know that they've really fsck'ed up the their computer. Then they can be satified when they haven't seen it in a while."

Im voting for the Lindows logo :P

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[ph43drus]

You ever seen a kernel oops? I have (faulty hardware). It's a spray of hexadecimal and cryptic CPU register names to the screen with the word "Oops!" at the top. It has a much better "scary computer entrails" look to it than any of those you've listed.

Jeff

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[suwain_2]

I thought Linux never crashed?

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

its like a Husband reminding his wife that he loves her, after savagely beating her once again...

Hey, you ain't busy on Friday are you?

TT

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[ZakuSage]

I'd kinda like to see just a flaming penguin as a "screen of death". Horrible and kinda offensive to lovers of tux... but still funny as hell.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest I haven't had a Linux crash in probably 5 years. I tend to run the stable kernels though. Now by "crash" I mean kernel panic. I have locked up the kernel (by using the ass ip_queue stuff on an SMP kernel) but that wouldn't be able to pop up a BSOD style screen anyway because the whole system was dead (ie. SysReq didn't even work).

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Dystopian Rebel]

get a Japanese manga artist to draw it

Hey man, we're girlfriendless geeks here! It should be a hentai artist.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has a text only:

kernel panic

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[rampant mac]

"We need something....like a dead penguin. Or maybe a slightly stunned penguin. I don't know, get a Japanese manga artist to draw it."

Will tentacles being shoved into Tux's every orifice really be the screen `o death users will want to see?

I keed, I keed!

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[steelfood]

Linux and most other unixes just sort of dump text related to the problem right to the screen. The screen is usually black or dark gray for readability issues.

There's a BSoD screensaver in linux that displays an unrecoverable error screen from a random system. It hasn't been updated with the RSoD yet, but it'll only be a matter of time.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Ziviyr]

Linux users need some iconic way to know that they've really fsck'ed up the their computer. ...
We need something....like a dead penguin. Or maybe a slightly stunned penguin.

Or a sleeping penguin? Maybe one pining for the icebergs?

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[lakeland]

try spending less on your hardware and you'll start seeing kernel panics again.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Klowner]

Kernel panic!

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, you mean kernel segfaults aren't good enough for you? (it's been a couple years since i've seen one myself, but i'm sure they are around somewhere"

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Jesus_666]

Yes, but think of all the grandmas who want to run Linux but can't due to the lack of crash screens.

"Hentai Crash Screen" should clearly be a kernel option.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[gonaddespammed.com]

Make sure it'd give any epileptic in 2 miles grand maal seizures.

Word.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is if it happens when you're in X you don't get to see it usually, as the kernel oops doesn't attempt to switch graphics card modes - so it just seems like the PC hung.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

GRUB GRUB

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been a while, but I have seen linux lock up and the lights for the caps lock, num lock, and scroll lock start blinking.

It is both pretty to watch and quite frightening. So I think linux has got you covered there.

Good luck making it happen though, it takes a serious bit of fiddling to destabilize linux that much.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[Damek]

Better yet, if you've ever played TuxRacer you know how when Tux loses a round, at the end he stands there looking all sad with his head down, kicking the ground with one of his little feetsies?

I think when Linux crashes or has a major problem a little animated graphic of Tux doing exactly that, looking all sad and disappointed in himself, should be what pops up.

Trust me, my girlfriend suggested it.

And also, on a slightly related note, when a Linux system is "busy" and the user has to wait for something to happen, the cursor should change to a little Tux hopping back and forth from one foot to the other (dancing, not impatient). This would be like when the cursor changes to an hourglass on Windows systems, or even more, like when the cursor changes to the spinning beachball of doom on OS X systems. Linux would be so much better, happier and more entertaining than either of them! A dancing Tux! Who wouldn't love that?

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[reed]

Just run the "BSOD" screen saver. I run it at work, and its fooled my technically astute co-workers a couple times.

It has Win32 BSOD, Win NT panic, Mac "no startup disk", sad mac, and Bomb, Amiga Workbench, various Unices, VMS, endless DOS Abort/Retry/Fail, the cool BSD/PowerPC trace, some video crashes where the display is just messed up in a pretty rainbow fashion.

Re:Linux needs a Screen of Death!

[t35t0r]

in linux it's the black screen of death or kernel panic. Just as in windows it happens because of bad drivers.

Why 'regular users'?

[Corvaith]

Asa makes a lot of good points here. Of course he does. Firefox rules, etc. And Firefox has done some good things.

I think what most Linux distributions and software packages need, though, is to decide what their target market *is*. There's all kinds of talk about whether Linux is 'ready for the desktop', but never about whose desktop it should be ready for.

Many Linux distros and packages are ready and working nicely on geek desktops everywhere. They do what those users want them to do. Those users like lots of configuration boxes and options and new toys. Asa makes mention of the 15 silly little games in the games folder when you install--and my first time installing Mandrake, I probably spent three hours afterwards trying all the new little games and utilities. It was good fun.

I don't think those distros should have to change. If you're good at that and you're happy doing that, then do that. You don't have to have a Windows market share. You should make a product your users like to use, and if you do that well, you're in good shape.

On the other hand, if what you're emphatically trying to do is to produce a desktop just like Windows XP and your target userbase is all the people who currently use XP, yes, everything Asa says applies. Make that a conscious decision, though. Don't just try to make Linux for the masses because somebody else says you should, for god's sake. I'm not trying to save up for a Linux box so I can have Linux for the masses. I'm saving so I can have a little icon in the corner of my screen that shows me the moon phase and run a webserver off my machine and all those good things.

Some of us like our obscure toys!

Re:less stupid users

[PocketPick]

People who don't want to learn Linux aren't ignorant. But someone who actually would think that we should all spend our time surfing man pages and learning 100+ commands line applications so that we can do rudimentary tasks are. What would happen if you went to the bank, and the teller handed you 100 pages of documentation on how to perform a deposit?

Most people use thier computers read thier email, surf the internet, play a few games and use office-style applications. Linux offers this, but at no greater benefit than Windows or MacOS from a learning curve perspective.

BS

[GoldenShale]

This discussion comes down to a matter of goals. If the goal is to get as many windows users as possible to convert to linux, than producing an exact copy of windows that is free is probably the perfect solution. I don't think that is the goal though, at least for most of the open source & linux community members that I know. I think we should let microsoft take care of the web surfing, office using weenies, and make linux the platform of the computing elite. Lets pimp it out to the extreme. Sure, we can have some clean, easy to use systems that help make mundane computing tasks easier, but other than that I don't think we should follow anyone. Lets invent, create and kick some ass!

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

Depends on what you're doing. If you're a developer of ANY sort [software or hardware] almost always linux is a better choice.

Just because you can't be bothered to learn a better way of doing things doesn't make it wrong.

And even for the average joe case, there are SIMPLE distros like Knoppix to use. I use Gentoo because I like the advantages and the learning curve wasn't out of reach. It serves what I work on very well. It's not for everyone.

Though I imagine you posted as AC because you're just trolling. But in order to make you look stupider I'll just say that if you can't sort out how to use Knoppix or Fedora you probably aren't using a computer what you have is an etch-a-sketch. You just can't tell the difference.

Tom

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as the next generation uses linux who gives a shit?

But, if Mom & Dad are running Windows at home...and the schools are all running Windows...when is the next generation going to get exposed to Linux? Sure, they can tinker with it in their spare time, but they'll be expected to use Windows applications for school and work. They'll be taught how to use MS Word and things like that, and in the end we'll be left with yet another generation that is more comfortable with Windows than it is with Linux.

What we need to do is make Linux enough like Windows that people will switch over for largely trivial reasons... A price difference, a nifty feature or two, a catchy logo, the recommendation of a friend. Right now Linux has some real advantages to offer, but there's simply too much effort involved in switching over. Make it easier to switch over, easier to give it a try, and you'll get more people staying with it. And if you can get Mom & Dad to use it at home, and some of the schools to use it, then you'll actually wind up with a generation that is comfortable using Linux.

Another Idiot

[Master of Transhuman]

Why on Earth do I need to "migrate Windows settings"?!

WHAT settings? Other than my browser settings - why the FUCK do you think I use Firefox? (Or Opera in the past.) Email? How hard is it to set up a new account in whatever email client you use? Such as Thunderbird, for Christ's sakes!

My data happens to be sitting on a FAT32 partition that I can easily access from Linux. Try the reverse in Windows (without using a third party tool like explore2fs)! Yes, it would be nice to have a tool that converts it to EXT3 or whatever without losing the data, but that's hardly critical.

Everybody needs to get a grip. There is NOTHING about Linux that is a showstopper to migrating someone to it except the EXPECTATION that it will IDENTICAL to Windows.

And this nitwit wants to perpetuate that by babbling about migrating "settings."

Re:Another Idiot

[mvdw]

I didn't RTFA, however it would be really nice if I could have a window manager in Linux that was half as brain dead as the one in Windows XP.

I wrote a little while ago a small list of things that were wrong out-of-the box with windows. I'll reproduce it here:

• No decent command-line shell container out-of-the-box (cf. xterm/rxvt/aterm/eterm/konsole etc)
• Not true multi-user (one login at once -> cf. VNC+Linux, Xwindow system etc)
• No sloppy focus
• Focussed windows are necessarily raised
• taskbar doesn't span multiple monitors
• taskbar is inflexible as a container for other apps (cf. KDE/gnome taskbar)
• Only one window manager available
• No virtual desktops
• No OOTB window roll-up
• Only one focus model

Re:Another Idiot

[TheRealSlimShady]

What about:

1. Mail History - sure it isn't hard to setup a new mail client, but can you maintain all their previously sent mail?
2. Application level settings - say you've got a bunch of Word templates that you want converted to OpenOffice format. What then?

That's two off the top of my head, I haven't even started thinking hard about this yet. Migration is important...

Re:Another Idiot

[OzRoy]

Because people like their settings. They hate using the computer, and they would rather spend their time on the computer using it instead of messing about with it.

I know a guy who has never used Linux. Always uses Windows. Just recently he installed the 64bit windows as a dual boot. Despite the fact he said 64bit windows works better for all his games he still uses the old windows for all his work because he can't be arsed setting everything up again.

Re:Another Idiot

[snorklewacker]

Do you honestly believe the average user cares about focus models or whether the taskbar is a generic container? (for which, I might add, you are 100% wrong -- adding arbitrary taskbar panels is a dead simple API).

Yep, Linux has a better window manager. How about the rest of the damn system? ... watching kswapd eat all the CPU on his server again ...

Re:Another Idiot

[mvdw]

Do you honestly believe I care what the average user thinks? Sloppy focus and focus-without-raise add enormously to my productivity, and I miss them on Windows.

As to the taskbar being a generic container, maybe it is a dead simple API, but I have yet to see anything like my KDE taskbar on a windows desktop.

The last comment you make is interesting; I would have thought that a better window manager would be the most important thing to being a better desktop...

Re:Another Idiot

[Master of Transhuman]

The average person doesn't have a bunch of Word templates (maybe the average OFFICE user does, but I doubt even that.) In any event, re-adding a template (or even ten) is a one-time minor task. Mail history is easy - there are tools to convert most mailbox formats to mbox and from there it's trivial. Granted, someone needs to know about them - it would be nice if such a tool was prominently available when a user installs Linux. I believe there are now tools to migrate much of Windows to Linux such as the OpenMoveOver Project.

Re:Another Idiot

[Master of Transhuman]

I myself have taken a long time to move completely to Linux for the same reason. That doesn't change the fact that I'd be better off getting off my butt and doing so.

It DOES take a while to get into the habit of using Linux (especially if your default dual boot is still Windows), but every time I get pissed off at some stupid Windows pet trick, I get a lot closer to dumping it totally.

Unfortunately, since I do freelance tech support, I can't afford to just yet - even though I have two machines, one is too old to run Windows XP ( I run Windows 98 and RH 7.0 on it - the newer RHs won't even install on it), so I have to continue to dual boot. When I get a newer machine than my dual boot machine, I expect to put XP on my current machine and use the new one Linux only. Maybe some months yet, unfortunately.

instead of linux it must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE, GNOME, XFCE

this has nothing to do with linux, it affects BSDs too.

Re:instead of linux it must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, he's 100% right.

The reason Joe Sixpack thinks that the Linux desktop experience sucks is because of the shortcomings of some of the window managers. KDE is solid, robust, intuitive, and S-L-O-W. GNOME is well...GNOME. XFCE is fast and stable, but too big a step away from what most users envision a desktop to look like.

It seems to me that a lot of the linux distros are betting on higher end machines being used as linux desktops, and *eventually* they will be right. Take Novell for example, if you have a decent machine (2.0 Ghz, 1 gig ram), SuSE 9.3 w/KDE 3.4 is an excellent desktop. Unfortunately, it run like crap on anything less than that, especially if you cheap out on ram.

Re:instead of linux it must be...

[linguae]

KDE, GNOME, XFCE this has nothing to do with linux, it affects BSDs too.

And, frankly, that's the biggest problem Linux faces toward desktop acceptance. No, forget Linux. That's the biggest problem Unix faces toward desktop acceptance, whether it is Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc. Unix has been dependent on the X Window System for its non-console output needs. For those of you who don't know the story, let me tell the story.

The people over X didn't agree on a single toolkit that all X applications use, and left that work to other developers. Motif was the official X toolkit for one point, but Motif was closed source and therefore not embraced by BSD and Linux developers, not to mention Motif is ugly. LessTif (a Motif clone) was developed to allow Motif developers to compile/run their apps in Linux, and some projects (notable the GIMP), created their own toolkits. Years later, a Linux user comes along and says, "Motif is ugly and hard to code in. CDE isn't very user friendly, and they're both proprietary. Imagine if we had a toolkit that was easy to develop with, and a desktop environment that's easy to use, just like Windows/Macintosh. I'll call it KDE!" So this developer starts work on KDE, which uses the QT toolkit.

Unfortunately, QT was released under a license that wasn't compatible with the GNU GPL, which is one of the most common licenses used on OSS development. So, instead of the GNU folks writing a GPL-licensed QT clone so that way they can still ethically use the growing amount of KDE applications out there, they decided to write their own toolkit and their own desktop environment. They adopted Gimp's toolkit (GTK) and started work on GNOME. Before long, users now had two competing desktop environments (KDE and GNOME), multitudes of toolkits (Motif [which became open-sourced 5 years ago], QT [which was GPL'd for OSS projects], GTK, wxWindows, GNUstep), and vast amounts of software tied to one toolkit.

The problem with getting Linux on the desktop is that even though a "Joe Average-ready" distribution (like Mandrake, Linspire, Ubuntu, or Fedora) picks a desktop environment, picks the applications (which depends on the desktop environment), and develops its own installer, we all call them "Linux," as if you can go down to the store and buy yourself a box of Linux 2.6.11. The problem with that is each distribution should be really regarded as its own OS, since each distribution may use a different desktop environment. For example, we don't call Mac OS X "FreeBSD," even though much of the underlying OS is based on FreeBSD. However, we don't refer to Mandrake or Ubuntu as "Mandrake OS" or "Ubuntu OS." The biggest problem with this all is when the user tries to install software. Let's say that the user decides to install Ubuntu on his computer. IIRC, Ubuntu uses GNOME as its main desktop environment. The user doesn't know about GTK, GNOME, Bonobo, ATK, Gail, and all of that other technical mess. However, let's say that the user has heard of a wonderful application called KOffice which meets his needs perfectly. When the user installs KOffice, he finds out that he needs to install another toolkit (all of that KDE/QT stuff) in order to run that application. When he opens KWord, he notices that everything from the buttons, the menus, and even the ordering of the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons are different than from a "native" application such as Evolution or GEdit. Being ignorant about toolkits, he then installs some other applications such as xpdf, some GTK 1.2 applications, OpenOffice (which uses its own toolkit), some Java Swing applications, and more. By the time he's finished, he would have to deal with almost a separate toolkit for each application that he's using.

The biggest problem with the Unix desktop is the X Window System. There is no consistency with the look-and-feel of applications. There is also no consistency with toolkits. Mac OS X did it right with Aqua, but Aqua isn't the X Window S

Re:instead of linux it must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no consistency with the look-and-feel of applications... Mac OS X did it right with Aqua

I recently got caught up in all the pro-Apple posts here on Slashdot, and thinking Apple must be the greatest thing since sliced bread, went out and bought a Mac Mini. My findings? As far as consistency goes, there is none. OS X is as bad or worse than windows for consistent look and feel of applications -- it seems that half the apps are brushed metal and half are plain white and there's no apparent logic behind which are which. Third party apps all look totally different (MS Media Player, Realplayer, etc.). And there doesn't seem to be any reason for Apple making "the Finder" in brushed metal, or the control panel in white. Why? Was it just developer preference? I'd much prefer a CHOICE, or at least a uniform appearance.

You'd think Apple would know enough to make their stuff consistent, since they're all about appearances and all (they're "style over substance", my Mac friend says), but they don't. And what's worse is that I have to PAY to get an app which will allow me to change my screen colors or themes to something that's not (what I consider) ugly. And there's really no choice, there's only one decent working app for theming OS X. It's sad that Windows has so much more graphic flexibility built into it than OS X does.

[offtopic rant]
And that's just one irritation. I'm finding that in many areas, OS X doesn't deserve the hype it's getting here on Slashdot. Minimize and maximize don't remember my settings, you can only resize Windows from the bottom right corner, I get the spinning beachball of death at least once a day, etc. I'm using a Mac as my main computer now, and I don't get the fuss. It's just like Windows with less apps and easier setup. But I never had a problem with setting up Windows in the first place, so what am I getting that I didn't get before? No idea.

Re:instead of linux it must be...

[ookaze]

Of course, a lot of your troll is wrong.

The lot of toolkit is a "problem" on every OS : Windows, MacOS X and others. But it would destroy your troll to admit it.

We refer to each OS by its name, without adding OS. Nobody says Windows OS, though they should, because windows have nothing to do with OS.

Anyway, if a Ubuntu users wants to install KOffice, he uses the package installer, which does and downloads everything automatically for him, without having to know anything more than KUbuntu installation guide or KOffice site tells them to do. Every commercial distribution does the same btw, so your example is completely wrong.

No user ever complained to me about "button orders", and I still wonder what crack the man that first introduced that on /. was smoking. No ordinary user I know was ever upset by button order !!!

Nor Windows nor MacOS X are more consistent than the two major DE on Linux. They all have several toolkits, but it would destroy your troll to admit it.
This is not a problem now, it won't be one later, and it surely is not what is holding Linux desktop back (if sth is holding it back).

Re:instead of linux it must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is not a problem now, it won't be one later, and it surely is not what is holding Linux desktop back (if sth is holding it back)."

You're right. What's actually holding Linux desktop back is people like you who refuse to admit that the Linux user experience is severely lacking in many ways. You turn your nose up in the air and with smug superiority declare that button order doesn't matter. Au contraire, button order does matter. Your remarks about button order pretty much epitomize in one simple statement everything that is wrong with the Linux community in regards to their user interface (or, really, their lack thereof). You don't care about human interface issues. You don't care at all about the little details like button order. These things actually do matte. If you don't believe me then do some bloody research on human interaction design. Consistency is the golden key to the city. It's so obvious it hurts to see you people so blatantly fail to get it.

You can't treat human interface design as a five minute afterthought. The user interface isn't just the eye candy you see on your screen, which seems to be what you and many developers believe. A human interface needs to be designed from the top down. This means that you define consistent human interface requirements (not by holding democratic votes on what some idiot armchair UI layman wants but by actually doing research into what works best - many people have written extensively on this topic and there are many real world examples of good UI) and then engineer your windowing environment to meet those goals, rather than engineering the windowing environment first and then beating the actual UI into a bloody pulp to get it to fit around what the engineering folks produced. And this also means throwing out the ugly, bolt-on kludges that are KDE and GTK and whatever the hell else is out there. Throw out the trash, start fresh, and actually do something that'll change the world instead of playing sloppy, half-assed catch up to the rest of the world.

The fact that there is no consistent "Unified Linux Windowing Environment: Human Interface Guidelines" document available anywhere is a telling sign of why you're facing the problems you're going to continue to face until you get it right.

Re:instead of linux it must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, judging by some of the threads I've found via Google of KDE folks arguing about usability issues I can see exactly that things like KDE aren't going to go anywhere on the desktop for a very long time... It's mind boggling. As long as you guys are in love with being able to configure every damned pixel on the screen 25,000 different ways from here to Sunday, desktop Linux will *never* be popular. Every single configuration option you introduce into software not only adds to UI complexity, it adds to support complexity, and turns into a QA nightmare. Not to mention that there's really no justifiable reason to throw in options because 2 people requested them. Really, it's not worth the time/money that it requires on the engineering end. Jesus I don't even know where to start...

Perhaps the wrong approach

[Sv-Manowar]

The article seems to suggest that the general idea of "Putting things in the "right" place for Windows users will go a long way" is something that would be beneficial to linux switchers. The many users who have switched to OS X haven't needed this, and in fact have moved to systems where menu choices and design philosophy are significantly different to windows.

The reason for this not being a problem is that things are laid out in a way that's intuitive to those who just want to perform the action, rather than perform it in the way windows does. From my experience people who mostly use macs find it harder to use windows pc's on occasion than vice versa for precisely this reason. Windows has its usabilit nuances, and cloning them doesn't help people get a better experience from using the computer

Re:Perhaps the wrong approach

[llamaluvr]

Right, but don't ya think that she's gotta point on providing some good migration tools? As I recall, that's what Apple does with that "Move2Mac" software they have. Yes, users should be prepared to learn some new paradigms, but their data will still be relevant.

Re:Perhaps the wrong approach

[asa]

The many users who have switched to OS X haven't needed this, and in fact have moved to systems where menu choices and design philosophy are significantly different to windows.

How many? A million? Two? It certainly isn't many and Apple's GUI isn't just different, it's bitchin' slick, very fast, and very capable. If anything, this bodes ill for Linux - especially if prices drop on Apple systems. With cheaper hardware, sexy boxes, and a rockin' GUI with all the unixy goodies underneath, Apple will probably pillage a significantly larger percentage of Linux users than Windows users.

That's not the point though. Linux isn't going to get a lot of distribution from OEMs. The primary opportunities are on the corporate desktop and the home desktop. If you want more of those users, make the transition from what people are currently using (overwhelmingly Windows) as easy as possible.

The reason for this not being a problem is that things are laid out in a way that's intuitive to those who just want to perform the action, rather than perform it in the way windows does.

I think you grossly understimate user habits. Even items as simple as shortcut keys being differnt can drive off a _lot_ of people.

- A

Re:Perhaps the wrong approach

[Val314]

There is a difference between switching from Windows to OS X and switching from Windows to Linux.

OS X feels different enough, so users don't expect it to behave exactly like windows.
Linix (KDE) tries to look like Windows so users expect it to behave like it. (and are pissed if it doesnt)

Re:Perhaps the wrong approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Asa is a he

Tired of the moaning

[jrcamp]

Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely tuned muscle memory.

I'm really sick about this mentality that seems to have actually increased in recent years. Everybody seems to think "well just because it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed." We should not (and will not) bow down to these kinds of gripes. The coummunity is in the business of producing better software--not equal software.

In none of these write-ups do they care to mention viruses, spyware, or other basic design flaws Windows has. Or how things seem to bit-rot over time. All they do is moan about how things in Linux are different without digging into why it might actually be a better system. Or, if not, seeing what is being developed to solve certain problems.

Don't get me wrong, Linux has a long way to come in some areas. In others it is light-years ahead. I hope more people will join in with me to celebrate Linux's strenghts while being honest about where we are lacking and how to improve.

Re:Tired of the moaning

[suwain_2]

The coummunity is in the business of producing better software--not equal software.

Moving buttons around is not better, it's just different. I'd daresay it's equal.

Devil's advocate: Random placing of the buttons forces you to actually pay attention to what you're clicking.

Re:Tired of the moaning

[natrius]

Everybody seems to think "well just because it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed."

The article wasn't supposed to be a fair analysis of Linux. New users don't give thing fair analyses. If they don't like the button order and don't want to adapt, they won't use it. That was his point.

Re:Tired of the moaning

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree - there is nothing in my experience that says that Windows is "intuitive" or "easy". The opposite in fact.

Case 1. My mother. She runs Windows and has for years. She's never installed *any* software, on the odd occasion she's needed something done, I've gone over and done it for her.

She got a new machine recently and migrated from Win98 to XP (because that's what the thing came with). Suddenly she was calling me daily to ask how to do things.

That's right - the normal user adjusts and learns and needs help to do it, even with Redmond's product.

Saying that Linux is hard to manage and Windows isn't is complete nonesence - the normal user *doesn't* do any management of their system, they just use it as it came.

Case 2. My family. I changed jobs recently (and moved cities as a result). My family followed sometime later

When they got here, I had one PC set up. Running that famously user-unfriendly distro Redhat Enterprise. No Windows

I showed the kids and the wife their logins and let 'em rip.

They surfed the web, played their DVD's, CD's etc.

I went to work.

Know how many "support" calls I got? None - not one.

They didn't notice or care that it wasn't Windows, they just got on with it.

The only complaint I had was from my son who wanted to play Age of Empires. I fired up VMware, gave him an icon and he was happy.

Fact is, most users are *not* power users or gamers. They don't futz with the system, or install new apps every second week.

They just use what it came with. So long as it continues to work they don't have any problem

In many ways the "real" home market is much more like the corporate market with "locked down" machines. People don't want or need an ever changing bag of applications and updates.

Re:Tired of the moaning

[asa]

Everybody seems to think "well just because it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed." We should not (and will not) bow down to these kinds of gripes. The coummunity is in the business of producing better software--not equal software.

I don't think "just becuase it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed" and I didn't say anything like that in my blog post. I said that if you want to get Windows users to migrate to Linux, you need to make the transition as easy as possible and that often means making some features and behaviors work like Windows.

Firefox didn't adopt IE's "be overrun by pop-ups" feature but we did adopt Ald+D to focus the addressbar. We decided it was worth more to the user to give them a pop-up free browser than to try to train them to use Ctrl+L to focus the addressbar.

It's not one or the other. Pick your battles. For linux to be successful in converting Windows users, it is going to have to make smart decisions about these kinds of issues. I can see approximately zero value in reversing the OK and Cancel buttons and I can see it being a very uncomfortable re-learning curve with a lot of pain when the user gets it wrong out of habit. Where is the value there. Why throw up that difficulty.

- A

Re:Tired of the moaning

[drsquare]

That OK/Cancel thing might not be so bad if it was consistent across Linux. But it only happens on a very small subset of programmes, meaning if you get used to it, as soon as you run another programme, it's all reversed again.

Linux needs more consistency, not less. But just as CSS is all about profit, OSS is all about ego.

Re:Tired of the moaning

[stuntpope]

Right, I was wondering how your muscles can memorize something that's semi-random. Windows' examples: Wordpad, choose File>Close with unsaved content: Default (Save) button on farthest left, buttons horizontal. Ok, so I should always mouse over to the far left of a dialog box. But wait - same application, Find dialog: buttons on right, stacked vertically. Open file: buttons on lower right, vertically, default button on top. How can I memorize something that keeps changing, unless I've also memorized every single dialog box for every situation ("now I'm about to open, so my mouse goes down here and a little bit up"). Internet Options in IE - the OK button is on the left, but not on the left border, it's more like centered. It's not muscle memory people have built up, it's just habit so that anything different looks odd.

Re:Tired of the moaning

[ookaze]

I said that if you want to get Windows users to migrate to Linux

That's the problem, "we" don't.
I say "we", because you want absolutely for the Linux community to be one entity with only one direction, when it's not.
What "we" want is more users, to have weight when asking for drivers. That does not necessarily means migrating users from Windows.

We decided it was worth more to the user to give them a pop-up free browser than to try to train them to use Ctrl+L to focus the addressbar

Well, that's cool, now what was the point ?
I didn't even know Alt+D was used to focus the addressbar in IE and Firefox.

For linux to be successful in converting Windows users, it is going to have to make smart decisions about these kinds of issues

Still the same flaws. Linux is not destined to convert Windows users. Linux is not one entity that make "smart decisions" about unknown issues. Surely, what Firefox integrate with is not a Linux issue, you didn't give any example.
Firefox don't even integrate into a Gnome of KDE desktop, it is worse to use than any other browser (galeon, epiphany, Konqueror) on these desktops.

I can see approximately zero value in reversing the OK and Cancel buttons

What is the norm ? Windows ?
Were is the reversing ? Perhaps Firefox has "OK/Cancel" buttons, but on the browsers I talked about, there are no such things : there are only "actions", and OK is not one, so you will not see it. You just showed that Firefox was not integrated with KDE or Gnome, which just tells me it is not a smart decision for users of such DEs.

I can see it being a very uncomfortable re-learning curve with a lot of pain when the user gets it wrong out of habit

Ask MacOS X users this question. People talk about simplicity of this OS, when it is so different. Like you said "Pick your battles" : you are wrong, or all the people saying MacOS X is so user-friendly and simpel are wrong.
Anyway, as none of my users never had a problem with this, I call BS on this "issue".
My wife, using Excel extensively at work, never had a problem with gnumeric (even though she uses a KDE desktop) and prefer it to any spreadsheet on Linux, even to OOo. And Gnumeric has no OK buttons, these are "Save", "Print", "Accept", ... buttons, and she hever had any problem with that.

Sure but....

[Geldon]

My girlfriend is a true Linux "user". She is is not very tech savvy, however, she loves Linux simply because she does not have to worry about things like viruses or spyware. She says she shouldn't have to worry about such things. With Linux, she doesn't. Needless to say, her Windows machine has a lot of spyware and a couple viruses on it every time I get her to let me clean it.

Re:less stupid users

[badboy_tw2002]

Depends on what you're doing. If you're a developer of ANY sort [software or hardware] almost always linux is a better choice.

Unless you're developing Windows software. Or Apple. Or XBox. Or Java and you need to test all platforms.

Some good points, but...

[Coryoth]

First of all migration is raised as an issue: "When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data."

First of all that's a steep ask, but secondly I just don't think it's necessary. If that was required for people to switch no one would ever move to Apple. It's definitely a nice idea, and in the "nice to have" category, but I don't see that it's a deal-breaker.

The second point is API stability: "A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever."

This one is fixed - if developers would actually pay attention. Autopackage allows developers to package up their application into a self installing executable that can do dependency resolution. At that point not having compat-libstdc++ is the developer/packager's fault: they ought to have included an Autopackage for it in their repository so the installer can fetch it if it finds the right version of compat-libstdc++ isn't already installed. Better still, the people at Autopackage provide relaytool which allows developers to smoothly fallback to other library versions: for example, you can have your binary use the new GTK+ file chooser if it is available, but fallback to using the old one if it isn't. Which is really saying that the problem has been solved, it's up to the developers and people releasing the software to make use of the tools available.

The third point is preferences: "Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window -- Notepad has about three."

Now that's not a great example becaue Gedit does a hell of a lot more than notepad, but I think the point is still very valid. To be fair I think GNOME has been putting in a lot of work on this front, and trying to clean a lot of these things up. That work is ongoing, and we can expect to see continuing improvment. That is, the way forward has been laid out, it's just a matter of continuing down the path.

The final point is "comfort":"The final major issue is comfort. Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users. Most people using computers today have been at it for a while now and they've been at it on Windows. Don't mess with their basic understanding of how things work."

I have to say, I think this one is a little dubious. If there is a better way of doing things why not do it? I think constraining yourself to the way Windows does things is a little pointless. There are plenty of things Windows does well, and it's fine to follow those examples, but there are plenty of things Windows does badly, and slavishly copying broken behaviour really doesn't make much sense.

I think the real point here is: be patient. I think the points are valid, but they are also largely well known, and being dealt with. Linux on the desktop is not going to "take off" anytime soon, but the rate of improvment in desktop Linux is tremendous, and it is making slow but steady inraods. Software installation (which has been the recent bugbear that people complain about) is looking quite good with Autopackage and Smart, but both of those are very new and it's going to take some time before a lot of stuff shifts over - that's life. GNOME is working hard on the preferences trim down and clean up, and, I think, is workign towards a fairly clean easy to use Desktop. KDE is headed in a different, but equally valid and interesting direction - I think the divergence is going to end up providing some real significant choice. Finally I think once all these bits properly fall into place and desktop Linux manages to make a dent in the enterprise (which seems to be where the major distros

Re:Some good points, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This one is fixed - if developers would actually pay attention

With all due respect to your autopackage project, we have all heard this line too many times before. "Hey it's fixed -- just check out this sourceforge page, or this bleeding edge kernel, or just change distros!" Yawn.

The Linux community seriously needs to realign their definition of the words "fixed" and "works" with the rest of the world before they have a chance at any sort of broader penetration.

Re:Some good points, but...

[mister_tim]

First of all that's a steep ask, but secondly I just don't think it's necessary. If that was required for people to switch no one would ever move to Apple.

But there's a difference in the way people move to Apple and the way people move to Linux. With Apple, you're buying a completely new system (some would say, a completely new experience). You buy a new desktop/laptop, new software - new everything for it.
Now, some people might move this way from Windows to Linux, i.e. buying a new computer with Linux pre-installed. However, the way most Linux advocates talk about attracting Windows users is by starting them on a dual-boot system, or installing Linux on a pre-existing Windows computer. That's a significantly different method than the way people move from Windows to Apple.
Also, Apple does provide information on their website about how you can switch from Windows, which files you need to back-up, how you can import your email, etc. Maybe some Linux distros do that already, but if not then it would be an important bridge to build.

Re:Some good points, but...

[FortranDragon]

The reason why migrating as much as possible is is a deal-breaker is friction. The smoother, the easier, the quicker people can be productive, can be *comfortable* with Linux on the desktop the easier it is to stay with Linux. The more stuff that doesn't transfer the more roadblocks you create. The more friction you create on the learning curve for a regular computer user. Too much friction is too much effort and pain. They'll simply give up (and usually have a negative opinion about Linux too -- that type of negative word of mouth advertising is to be avoided). I'd also point out that from my admittedly anecdotal experience people seem to buy a Mac as an addition to their existing Windows PC rather than as a replacement.

While you and I know where to go find our stuff and how to migrate it (by hand if need be), regular computer users won't. Nor should they. The computer is a tool to serve *them*, not something they need to fiddle with to get to work. From their point of view why should they change their way of doing things? It works for them on Windows. Just because you think your way is better (I'm sure it is for you) that doesn't mean your way is better for everyone.

I know this drives technical people nuts, but what does it really matter if someone isn't don't something the most efficient way? As long as the user is satisfied with how things work then that is sufficient. Their priorities are different and to succeed with them we need to embrace that fact. We want a computer that is tuned to us and sings. They just want to get their tasks done. As a friend of mine pithily said, "Geeks like to play with their tools, regular users want to just use their tools." :-D

Re:Some good points, but...

[mabhatter654]

The problem is not that linux needs to be as good as windows, it already is on many levels, but that it needs to be 2-3x better and more usable if we want people to 'just switch'. What everybody is noticing is that NOBODY really knows windows... we each know our own little bits and can easily ask around if we get stuck. We aren't good at windows and it's particularly difficult between versions with terrible consistancy. But everybody has learned the 'magic incantations' to keep windows barely functional... and they'd hate to do it all over again.

IN short linux needs to be almost perfect to wipe out windows.. then it has to deal with the lack of apps.. which means changing the rules of the game so users can make their own apps!!!! That requires a fundamental shift in what the developers are making... we need to be making buildable meta-tools that can be chained into an app and not worrying about tagging specific apps. In a lot of ways BeOS was closer than linux.. but the "everything is a module" [so anybody can rewrite one to drop in] means a race to the bottom is inevitable.. making commercial support shaky at best.

Re:Some good points, but...

[Chaoticmass]

"Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window -- Notepad has about three."

Windows users dont use Notepad. They use Word. They use about 1% of what Word can do. Coming from retail computer sales I can tell you, a large portion of the customers I delt with thought all computers come with Windows and Word, that Windows and Word was the same thing, or thought Word (ala Microsoft Office 2003) was a newer version of Windows. Many of them thought a computer without Word was a useless computer.

The point is, Word is so ubiquitous that people think Word is the system. They think Windows is the system. Oh, there's Mac, too, but we dont use Macs at the office.

The complexity isn't the problem. People learn to live with windows, they can learn to live with Linux.

Another big thing I see holding Linux back is how many distributions there are. There is no defacto distro. Thats part of why we love Linux, no one-size-fits-all distribution, but it'll also hamper widespread acceptance among the masses of Windows sufferers and users.

I'm optimistic though. Things like Linspire and the bootable Linux Live CDs are big steps in the right direction.

Re:Some good points, but...

[Toddlerbob]

In general, I agree with your points. I also don't think the migrating is as important, except for easily transferring documents. After all, when you get a new Windows computer, it doesn't automatically transfer settings and preferences for you, either. The Macintosh has started doing this, however.

Other than interoperability with Windows, particularly with Windows printer sharing over networks, and having a clipboard that is common to all applications, there is one big category that I think should be added to the list of four, and that is:

Discoverability.

This is not my idea, I'm not that smart, but something I picked up from an outstanding article online about the inadequacies of the CUPS web-based interface.

Discoverability means that menus and choices are so clear that, with a little fiddling, a naive user can figure out how it all works without a manual. Anyone who has used the CUPS web interface can see that it teaches absolutely nothing. It might be more convenient than editing a configuration file manually, but it is no more helpful for understanding the choices than the configuration file itself would be. Actually, some of those configuration files are well-enough documented that they are probably better than the CUPS web interface.

A lot of Linux is the same way. Sure, people can figure out the start menu, since it's usually set to act just like Windows in the most popular distributions, but what about the control panel? There's no way that it can teach you anything, whereas Windows is almost annoyingly helpful with little messages that ask opinions and outline choices. Some Linux applications suffer from the same lack of discoverability.

Re:Some good points, but...

[Coryoth]

IN short linux needs to be almost perfect to wipe out windows.

Wiping out Windows isn't even close to a realistic goal. All I would hope for is that Linux gets sufficient desktop share that we can expect hardware makers to supply Linux drivers and ensure Linux compatability, and that software vendors bother to release Linux compatible versions of their software. That's not a huge ask - we're talking getting to the 5%-10% desktop share to make that happen.

I think Linux is on the right track, but free software cna be slow at some things (and fast at others), and desktop Linux requires some slow shifts. Be patient and it will happen. Will it destroy Windows? No. Will it be a viale alternative with significant enough market share that people actually pay attention? Eventually, yes.

Jedidiah.

Re:Some good points, but...

[asa]

"n general, I agree with your points. I also don't think the migrating is as important, except for easily transferring documents. After all, when you get a new Windows computer, it doesn't automatically transfer settings and preferences for you, either. "

Actually it does. I used it twice this year. It's called the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard" and it's available for all XP users.

But that's somewhat beside the point. The point is that Linux isn't in a position to be delivered to most people via a new machine (just as Firefox didn't have that luxury). It's because of this fact, that Linux will probably be installed on existing systems, not from the factory on new systems, that migration is so important.

- A

Re:Some good points, but...

[asa]

f that was required for people to switch no one would ever move to Apple.

This is the third or forth time I've seem mention of this on this thread. I think you all overestimate the number of people switching to Apple. How many users have they actually taken from Windows? A million? Two million? It certainly isn't much more than that. I know it's apples to oranges, but Firefox gets about that many IE switchers _every_week_. How did we go from one or two million users total just a couple of years ago to many tens of millions of users today? In part by making it work the way IE users expected it to work (without dropping innovative and powerful features like tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking.)

If there is a better way of doing things why not do it? I think constraining yourself to the way Windows does things is a little pointless.

Why not do it? Because users don't like change. Because sometimes habit and comfort are more important than making it marginally better. Unless you can make a dramatic value addition for the user, change is probably a bad idea.

I think desktop Linux is looking good, and it's just a matter of time before it manages to carve out its niche.

I'm a big fan of Linux (and Mac and Windows, too) and I want it to be successful. I didn't write a blog post saying "Linux can't and won't succeed," I tried to point out the areas that I think are conditions for its success. I think there's a big opportunity pre-longhorn to show that we've got the right stuff. That window is closing and things will be much more difficult after that. I think it's dangerous for us to think "it's just a matter of time."

- A

Re:Some good points, but...

[Coryoth]

I'm a big fan of Linux (and Mac and Windows, too) and I want it to be successful. I didn't write a blog post saying "Linux can't and won't succeed," I tried to point out the areas that I think are conditions for its success. I think there's a big opportunity pre-longhorn to show that we've got the right stuff. That window is closing and things will be much more difficult after that. I think it's dangerous for us to think "it's just a matter of time."

All I'm trying to say is that, barring the migration stuff (which I agree is a good idea), everything you discuss is in the works.

You can't get the whole Linux community to switch to a new system for packaging non-distro supplied software overnight - it's a loose collection of people all running in their own directions. The tools are all there and eventually momentum will carry the day, but it won't be immediate.

Paring down and cleaning up a desktop environment is no small task, but it has been a large focus for GNOME developers for some time now (ever since 2.0 in fact) and huge gains have been made and are continuing to be made.

I don't think either of those issues are amenable to be hurried by telling people to fix these things, because they either already have done the work and are waiting for the community shift to occur, or they already are working quite hard on the issues.

What it comes down to is this: If "Linux" (by which I mean the whole messy agglomeration of open source tools) were a single project with a single directed focus (or perhaps all under the umbrella of a single company) then this might work: send around a mandate that everyone needs to make autopackages and follow the GNOME HIG religiously. "Linux" isn't a single project, or even ten single projects - it's the bringing together of hundreds or even thousands of different little projects that, while they share a lot of code and effort, all have their own agendas and directions and ideas about how things should be done. There is no central authority for the mess of projects that is Linux, and that means you have to wait for the whole community to work it' way around to shifting. The tracks have been laid we just have to wait for the train to get in gear.

Jedidiah.

Re:Some good points, but...

[mabhatter654]

I'm not out for destroying windows, but breaking the monopoly pretty much shows the "emporer with no clothes" I think the push for open standards and "co-op-etition" should be first.. things like OO.org, Firefox, PHP, MySQL, Apache, etc that show the best of OSS wherever the user may be. Common & Open Data standards and communications protocols is the way to go. One thing I'm shocked to not see is that a group like SAMBA hasn't taken the fight to MS and created tools to help windows PCs interoperate better with THEM!! Pushing web standards would help too... 75% of what people do anymore is web based.. With Firefox being Free it's no reason to cut the IE strings and just start doing it right.. of course work to keep Safari, KHTML, and firefox in sync with features roadmaps so pages for one work for all easily!! The next step is to make using common programs EXACTLY THE SAME when you change OSes.. The absolute worst thing right now are missing features or poor intgration between versions of the same program on different OSes. Firefox extensions that ONLY work in windows, or OO.org features "half baked" in the linux version. Thats's what I mean by the experience has to be BETTER than windows.. so there's no pain when using common OSS apps on linux after learning them on windows.

like your site too!

Re:Some good points, but...

[aonic]

Part of the problem is that there are so many linux distributions that it's daunting. Case in point: The LinuxISOs FAQ says,
"Which Distribution Is The Best?

Yeah, right. The best distribution is whichever one that You think is best. I suggest that you install and try as many different distributions as you can."

I consider myself a poweruser, but that statement alone is enough to turn me away from even using linux as my main OS. It's like getting the response "don't use FTP, it's insecure" when asking what FTP server to use on your brand new linux install -- it doesn't answer the question.

Linux people are too idealistic. The second they put pragmatism over idealism is the second they can start getting desktop marketshare.

Re:Some good points, but...

[pherthyl]

*sigh*..

There are no "linux people", just like there are no "windows people". Aside from happening to use the same OS, there isn't anything saying they have similar views. No one goes around saying "banana people" are so stuck up and "grapefruit people" are much more relaxed. I don't get why people love lumping all Linux users in the same pile.

Re:Some good points, but...

[dogfull]

dude,

you do realize that switching back and forth beween browsers is a fair bit easier than switching between different desktops, let alone operating systems? Since the latter requires stuff like rebooting, partitioning, installing a bootloaders, and configuring and installing software?

If anything, that is why FF is so wildly more popular than GNU/Linux desktop. It's damm easy to switch

Re:Some good points, but...

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes, it's not "fixed", not by any stretch of the imagination. It'll hopefully be fixed several years from now when Linux developers know of autopackage as well as they know of RPM today, and there is a culture of developers being expected to provide them just as they are expected to provide a GNU autotooled source tarball today.

Anybody can help with this process, by pushing autopackage towards critical mass. That means asking developers of your favourite projects to provide them.

Incidentally, if Asa is reading this, there has been a Firefox autopackage for ages but the Mozilla developers refuse to accept it upstream!

Re:Some good points, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big fan of Linux

When I read lines like this I always itch to ask:

What is it exactly you like about Linux? It is not a troll question, just curious. Everybody lately is a big fan of linux. But what makes you love it so much to sit in front of it 20 hours a day, forget your girlfriend and family?

Is it the ease of use? The flexibility? The freedom you feel to modify it to your likes? The polymorphic nature of Linux? The sense of wonder at the power at your fingertips? Its remote administration capabilities to manage firewalls in all the corners of the world? The powerful and succint shell script language? The embedded possibilities? The Crontab? The security? The lack of virii? The choice? The possibility to make your OS better? The ability to play with your computer, mold it into everything you like? The sense of discovery? What? What is it that makes you crazy about It and takes your breath away?

Or is it just the fact that it is free (as in beer)?

Re:Some good points, but...

[L.Bob.Rife]

I consider myself a poweruser, but that statement alone is enough to turn me away from even using linux as my main OS. It's like getting the response "don't use FTP, it's insecure" when asking what FTP server to use on your brand new linux install -- it doesn't answer the question.

The problem is, its not a black and white world, where one linux distro is good, and ALL the rest of them are inferior. There are a thousand different distros because thousands of people have different goals and ideas of what works best. "There is no best", is a perfectly reasonably answer that should make you read some descriptions and apply some critical thinking skills to make your own choices rather than be force-fed along one path. Thats what linux is all about, and if you get turned off by that statement, then yeah, you are right, linux isnt for you.

Linux people are too idealistic. The second they put pragmatism over idealism is the second they can start getting desktop marketshare.

Idealism is bad? Marketshare is good? Really? Marketshare... matters?

P.S. Dont use ftp, its not secure, use scp or sftp

Re:Some good points, but...

[aonic]

But it's gotten to the point where nobody would even give me a recommendation. Normal users aren't going to spend the time to research every linux distro. Not everyone can take a week out of their life to try them all and figure out which one they like best. Worst of all, if you make a bad choice, you're stuck unless you want to uninstall everything and start over. It's not something that i'm (or most people, i'd imagine) are willing to go through. And no, idealism isn't bad, until it starts to hurt your ability to use a system. I used to spout mac rhetoric like there was no tomorrow, but eventually I realized that my apple propaganda wasn't going to get me connected to my school's 20 different fileservers without a ton of work that I wasn't willing to deal with.

Re:Some good points, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Linux because it works and I don't have to mess with it too much. Remote administration via ssh is also very useful. Also, error messages are quite well documented, so when something does go wrong, I can quickly search google to figure out how to fix it, as opposed to the numberous mystery errors in Windows that nobody has an explanation for.

But the main thing is it mostly works out of the box. After installing, I had to fiddle with the network settings a bit, and additionally download a few multimedia-related components (MPlayer binary codec packs) but this was a lot less than the list of things I had to do last time I set up a Windows box, such as: Install security patches, install a ssh client, install a decent web browser (Firefox), install a C compiler, install a decent media player, fix a few dozen 'idiot' settings like 'hide file extensions'... Windows is a major pain in the ass. Why put up with that when I can just use Linux?

Re:Some good points, but...

[fishfinger]

One of my main reasons is if something does cause an error, with a little investigation you can usually get to the bottom of any problems instead of the Windows approach to errors:

"Windows Error!
Something has caused problem deep within in the
depths of this operating system, this is as much
information as you are getting, now f00k off!"

Re:Some good points, but...

[nickco3]

First of all migration is raised as an issue: "When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data."

The irony is Linux is much better than Windows at this. When you buy a new Windows PC it's next to impossible to migrate all that stuff over from your old one. The files are all in different places, who knows where each app puts all your user data. You have to keep the old hard disk laying around just in case you've missed one out.

On the four or so occassions I've traded up my Linux PC, all I've had to do is copy over my home directory, and it's ready to go. All my email, Gaim, WWW bookmarks and Firefox settings, KDE and Gnome preferences, Usenet groups, even ssh keys. My home dir contains 214 files and directories that start with a '.' nearly every one of them the result of an application that saved my user data in a sane and easily managed location.

Re:Some good points, but...

[Khelder]

If there is a better way of doing things why not do it? I think constraining yourself to the way Windows does things is a little pointless.

Why not do it? Because users don't like change. Because sometimes habit and comfort are more important than making it marginally better. Unless you can make a dramatic value addition for the user, change is probably a bad idea.

This is one of the things that makes user interface design hard: most users say, "Make it better. But don't change it."

Unless you can make a dramatic value addition for the user, change is probably a bad idea.

I agree completely. Most of the time, for people to change what they use for anything, the new thing doesn't have to be a little bit better, it has to be a lot better. And in ways they can see and appreciate.

Re:Some good points, but...

[ubuntu]

This is the third or forth time I've seem mention of this on this thread. I think you all overestimate the number of people switching to Apple. How many users have they actually taken from Windows?

Absolutely. The people talking about a mass migration to Macs are mostly already Mac people seeing things from a Mac person's perspective (ie, biased toward Macs). I for one am moving AWAY from Apple to Linux. I've used Macs for a long time, and despite what the fanboys here proclaim, Macs are NOT perfect. Far from it. After recently discovering Ubuntu (and snagging the nym!), I can honestly say that after much testing, I *STRONGLY PREFER* Gnome and Ubuntu to OS X.

p.s. Mac migration estimates are skewed by the previous mass migration away from Macs during the really bad years, and even more when "the great hope", OS X Beta, came out and really sucked and was so un-Mac-like that a lot of Maccies moved to Windows instantly. Many of them are moving back now that OS X is finally getting decent and is comparable to XP. But I only know one Windows user who switched out of hundreds of friends -- and only because he *only* uses his computer for web surfing (with the world's greatest browser, Firefox, natch), so he might as well use an OS that has no viruses. I've tried to convert hundreds of people to Mac over the years, but only one actually ever did it.

Re:Some good points, but...

[asa]

If anything, that is why FF is so wildly more popular than GNU/Linux desktop. It's damm easy to switch

And that's my point. Linux needs to be easier to switch! The more you can improve this, the more users you'll get.

- A

if you don't help newbies...

[yagu]

From the post:

needs to do to get there for the "regular user" AKA mom, dad and grandma Bootsie

(First off, I'm a little nervous about how the OP knew my grandma's name.)

If you don't help newbies with linux, especially ones not very technical, then linux may not be ready for mom, dad, and grandma. Applying this standard implies also then Windows is not ready for mom, dad, and grandma. I've spent countless hours (that I can't charge, and I'll NEVER get back) fixing, re-installing, helping, instructing, etc. in a support role for my parents from Windows 95 through Windows XP.

And, guess what? They're still struggling. Part of this stems from the fact they missed the technical revolution (and lest you diss my parents, one is a Doctor, the other is a Concert Violinist, played in the Pittsburgh Symphony). But most of it stems from the intractable problem of rendering technology intuitive and transparent to the lay-person.

Interestingly this problem plagues both Windows and linux. Interestingly, for Windows what I've found in coaxing my parents along the learning curve is Microsoft has done much if not most to make Windows obfuscated to my parents. Each new generation has left them re-learning pieces of the environment they had just about almost mastered... (they were this close!)

But, I do think linux is up to the desktop task for many who use the internet for mostly surfing, e-mail, quick word docs, and simple spreadsheets. And I think linux actually fares better simply for the rock solid reliability. I haven't set up my parents with linux because I live 2000 miles away from them, so I'm a little paranoid that should something really bizarre happen, I wouldn't know who to have help them, while with Windows, though it demands more support, if I'm not available, there's always some quasi-pseudo expert ready to jump in and "fix" things.

However I have set up others with linux, and I've been amazed... the support calls simply stop! This is for people who satisfy the above criteria: internet surfers; e-mail junkies; and simple "office" tasks. The linux just works. There's probably a larger demographic out there that could use linux than most people think.

Re:if you don't help newbies...

[TheOrquithVagrant]

I have very similar experiences to yours when it comes to moving office/email/web-focused users to Linux - the need for help practically disappears. Once set up, it Just Works(tm).
About your parents and the long distance support - I suggest creating a live CD which is properly configured for their broadband connection, and has an SSH account set up for you.
That way, almost no matter how fuxxored their machine gets, they'll still be able to boot it on the CD, and allow you to log in and see (and probably fix, unless it's a dead hd or similar) what the problem is. Works great, and I've fixed some really massacred systems with this kind of rescue disk.

Re:if you don't help newbies...

[mlylecarlin]

"I've spent countless hours (that I can't charge, and I'll NEVER get back) fixing, re-installing, helping, instructing, etc. in a support role for my parents from Windows 95 through Windows XP."

So have I, but last year I convinced my mother and brother to get iBooks. Guess how much time I've spent in the support role since then. Really, guess.

.
.
.

The answer is, not 30 minutes. I didn't even have to help my mother do anything. My brother, your classic Joe User (though, I point out, a geologist/biologist and smarter than a lot of qualified geeks on this site), gave her the 5 minute highlight reel of things as he did them on *his* new iBook, and she was off on her own.

Seriously, they both went off on their own without any additional support from me. They had wireless internet access without configuration tweaks or pesky connection hiccups, they had office tools out of the box and could easily install Ms Office (okay, I did that, but it was push-button), and most importantly they had *no confusing useability issues whatsoever*.

To quote my brother: "Now when I want to know how to do something, I just think about how I would want to do it intuitively, and that is almost always how it's done."

Asa said the OS X switches are a drop in the bucket compared to the Firefox switches, and he's right, but give it 5 or so years for the old Apple fear to wear off, and I think Apple switches will trump all else.

Really, Linux is hopelessly lost on the useability front. I'm one of the aforementioned "windows power users", and I *do* understand a lot of what's going on behind the screen, because I'm a goddamned programmer, and yet, after several serious attempts with different distros on different machines, after reading and learning a whole lot to understand the shell and as much of the underlying system as I could stand to read about, I still can't get comfortable with Linux. Oh, it's a blast not to have even the spectre of viruses or spyware, but it's just-not-a-comfortable-system-to-use. I'm going to go ahead and say that if I can't get used to it after many, many days attempting to actually learn it, the vast majority of people aren't ever going to get used to it. That means the vast majority of people aren't ever going to use it.

God I hate these articles

[wyldeone]

These same articles have been spewing out for pretty much all of the time that linux has been a major os. Each one adds little to the rest (and this one is no exception); they focus on several things: the difficulty of installing applications, the difficulty of migrating from windows, and the need to resort to the command lines. For the first, in any modern distro installing applications is much easier than it is in windows. In windows, if I want to install an application, I have to find the download, download it, double click the icon, then click "next" a whole bunch of times. Then I likely will be asked to reboot. On linux it's either apt-get install xxx or yum install xxx. And if you're not comfortable with the commandline, there're several guis available (the best IMO is synaptic.) Which one is more daunting? For the second, these people generally complain that the KDE or Gnome desktop is not exactly like windows. This is true. However, I would say that this is a good thing; certaintly the windows desktop shell is not perfect, or anywhere near perfection, and steps to make it better are not a bad thing. I have seen poor computer users pick up KDE in a few hours. For the third, this is also false. Nearly every task which an ordinary user would be doing has a gui; even more outlandish things such as setting up a web server or ftp daemon have guis. For doing the stuff that most computer users do it is never needed to go to the command line. While it's true that some things are difficult to do on linux for an ordinary computer user, things like setting up a mail server, web server, etc., how many people actually do that on windows? It's not something that the normal desktop user will do. Linux on the desktop is ready. We have a free version of every major application group (office, graphics, music, etc.), the interfaces are easier than ever to use (look at the KDE command center). We just have to get people using it.

Re:God I hate these articles

[Anonymous Coward]

"On linux it's either apt-get install xxx or yum install xxx."

No it isn't. On linux, you have to find the package, figure out what parameter to pass to apt-get, run apt-get, and hope everything goes right.

Re:God I hate these articles

[alucinor]

The problem with package managers is that you generally need to have some idea of what you're looking for first, and usually this comes with browsing the web. Oh sure, there's categories and descriptions, but what average user wants to try out each and every app?

No, what someone looking for an app is going to want to do is either:

1) Buy it in a store.
2) Search the web for what people are saying is the best app for the job.

(1) is pretty much not in the picture for Linux right now, but if someone goes with (2), wouldn't it be convenient to just download your app off the internet, instead of opening up a package manager? That's really become the standard way of getting software -- for most users, apart from buying it.

But no ... unless it's RedHat or Debian, you'll probably not find your package online ... and if you do, you have to know it's the right version.

Plus, to get all the software you need, a user has to add repositories and whatnot usually. Of course, then, the more repos you add, the more likely your package manager is going to eventually have an issue. Then what? Then you'll end up having to wget and dpkg something, yadda-yadda.

Sure, this is fine for peeps like you and me, but is it easy? Is it desktop-ish? Nah. It's fine for people use to the command line, but this article (and the whole concept of desktop OS) is about abstracting past the command line into easy universal metaphors.

Not arcane incantations of geeky power :)

Re:God I hate these articles

[OpenServe]

We just have to get people using it.
More precisely, we just have to get businesses using it. But it's not quite that simple because businesses are too dependant on MS Office and a boat-load of ugly, custom "point solutions" which don't work well but get the job done if you hammer on them long enough.
What we need are modern Open Source web apps written in Java (not PHP, Perl, or Python) that target real business needs and are modular enough to be used in diverse situations. We need modular but easily integrated solutions. We need to replace MS Office not only with OpenOffice but with web-based document production systems that eschew the whole concept of "document files" that combine content, formatting, and style. Innovative business software is the killer app of Open Source -- not a perfect Linux desktop environment with perfect application knock-offs of all the old-fashioned MS stuff.

Re:God I hate these articles

[Anonymous Coward]

"For the first, in any modern distro installing applications is much easier than it is in windows. In windows, if I want to install an application, I have to find the download, download it, double click the icon, then click "next" a whole bunch of times. Then I likely will be asked to reboot. On linux it's either apt-get install xxx or yum install xxx."

If I want to install something in Windows, I go to download.com, download the setup.exe I need, double click, and click 'next' a few times. Voila. No command line BS.

In Linux, I have to search packages.debian.org for the packages I want, add the servers to my sources file, option up a command prompt and type apt-get install foo.

Linux is easier? Ha. You Linux zealots make me laugh.

Re:God I hate these articles

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is easier? Ha. You Linux zealots make me laugh.

Enjoy your spyware, trojans, adware, viruses, and adding to the MS Empire. For the rest of us, Linux is worth it. Who's laughing at whom?

what about Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt that Windows is ready for desktop either.

Re:less stupid users

[OzRoy]

You didn't actually read the article did you?

Forget windows, forget OSX, forget whatever OS people happen to be using. The point is users are comfortable, and don't want to change because what they do with their computer "Just Works", and that is something that has never been achieved by Linux.

Linux has never reached the "It Just Works" stage. I have been using linux for years and sometimes installing software is a pain in the butt. "You require X library", "You have X library, but you require Y version". As soon as I upgrade 1 library 10 other bits of software stops working!

Now I know how to solve those problems, and I know why certain quirks happen, but why should anyone else have to deal with that shit? Those people are not stupid, they are not ignorant, and they are not lazy. They just DON'T CARE! And they shouldn't have to care because they already have a system that "Just Works".

We don't need better man pages, or instructions, because no one reads them! I have never ever read a manual for windows software, why does linux force me to read the manual all the time?

Now I like linux. I think it has great potential, but in all the years I have used it I have yet to see it really progress in the areas it has to, and I'm not going to wait any more. As soon as the x86 Macs are out, I am migrating.

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

No, being able to use it isn't the problem. It's the time it takes to use. I'm sure as a (open source) software developer, you have no time constraints and are on no schedule. But, in a real live corporate environment, I don't have the time to compile everything I download. I don't have the time to try to figure out for two hours why my video drivers aren't working. I don't have the time to dick around with Linux.

Re:less stupid users

[beelsebob]

Yes, it precicely *is* why people get trojans viruses, backdoors and malware.

People don't want to bother with jumping through hoops to make thinks work, and the unfortunate fact is that if their boss sends them an email with a 'little thing that shows them the stock price of the company' they just want to see it quickly without jumping through hoops to make it work...

They neither understand nor care that the 'little thing that shows them stock prices' also spies on them and makes their computer spam people. All they care is that if their boss sends it it just runs.

Unfortunate, but true.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

um.... What is "windows" or "apple" software?

I write portable software that "just builds" on the platforms...

Oh yeah, because I'm not some bandwagon jumping lunatic and can reason that something as mature as C is a good bet [and effective].

Just to give you a hint: My libtom projects are tested on [right now] a dual-core AMD64 box running Gentoo. I started the projects on an athlon t-bird running cygwin in windows. I didn't "port" the code to linux when I made the jump and I don't "port" the code to windows now.

The code I've written btw... is used on ALL THREE of xbox, playstation and gamecube, it's also used in wireless routers and other embedded platforms. *none* of which I've ever developed for.

This is the trick behind designing proper software and "hacking together" a solution with TLAs and trendy tools.

Part of the big move to linux from windows [XP at the time] was not only that Linux is often more stable [yes it has it's moments but once you get it working it's better] but that the userland experience is so much better. The shell [in this case bash] is also a heck of a lot nicer than "cmd.exe", etc, etc, etc.

Once you learn to make good use of a *nix like desktop you'll question using windows.

Tom

Well gee

[xenocide2]

Thanks for sharing your valuable insights. I mean, it's not like there isn't four or five major companies selling Linux and addressing these very issues! They know that it's important to allow people a migration path, all the other areas this guy has pointed out, and many more.

Talk is cheap, and the biggest thing that Linux lacks as a desktop is Dedication, Effort and Commitment.

I'm glad that this vindicates me...

[bogaboga]

I feel glad about this because when I tried to press the Linux world into adopting autopackage http://autopackage.org/, a good number of slashdotters modded me down while others said autopackge does not solve the underlining issue. Granted but...

Guys, Joe Six Pack just wants things to get done. The current rpm hell does not cut, it and even Debian's apt still has a hell of problems. Time has come for the Linux world to do something about software installation on Linux. For an average user, there is just too much information.

Consider this: If one wants to install =package-name=, this user will be presented with the same package for at least six major distros. Heck, as an average user, I thought I used Linux! Sadly, on the desktop, Linux might never fly!

Re:I'm glad that this vindicates me...

[marchetta]

what about kde packages ? autopackage at that time seem to support only GNOME grrr

One word Games.

[bxbaser]

Linux will be ready for desktop when you can simply install the latest game and play it.
My take on this is flame away if you must I am a freebsd user for just about everything but games for that i need windows.
My dad a few weeks ago was asking me about bsd I directed him to download a live cd.
He rebooted to cdrom and was up and using the desktop all was great he was having no trouble at all using it,then he said what games can i play.
I told him all the same games you play now just reboot to windows.
I know you can use wine but for the casual user , they dont want to muck around they just wanna play.

I for one am getting kind of sick of this

[dsci]

What is this about Linux not being ready for 'average users?'

There are 'average users' all over the world using Linux. I know of 8 year olds, elderly folks who are not guru geeks, etc who use Linux daily. Without looking back to MS.

The point, imo, should be about CHOICE - use the OS that is best for you. For me, and a whole of people, that choice is Linux. For others, it never will be.

With modern distros, the Linux problems of even 5 years ago are largely unimportant.

Linux is more ready than Windows

[AuMatar]

What does the average Joe need in a computer? He needs to be able to run a word processor, a spreadsheet, an email client, and a web browser. He needs nice easy to click icons to run those. He needs to be able to automaticly download upgrades. He needs to be able to do so without worrying about security, with some level of stability, and without having to do a lot of administration.

Lets go down the list.

Word processor- check. OO is a fine word processor. It does everything Joe User needs to do. It just does so differently than Office

Spreadsheet- check. OO again

Email client- check. Evolution or Thunderbird

Web browser- check. mozilla and firefox

Easy to click icons- check. Under Gnome or KDE

Automatic updates- check. The distro just needs to add a cron job to get all available uipdates at 3 am every morning

Security- check, and far better than Windows

Stability- check. And when programs do crash, they don't crash the OS. And rarely crash the WM. Better than windows

Administration- check. Distros set everything you need up for you. And the Admin programs with distros tend to be easier than the Windows control panel.

If given a pre-installed computer, Linux fits Joe User's needs better than Windows does. Even installing it isn't too bad- distros will pick defaults for you, and take away the choice of WM, email client, etc.

What some people seem to want is for Linux and all its apps to become an exact Windows clone. For there to be a magical 0 learning curve. This won't happen, and it shouldn't happen. Linux does things differently, many times for good reason. If you use a new system, you need to relearn it. Just like they had to learn Windows at one time. If anything its easier this time around- many of the concepts in Windows transfer over.

Re:Linux is more ready than Windows

[Mojo Trolljo]

You're missing some stuff in the list that I think should fit under what a Joe User needs.

The big thing is 3rd party vendor support, for even ubiquitous things like broadband, or devices like printers, video cards, wifi, memory sticks, cameras, etc. Many of these are not officially supported, have varying degrees of usability under linux (usually pretty terrible).

As much as I like free software, it doesn't jive with propietary formats like DVD css, mp3, and others. Makes it a hassle, or even legally shady to get these working.

Re:Linux is more ready than Windows

[AuMatar]

Broadband support, ok. Printers have vendor support for many vendors. VIdeo cards? Joe user uses what came with the box. Wifi? Same as broadband, and Joe User pays someone to set it up. Cameras? Half point here, most people don't have a difital camera.

There are distros out there where once its installed, the only ones that may be an issue are printers and cameras. And a good distro will set up the print server at install, so that leaves cameras.

Re:Linux is more ready than Windows

[renoX]

>Word processor- check.
Untrue, compatiblity with Word is not yet good enough and it is quite heavy (in 1.2 version, I'll try 2.0 when it will be stable)

>Stability- check.
Could be improved: while the kernel is stable, many application are not very good, which for a desktop is nearly the same thing.

>Administration- check.
*Very debatable*, many things are rougher due to bad HW support (non-redistributable firmware for example, closed source drivers).
But some configuration are also much too difficult, for example the configuration of a QWERTY keyboard to get accent with compose key is a nightmare..
Quite often when you want to do something not so common, you get in the gray area where it becomes *very difficult* poorly documented, poorly integrated: KDE/Gnome does it thing, X does its thing and it's very difficult to sort the mess..

Windows while poorly documented seems a bit more polished, not that it don't have poor decisions too: the guy who decided to hide 'Open with..' unless you do shift+right click should be shot.

The answer is simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Bye bye Karma...)

In the other two major desktop OSs things just work.

Her Key point

[Crashmarik]

Software installation is the killer. You need to be able to get software for linux load it and have it work. You can go out to simtel download dos or win 3.1 software and just plug it into windows and it just works. (Printing maybe not) but overall its grab and go with the binaries and you don't worry abit about what libary versions are installed on your system.

The one thing that she missed thats a corrolary to her key point and is something that both windows and linux need. More consistent and transparent, configuration/management tools. Windows would do wonders for itself by dumping the registry and bringing back the ini files and centralizing them. Linux could do wonders by actually forcing configuration files to be standard and clearing out the cruft in distributions. Theres no reason to have an iptables configuration in /etc if its not being used.

A fine post and everything but...

[flithm]

how the hell did you get first post with so much freakin' writing?

Did you type this up ages ago, just waiting for the day you could get first post with this?

As for my comments on your fine post:

I recently installed Linux on my non-computer literate girlfriend's computer. She was always afraid of Linux because whenever she tried to use my computer it was nothing like Windows.

I put on a nice easy to use distro, set her up with KDE, and let her go to town. She's now using GIMP, uses it for all her photographic needs (scanning, digital camera). She even sighs when she has to reboot to Windows.

She was amazed at the little things, like how cut 'n paste works. I could tell she was thinking "why wasn't it always this easy?"

Or how she can resize an entire "folder" of images with a couple of clicks and no fuss.

I really don't think it's so much a matter of Linux offering nothing of value that Windows doesn't, because that's simply not true. Linux has tons to offer the average person that Windows doesn't.

The major problem, as I see it, is that it requires changing the way you think about using a computer.

When I first started using Linux I got very frustrated for a while, simply because my mind is notoriously bad for resisting change. It didn't like having to re learn such simple stuff. In fact in the beginning I kind of felt like I was a prisoner to my computer. I no longer knew how it worked at all. No idea! How do things run at startup? How do I add a printer? It was all this huge mystery.

And then, even beyond that, everything is just Done Differently. You really have to change your mindset to become a fully functioning *nix/*BSD user.

For a lot of people that's a really hard thing to do. But the funny thing is it really doesn't take that long. No longer than a week later my girlfriend was installing her own applications, updating her system, etc.

Anyway I don't want to give the impression I don't agree with what you said, because that really was a good and well thought out post. For the most part I agree with what you said, I just wanted to add that.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[kahanamoku]

> how the hell did you get first post with so much freakin' writing?

'The Next Slashdot Story Is Ready.... Subscribers Can See It Early'

Just maybe???

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[flithm]

Must be it. I was kind of under the impression that all the fr1st p0st nazis also had subscriptions, but what do I know.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[anagama]

I recently installed Linux on my non-computer literate girlfriend's computer. ... She even sighs when she has to reboot to Windows. She was amazed at the little things, like how cut 'n paste works. I could tell she was thinking "why wasn't it always this easy?"

Personally, I believe the only reason "linux is not ready for the desktop" is the mindset people have that says "linux is not ready for the desktop". I have had similar experiences over the last couple years and with every new release of distros, things seem to get better and better. So much of a new install is automagically handled now, I fear that in a couple years, using linux is going to stop being cool -- there just isn't much to do to make it work anymore.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Rutulian]

When I first started using Linux I got very frustrated for a while, simply because my mind is notoriously bad for resisting change. It didn't like having to re learn such simple stuff. In fact in the beginning I kind of felt like I was a prisoner to my computer. I no longer knew how it worked at all. No idea! How do things run at startup? How do I add a printer? It was all this huge mystery.

I agree with this 100%. My first linux experience was exactly the same way. Where is autoexec.bat? How do I set my PATH? Where are my programs? It takes a while, but now that I am used to it, it is very painful to have to use Windows/DOS. Now when I started using linux, I had only dabbled a little with Win 95/98. I hadn't become proficient in the "new Windows." So that probably made a big difference. The linux desktop has really caught up to WinXP and MacOSX in recent months, so now I wouldn't say the learning curve is all that steep, but a year and half ago it was.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Jugalator]

No, he doesn't have an asterisk next to his name to indicate he's a subscriber. the_mad_poster (640772), that is.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Anonymous Coward]

She was amazed at the little things, like how cut 'n paste works. I could tell she was thinking "why wasn't it always this easy?"

Are you both nuts? Control+C & Control+V. NEXT!

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[fwitness]

"Or how she can resize an entire "folder" of images with a couple of clicks and no fuss"

Um, how does she do that? I've been trying for weeks with no success. Windows *or* linux. I've been trying to script imagemagik to do it but I haven't had the time to learn it well enough.

Is this something related to the GIMP? Because I haven't seen this...yet.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Sloppy]

how the hell did you get first post with so much freakin' writing?

That post is one of TMP's recent journal entries.

BTW, TMP is one of my favorite ranters on Slashdot, but this one .. I don't know. It just isn't angry enough. I wish some Linux-using republican would tailgate The Mad Poster for ten minutes, then pass him on the right-side shoulder while going 90 mph, revealing a bumper sticker on the back of their SUV, showing a penguin flipping him off. Then maybe we'd get a better rant.

C'mon, TMP, lay off the prozac.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[donnz]

or middle mouse button & middle mouse button...shesh, NEXT

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[flithm]

Oh actually it's a program called picwiz she installed that integrates itself into konqueror. She just clicks on a folder, or selects a bunch of files, right clicks, and selects resize images.

Pretty slick.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Daniel Baumgarten]

The major problem, as I see it, is that it requires changing the way you think about using a computer.

Bingo.

Linux will never be "ready for the desktop" in the sense that it will never be Windows.

At least I hope that it will never be Windows. I look at KDE nowadays and I kinda go, "Eh..."

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So your bimbo girlfriend does nothing but edit pics and scan on a system you set up and administer for her, and that's your rationale for Linux being ready for the desktop for mom and pop.

Stop talking garbage about Linux never crashing. If it never crashes it's because you never do anything with it. There are reasons to use Linux, but I've had more stability, crash and configuration issues with Linux than I ever have with Windows...and I have no love of Windows.

The "It's magical and it works for me and if it doesn't for you, then you're stupid" mentality is EXACTLY why Linux has gotten nowhere on the desktop.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really see how any Windows user would be amazed by how "little things, like how cut 'n paste works" in linux, since this particular feature is one of the defining Windows characterics and at the same time a NIGHTMARE in Linux. Gimp is fine for the amateur user, but there's no comparisor whatsoever with stuff like Photoshop; it's almost like comparing Quanta to Dreamweaver.

There are numerous little things in Linux that either don't work for the average user, or they require a phd in IT to configure properly. Even the browser, a flagship of today's distros, is nothing like Firefox version for Windows, since plugins crash/malfunction/don't work at all most of the times. Yes yes I know it's plugins' developers problem, but the users don't care, in the same way they don't care whose fault it is that their brand new hardware doesn't work. So I think that the first writer's post, about Linux not being competitive for the desktop environment, is quite right. For the history, I've been using Linux for over 10 years and nearly exclusively for the last 3 ones, but still I wouldn't suggest it to any common desktop user.

From a developer's standpoint, things are not so clear. A brand new Linux distribution obviously offers more to a developer than a Windows one, however pretty much all free development tools and languages available for Linux are also available for Windows, and the commercial Windows products are years ahead of Linux ones. Please don't start the Eclipse/Kdevelop etc vs MS Studio debate unless you have personally used both for some time and not just heard how good the FOSS tools are...

Apart from tools, developers care about the system underlying mechanics such as interprocess communication. Windows is an absolute ruler here: the COM and related stuff makes this a piece of cake. Anyone who has tried to automate some office software (MS Office ActiveX type library vs OpenOffice UNO) can testify to this. One major problem here is the horrible, excruciating documentation, so there is still hope.

I really hope Linux becomes more widespread, because I want openness and breakdown of monopolies; however the only way to bring it to the next level is addressing the faults, not turning a blind eye to them.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[kd4evr]

Hear, hear!

Our story sounds the same. My wife and I share a PC at home. She is an advanced computer user, with no technical backround, though.

First, she was impressed with the "Linux" "design" - she found the desktop and the distro (I'm not saying which not to start yet another rivalry) much more appealing than the Windows one. Next, she moved on to the features, quickly discovering greater possibilities (she did FrontPage, Powerpoint and Excel courses and even knows how and dares to use the stuff...) while exploring different tools and menus.

A phase of nagging followed since some things needed either:
- explaining: to eject the CD, use the "User mount tool" or something;
- or tweaking: hold on a sec, lemme have a look ... after a minute or a day ... ... There ya go!

She always had an option of rebooting back to windows if a file or a site didn't open. But this very step, rebooting, was a limitation in itself so windows was being used less and less often and at the same time, eventual complaints about Linux gradually stopped.

Once, I had her do a preview of a large collection of digital photos in both Win and Linux to compare the speed. Another point proved.

It turned out that in her Economy post-grad class, where they exchanged a lot of .doc, .ppt, and .crap, she was far from being the only one importing the files, editing and saving them back into Win formats with OpenOffice; took'em quite a while to figure out that not all of them are Windows slaves.

At her new job, the in-house geek, amazingly, offered to install whatever OS she wanted on her PC, but openly admitted, that she would be a "linux-first". To make sure she is in sync with the team, she opted for XP. Funly enough, they both had the same idea what browser to install - and again, I leave to your imagination what replaced the IE.

Her computer woes were mostly due to the fact that she had the false expectation that everything on the box has to understand what she is thinking - a common preconception of the computer illiterates mislead by Gates and company. The fact is, that while clinging to that concept, Windows software gave her as much pain as the next, because she improvised at everything instead of RTFM and understanding how things work. So her migration to Linux was plagued with similar aches and pains as her windows work, i.e. -why is this page number constantly shifted?-

Linux now works for her just as well as Windows, if not better.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Anonymous Coward]

While critical points are always welcome for improving things, I've been noticing people getting a bit to entrenched into a linux is read is not ready attitude lately. Actually I think it's probably already to late to stop the flame wars, but ehh, I'll try to make some comments on some of your points to the best of my knowledge.

My personal opinion on the desktop matter is. That it depends on the distro you use, which tasks you are doing with your computer and at the moment, probably a little bit of willingness to try new things. Seen in this light Linux is almost for sure ready for a good deal of people as it is in anycase. Arguments that packages don't match up to the very best are fairly irrelevant, cause honestly, most people don't use the very best and even if they did, not most of the features. For most people the age old addendum, it's good enough applies. If you don't believe this, I suggest you seriously look at how most people operate a computer.

As on my thoughts to other points you brought up, your personal problems with browsers etc are unknown to me, everything just works. So this is definitly an issue where your mileage may vary. And I will note that your mileage will vary in these very same things under windows as well. Don't say they won't cause like you I've used and still use both, so I've suffered damn windows problems. Besides that, you hear more then enough complaints from other people as well.

The problems with linux development tools are mostly irrelevant, I know some developers and oh do they vary. Some will curse you for even thinking about using something like kdevelop or MS Studio, others swear by them. Considering they all have been quite productive over time as well I'm not even convinced that the programs are essential, most likely though the tools do help beginning developers as well as allow organising big projects.

Your notes on interprocess communication are interesting and you could be correct that more work should be put into bringing linux systems up to par. I really don't know the current status though, so no comment further.

Also as a final nitpick, While the GIMP isn't as good as photoshop, it has an undeservedly bad rap. In practise it is extremly functional and fairly well oriented into solving problems that common users encounter for image processing. Note I'm saying common users, not professionals. As such I believe it is actual an excellent program in reality.
(PS, tales about bad tool layout are most likely just that, I've been told several times already, that the GIMP tool layout closely resembles photoshop on the Mac, and I have never heard said photoshop had a bad layout)

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[RAMMS EIN]

``The major problem, as I see it, is that it requires changing the way you think about using a computer.''

Just to pick on that issue: it's obviously only true if you're already used to working with some other system. Which is why I always feel a little sad when people who know Linux set new users up with Windows "because it's easier for computer illiterates". I really don't think that is true (especially when you consider the security aspect).

Now, if you think about people switching over to Linux, having to relearn things is probably the number one reason they won't. Why start all over if you already have a working system? Now that virus infections don't prevent _you_ from using your computer anymore, the security aspect really isn't a great force, and Windows users couldn't care less about all the extra functionality and choices that Linux offers.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Image resizer powertoy
;-)

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[spoonyfork]

how the hell did you get first post with so much freakin' writing?

In the real world.. writers, journalists, and copy editors have a many simultaneous articles being worked on concurrently. They write copy that they know will be used at future date either by known possible outcomes, known debates, known players (e.g. obits, election results, abortion, etc.)

The "linux is not ready for the desktop" meme has been stewing in the slashdotosphere for years. Most old schoolers have an opinion and have written on it in the past or not-so-past. It wouldn't surprise me that some slashdot commentors worth reading today already have copy written for certain topics. For example, I'm always ready to jump in when a "Best Buy sucks" article appears. :)

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[ettlz]

Try:

for n in *.jpeg ; do convert $n -scale 50% `basename $n .jpeg`-scaled.jpeg ; done

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[mlylecarlin]

The problem is, unless you just want your machine for simple (email, browsing) type purposes, you have to change your mindset before you can become at all competent. Like the original poster said, it takes 2 hours to become proficient in OS X. By that I figure he meant comfortable, and able to use most of the basic applications you want to use. It takes forever to get to that level with almost any linux distro.

The first time I installed, I dunno, Mandrake 8, it took me a whole day to configure simple things like audio and internet. Now, I know that's probably the fault of the cardmakers and the lack of good driver support (though I still maintain that they were very common cards, and should have been supported "out of the box" by Mandrake at any cost). I mean, if you can't even listen to music or google for help, the process of migration becomes a nightmare. If you are lucky enough to have another (windows) computer to turn to for help and tunes, it just makes linux look and feel really bad.

Where the problem really happens is when you want to do something the least bit special. After the disastrous Mandrake install, I gave up on permanent migration, and I fiddled with linux multiple times over the next year or two but never stuck with it. The first time I really tried permanent migration (on one machine) was for the sake of mythTv. It took me days and days of extremely complicated setup and I never really got it working correctly. I was on common hardware, and I was doing it with a good guide for FC1/mythTV setup, and it still didn't work. I learned a lot, but it was extremely frustrating and I didn't get anything useful out of it.

Compare that with Windows, where I bought a product for use with my card. I installed it, set it up, fiddled a bit, and it worked. The whole process didn't take more than half an hour, and it was pretty obvious that even a novice Windows user could have done the same within a few hours.

I'm not sure what kind of TV tuner support there is in OS X, but I have installed applications of similar power and similar complexity; almost everything I've ever installed in OS X worked just as soon as I dragged the cute icon out from the dmg.

Working for a few weeks with FC1, and trying to configure mythTV, I did start to change my mindset, and I did find linux becoming easier to use in general because of it. However, that comfort level should have happened on the first day. The only reason I even had the kind of time and patience to spend more than a day's worth of time on the project was that I was quitting one grad program for another, and had almost a half semester of free time on my hands.

Really... normal people, not stupid people, but normal, intelligent, otherwise occupied people want the machine for use as a tool. They want a black box which works the way they expect it to work the same way I want a drill with a nice handle without having to understand what makes the drill spin.

God forbid I should ever have to take the drill apart to make my drill work, and God forbid they should ever have to muck about in the *nix guts to make their computer work.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The linux desktop has really caught up to WinXP and MacOSX in recent months, so now I wouldn't say the learning curve is all that steep, but a year and half ago it was.

This is true now (or, I also believe). But, next year, this might not be true. Usability will suffer if some new type of hardware becomes mainstream.

I've seen that statement many times over the years. GNU/Linux is getting better each year. But, it seems that everytime there is a new hardware feature that becomes popular, usability in GNU/Linux suffers for at least a few months. Three recent examples are wifi, auto-mounting USB drives, and iPods. For these, the kernel supported many of the devices around the time of their releases. But, the userland took some time to catch up. For wifi, distributions lagged a little in auto detection and [module] loading support. For USB devices, userland tools (and, userland/kernel combos) such as automount, ivman, and supermount hung out for years before the udev/HAL combo gained popularity. For the iPod, I believe last year (2004) saw the beginnings of integrated interfaces for iPod support (i.e., Rhythmbox and Amarok integrated iPod support).

One could argue these three are examples of fairly mainstream features. A year or two ago, one could not install a distro, pop in a USB drive and see the drive's contents pop up on the screen without some command line work. (Command line work is still needed to get a drive/device to mount in the same location--see udev rules.) A year or two ago, one could not send his or her highest-rated songs to an iPod without "moving" the files between two programs (or, within one program--gtkpod--simply finding the files). Several years ago, installing a distro would not ensure a laptop could connect to the Internet. (Today, that is still a problem, but usually only with a few proprietary drivers.)

Usability is much improved compared to last year. What happens when a new hardware feature becomes trendy? (For [an unlikely] instance, what happens if syncing calendar and contact information on bluetooth devices becomes mainstream?) Usability will suffer for another period. (In the bluetooth example, users would have to fumble through the command line until the userland cathes up. In this instance, the Mac will sync such devices with iCal if you place them next to the computer.) Though it is the fault of manufactureres for not releasing drivers, the burden of the resultant problems (unfairly?) rests with distributions.

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[advocate_one]

how the hell did you get first post with so much freakin' writing?

perhaps poster is really a script triggered by keywords in the story blurb??? triggered on Linux, desktop perhaps... or then, he's a professional astroturfer cruising just waiting to paste in the contents of his scratchpad...

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[coolGuyZak]

I fear that in a couple years, using linux is going to stop being cool -- there just isn't much to do to make it work anymore.

I know where you're coming from. All the hotties love my leet *nix skills. I start talking and they literally fall (over) into my arms. ;)

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[emAugust]

Might I ask what flavor of linux you set your gal up with? I am debating making the jump, but I don't want to get into anything too prompt heavy or arcane. What do you recommend? And yeah, I realize this is probably the second most loaded question you can ask on /. :p

Re:A fine post and everything but...

[flithm]

Yeah for sure. I put Kubuntu on her machine, simply because I've been hearing good things about the Ubuntu distros and wanted to see for myself.

Turned out to work quite well for her. She uses the Synaptic package manager to install her own apps, which she really likes. I went with Kubuntu over Ubuntu simply because I knew she would like KDE.

As a side note, I personally run Gentoo (and would never wish that distro upon a newbie), so I'm no Ubuntu fan boy or anything, but it really is a fine distro. The only downfall I'd say that the Ubuntu distros have is the installer is a pretty simplistic text based one. Although it works well, and the install was painless.

Migration

[TheRealSlimShady]

I think one of the most telling comments in there is this one: The first issue, migration, is pretty serious. For "Regular People" to adopt Linux (which usually means leaving Windows) Linux is going to need a serious migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.

Plenty of people don't realise that part of Microsoft's strength is their migration ability (and I'm not really talking on the desktop here). You want to migrate from Groupwise to Exchange - there's a free tool for that - or Lotus Notes to Exchange, same again. What you don't see from the majority of their competitors are tools (or even best practice guidance) that go the other way. Microsoft make it very easy to migrate to their products (and the fact that they make it hard to migrate away helps them a bit as well :). If companies are going to compete with Microsoft, we have to see a migration path from one to the other, and think about interoperability. Lots of people complain that Microsoft doesn't interoperate with others well, and theres certainly truth to that, but interop works both ways.

Re:Migration

[kbielefe]

The vast majority of average users didn't choose their operating system and didn't plan to migrate to a new one. Their new computer was different, so they just started from scratch. So why not use the same plan most average people used to migrate to windows on their home computer? Have Linux come pre-installed on almost every PC in almost every store.

We both know that will probably never happen, so I just introduce people to Linux one computer at a time. Just last night, I introduced my brother-in-law to Knoppix. All I hope is that one day he will respond to a disparaging remark about Linux by saying that one time his hard drive crashed two days before a paper was due, when he didn't have time or money to replace it, and Linux came to the rescue and was very easy to use with nothing but a CD-ROM and USB flash drive.

Businesses are a different issue altogether. I will just say that businesses who migrate to a single-vendor solution without an easy means to migrate away from it are shortsighted and deserve what they get if there are any problems.

As far as interoperability goes, I don't think you even want to go there. Free software developers spend an enormous amount of effort in this area and have near 100% interop with Microsoft products with very little to work with. If Microsoft opened up their specifications, we would have full 100% interop within a month.

Re:less stupid users

[FLAGGR]

Being BSD based, OSX runs Linux apps with little more than a recompile at times. (Endian issues and any asm of course needs to be fixed, but otherwise no problemo) Apple provides an X11 API for osx.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

Ok you're seriously talking to the wrong person. I work two jobs and maintain over 100k lines of code, 500 pages of documentation, etc in my open source projects all for free.

Trust me. Downtime costs me.

There are distros where you don't compile everything. The fact you're not aware of this [or showing it] is because you're a two-bit troll. Go download knoppix and come back here about "compiling everything".

As for why your graphics card doesn't work, take your ATI piece of shit out, burn it, go buy a 100$ nvidia card. It'll work just fine.

Anyways, if I want to keep any sort of schedule with my projects while keeping employed I have to make the best use of my time. So far Gentoo Linux hasn't gotten in that way.

Tom

I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

• You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.
  
• You run as root by default, not for ease of use (how difficult is 'type your passsword to continue' that Fedora and OS X do?) but because Microsoft and Windows developers couldn't be bothered fixing things. And you get spyware and viruses as a result, and you fix most, but a few remain, and the whole thing moves like molasses. The SP2 'firewall' still lets in about 7 network ports by default, including those used for some of the major worms.
  

That's why I recommend Linux. I don't see either item changing soon either. I've played with Longhorns betas, and nothing's different. It's your computer, you may as well use it. That's why I recommend Fedora.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Thundersnatch]

The SP2 'firewall' still lets in about 7 network ports by default, including those used for some of the major worms.

This is total, complete BS. By default, the XP firewall allows *no* incoming ports, even to the local subnet. I just confirmed this earlier today with a brand new XP SP2 install.

You maye have installed XP in a corporate or campus environment that had a group policy which allowed incoming ports for file sharing to the local subnet. Or maybe you choose to allow file and printer sharing to the local subnet by checking a few boxes in the GUI. But those settings are absolutely not the Windows XP SP2 default.

The only program that is allowed to listen for connections by default is Remote Assistance. But those ports are only opened if you actually start remote assistance and use it to ask for help. It is an application-triggered firewall rule. You can confirm this yourself by hitting the "Restore Defaults" on the Advanced tab of the firewall control panel.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[lav-chan]

You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.

Of course, if Microsoft included a whole bunch of free programs with Windows, you guys would all bitch about how they're using monopoly tactics to crush competition in the (insert software genre) industry.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Anonymous Coward]

You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.

Sir, both IE and Outlook Express are free, and you don't need to pay for Firefox on Windows or a "good" mail program.

Again, if they included Outlook, you would whine about how they're using their monopoly, bla bla.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[jaypaulw]

"You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them." This represents the classic slashdot point of view where IT people try to understand how real people use their computers. Outside of the admin and support staff, the productive value of computers are appplications. I'm a CPA, and the reason I use windows has nothing to do with whether or not microsoft is an evil corporation or whether I feel I need to be able to recompile my own portions of the operating system, or even if I crash once a day and have to reboot (which I don't ever have happen) it's because the tax software, accounting write-up, and financial modeling has zero alternative on any other platform. I don't see the value in having my OS come with free fake Photoshop.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Thundersnatch]

I just re-verified with nmap 3.75 running on Ubuntu that all ICMP, plus TCP and UDP ports 1-9999 are closed by a Windows XP SP2 firewall running with the default settings.

Mr. Nailer, would care to defend your mis-informative post?

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

Basing the 6/7 ports figure on an analysis of SP2 that was republished on theregister.co.uk around the time of release.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

Nah, I personally wouldn't. I gladly used IE when it was the best browser, and appreciated that it came with Windows.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

Really? Is Evo, or a comparable app, free on Windows? Got a URL?

And no, I liked and used IE when it was the best browser, whether it came with Windows or not.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

I'm just going to quote you there...

First you quote me...

"You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones..."


Then you say:

This represents the classic slashdot point of view where IT people try to understand how real people use their computers. Outside of the admin and support staff, the productive value of computers are appplications.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[BackInIraq]

You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.

No you don't. Because there are plenty of apps (such as Firefox, which you mentioned, or gimp, which you did not) that are free, just like on Linux. In fact, a majority of the apps that one would use on Linux have been ported to Windows.

So yeah. You run as root by default, not for ease of use (how difficult is 'type your passsword to continue' that Fedora and OS X do?) but because Microsoft and Windows developers couldn't be bothered fixing things.

Yeah, now here you have something. And people don't just run as root because it's the default, either...Windows also does not make effective use of a home directory for each user (at least, many Windows applications do not, and Microsoft doesn't really encourage them to). That's why I run Windows as root more often than not.

That's why I recommend OSX :).

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Tim C]

You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.

What apps do you get with a Linux distro that aren't also available for free download for Windows?

You run as root by default, not for ease of use (how difficult is 'type your passsword to continue' that Fedora and OS X do?) but because Microsoft and Windows developers couldn't be bothered fixing things.

Since Win 2k at least you've had the "Run as..." 'command' that allows you to do just that on Windows.

And you get spyware and viruses as a result,

The sort of people who do, are the sort who would get them for *any* platform, because they're the sort who just blindly click "ok" on every dialogue without reading it. I've been running XP for about 3 years, and have never had a single spyware or virus infection.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[jbolden]

Actually there are pretty good accounting backages for Linux. They are in German right now and assume German law (which is different). I'd suspect they'll get ported to English/American law within 5 years.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

I already mentioned Evolution. Evince and Liferea would be others.

If you've ever used Run As, you'll know a massive amount of apps don't run properly under it.

The user who blindly click OK are precisely the ones that need to be protected. Getting those users to type a password to run an administrative app is a simple an effective way of letting them know when an app is trying to do something it shouldn't.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[shrik3]

You run as root by default, not for ease of use (how difficult is 'type your passsword to continue' that Fedora and OS X do?) but because Microsoft and Windows developers couldn't be bothered fixing things.

Makers of crappy software that expect you to have admin privileges on your computer are to blame.

There are dozens of enterprise-level software that require extensive policy-hacks AND an admin account to even work properly (*cough*IBM Rational Software Development Platform*cough*).

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/ explains a few of these. In some cases the Windows developers had to KEEP a broken part of the OS because a few "smart" developers had used that broken bit extensively and created some very very popular software. Thus the need to keep the bug in order to avoid "Winduz b0rked by programzors, M$ SUXORS!!" -comments from users.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[jaypaulw]

Yes but there must be 10,000,000 productivity apps for windows and I wouldn't expect windows to come with them all.

By "applications" I didn't mean the standard browser and office suite. I meant the actual in the line production applications that firms by computers for in the first place.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[bushidocoder]

XP SP2 allows blocks all incoming ports by default - it opens a series of ports if joined to a domain, depending on the group security policy of the domain. Most AD setups I've seen use the default group security policies, which leaves open TCP ports 139,445 for file sharing, and 3389 for Remote Desktop and two more UDP ports I can't remember off the top of my head for Windows file and printer sharing. By default on a domain, Windows Messenger has authority to use UPnP to temporarily open other ports for file trading, shared whiteboards and remote assistance.

All of these data was released by Microsoft to the Windows Server / AD crowd months before SP2 came out. The default options were chosen to allow enterprises to upgrade to SP2 without causing their IT infrastructure to melt, and like I said, you can change those settings through the AD group policy. Also, local administrators on those boxes can override the AD defaults and close the ports.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Rycross]

I've used Run As... for a massive amount of apps and haven't had a problem. What are some apps that don't run properly under it?

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[coolGuyZak]

Since Win 2k at least you've had the "Run as..." 'command' that allows you to do just that on Windows.

The sort of people who do, are the sort who would get them for *any* platform, because they're the sort who just blindly click "ok" on every dialogue without reading it. I've been running XP for about 3 years, and have never had a single spyware or virus infection.

I have been running Linux for 4, and I am in the same boat. Also, while I don't usually get pulled into the "scammy" sites, I have inadvertently managed to click "OK" a few times (don't ask how). The inability for windows binaries to run on Linux (no wine installed) is a good thing. ;)

Something you forget about "run as" is that, to use it, you have to set up your computer to use that functionality. It is not enabled as default on XP.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[gotem]

Not to mention whenever I do a mayor hardware change in my computer (ie. the motherboard) windows has severe problems with that, to the point of having to reisntall it to even make it boot again. in linux I only have to change a few lines in modules.conf if at all, and everything is ok.

Re:I don't think Windows is desktop ready

[Nailer]

I'd rather have secure defaults and break, and require the users get patched versions of, their crappy software. The decision to value compatibility over security will haunt them for a while to come.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

Linux should be focusing on the code.

There's nothing wrong with styling your GUI to look like WinXP, but the code should come first.

There's nothing wrong with having a dual-boot Win/Linux system where FireFox on the Linux system snagged all the IE info during installation. That would be a pretty cool feature. But the code comes first.

Linux is winning the server market because of the stability, reliability and functionality. Not because it looks just like a Windows server. Focus on the code.

Migration tools are good. More migration tools would make it easier to migrate more servers. But the code comes first.

Software installation

[Hungus]

One of the biggest issues with Linux on the desktop seems to be the installation of applications and "dependency hell" that sometimes occurs. It seems to me that HD prices being what they are, why not use OS X style installations where all of an applications needed libraries and dependencies are included in a single package? I know there is the issue of being able to upgrade libraries, but could this not be done by giving the applications the ability to register their libraries in a central location? then when an update to a library is available they could be individually or corporately upgraded or even in-duh-vidually ignored. Sure apps become huge , but maintenance and installation become much easier. Also allowing the apps to register their libraries and dependencies would allow the repository to be rebuilt at any time in case it became corrupted. think macintosh classic apps and the desktop database system.

An OS is like underwear

[Anonymous Coward]

1) one size does not fit all.
2) you may like boxers, while others prefer briefs.
3) people get upset when the store no longer carries their favorite.
4) just because the package is fancy and it costs more, doesn't mean the elastic waistband will hold up after use.
5) if you soil yourself, you still have a mess inside, regardless of the brand.
6) people still seem content to wear them, even if it's full of holes (Windows brand).

Why should Linux be more like Windows?

[Plazzma]

In my opinion, the Linux community should not strive to become more attractive to regular Desktop users. If Linux became very easy for the regular user, it really wouldn't be Linnux anymore.

Not ready for prime desktop time

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Nobody wants to write unsexy stuff like drivers, plus many hardware manufacturers do not want to play nice w/ open source softwares.

2. Dependencies dependencies dependencies dependencies dependencies dependencies dependencies ate my cat.

3. All the cool new apps always comes out for Windows / OSX first and Linux is always forced to play catch-up (downolad mp3 codecs much, granny?)

Plus the Gentoo guy is broke now so ;_;

Re:less stupid users

[Mr2001]

Is windows easy to use? Really? Is that why so many people get trojans, viruses, backdoors, malware, etc?

Yes, it is. People who aren't experienced or knowledgeable enough to know how to protect themselves from malware use Windows because it's easy.

What a surprise!

[OzRoy]

What a big fucking surprise this has turned out to be.

66 comments, and what do I see? The majority of posters flaming away, or covering their ears screaming "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

And as long as this attitude continues linux will continue to suffer. For once in your geeky lives how about you sit back and think about what people are saying about your precious holy operating system. How about you take the constructive critisism and recognise it for what it is! These people are trying to HELP YOU! But no, you don't listen, and these problems will continue to plague Linux, and normal users will take one look and turn away leaving it forever in the hands of the fanatics.

Re:What a surprise!

[Mornelithe]

Allow me to pose some questions to you.

In your opinion, what percentage of the people making the comments you mention are actual Free Software developers working on relevant projects, rather than random people who think that using Linux makes them cool, and are content to spend their free time posting on Slashdot about how great they are and how none of these are really problems?

What percentage of actual Open Source developers do you think spend their time whining, defending themselves on or even religiously reading Slashdot, rather than actually working on their software, and fixing these problems that they, most likely, already know exist?

In other words, who exactly do you think you're rebuking?

Re:What a surprise!

[OzRoy]

I don't know the percentages. But I do know my own experience. I've been using linux as my primary work station for a number of years now, and none of the arguments posed in the article are new. In fact they are all Very old. And yet how many of the problems have been solved? None. Nothing.

Years of development and I still get problems with the clipboard. Years of development and yet I still can't drag and drop between some applications. Years of development and software installation is still a pain in the butt. Library upgrades that break half the applications.

I see arguments against windows that talk about how windows requires a reinstall every six months just to stabalise the computer again. Well here's a news flash, I reinstall linux about every 6 months as well just to clean up the mess that gets generated by having 5 different versions of the same library installed that most likely aren't needed any more. The mess caused by heaps of config files that I have no idea what's using it. Sure, it's probably anal, but that's me.

Linux is a mess! It's a patchwork quilt jammed together with no central design, or thought.

Now I understand exactly why this is the case, and I understand exactly why it's so hard to fix. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it good.

Re:What a surprise!

[prockcore]

These people are trying to HELP YOU!

You know what they say about too many chefs.

They aren't trying to help.. they're trying to get what they want. It's not the same thing.

Trying to help would be refining the Gnome HIG, for example. Listing applications that violate the HIG (and explaining how).

Instead they basically say "Linux doesn't work exactly like Windows". They even complain about how the OK/Cancel button order is reversed. Funny how that's not proof that OSX isn't ready for the desktop.. since OSX does the button order exactly the same as Gnome.

Re:What a surprise!

[strider44]

What distro are you using to have to reinstall every 6 months? I'm actually quite interested.

Re:What a surprise!

[OzRoy]

First distro I used was Red Hat, then Mandrake. Whenever a new version came out I just did a complete reinstall because it was better and more stable than going to upgrade process.

Now I use Gentoo. Which works fine most of the time. But if I didn't do an emerge world regularly then the next one I did resulted in compile errors everywhere and it was easier to just reinstall. I haven't had that problem in quite a while though as I try and update the system at least once a week.

GobeLinux looks interesting though. So I was thinking of giving that a go sometime.

Re:What a surprise!

[strider44]

I'd say if you're worried about having things in a mess or compile errors then try Debian or one of it's derivatives (ubuntu, kubuntu, mepis, xandros, kanotix, a few more). They all use apt as a package manager so no mess and things generally just work. Also debian tends to be very cautious about stability so even unstable tends to be stabler than most, definitely stabler than Gentoo.

Besides these advantages, upgrading between versions for (k)ubuntu or doing daily upgrades for Debian testing/unstable tend to just happen and just work with no messing around. Definitely no reinstalling!

Re:What a surprise!

[OzRoy]

I have used it. We use it for all of our servers. I tried it on a desktop ages ago for a week or so before I got rid of it.

None of this really matters. This whole discussion is about whether linux is ready for the desktop, and in comparison to other OS, especially OSX it's not.

Re:What a surprise!

[strider44]

Frankly I don't care for the statement "ready for the desktop", I was just offering help. Though I try to correct blatent factual errors (for example that you have to reinstall linux every six months! Hell a lot of people don't even reboot linux every six months except on the off chance they need to upgrade the kernel), I find that there's too much bias and double standards for a conversation like this, so much so that saying that "linux is not ready for the desktop" even compared to OSX means absolutely nothing.

Guess what, they are different, and have a different way of doing things. I'm not in the position to say one or the other is correct. Perhaps the only correct answer to this question is "mu"...

Before people whine too much

[obeythefist]

I RTFA and it made some good points, and most importantly, they were constructive!

The author implies that one of the major reason Firefox was successful is the ease of migration. And it's true! Firefox will seamlessly "borrow" MSIE settings while leaving IE there in case you want to go back. This makes it a very comfortable transition.

Now, I don't think I'm the only windows user who thinks it would be excellent if I could install Linux and have it inherit at least some of the information from Windows. Now, I've seen enough Linux password changers for Windows to know Linux can crack open and interrogate the Windows registry.

Some really valid ideas in the article. Will people take notice? I hope so.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

it just works? You've obviously never been in driver or inf hell with windows... Also, you've probably never seen a kernel panic...

Windows is also a serious pain in the ass about OEM copies... oh you installed more ram? That's another 150$ license please.

The point is who cares what whiny little windows users thinks. They're just a dying breed.

This is natural selection at work.

Either the people using OSS will be more productive, make more money, have more kids and overpopulate the non-OSS.

OR the non-OSS will be more productive, make more money and have more kids.

Give it time.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess nobody told my family about that, I've got several total non-geek older relatives and friends using Ubuntu linux. They installed themselves with me as phone support and it was *easier* than when they "upgraded" to XP a few years back.

The only reasonable conclusion an informed person can reach is that all this "Linux isn't ready" crap is coming from people who have no recent experience with linux and or are not impartial.

So --- have you driven a penguin lately?

Apps

[SimURL]

I believe, the main reason that Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop is the lack of mature open source apps. Desktop users tend to use and have invested in many applications to do whatever it is that they do (i.e. productivity, internet, games, photos, etc.). It takes time to offer solutions (Wine, OpenOffice, etc.) that are as robust (or robust enough) and make it inexpensive and easy to tranfer data and the occasional Windows app (games) to a Linux box.

There is cost (which is slowly declining over time) associated with a transfer from Windows to Linux.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

Well if all you want is email you don't need a Dell computer. You need a dumb terminal. Stop wasting natural resources.

However, if you want a computer and don't want to learn how to use it you're just ignorant. If I was an inveestment banker I'd probably want to learn about accounting and the market.

dumb terminal == bank teller

Even then I have to educate the average bank teller about how advertising works [if you ever see a sign like "ask about our superior online banking" just ask them one question: "how is it superior?"] or how bank drafts work...

Point is, "forcing a user to learn about computers" isn't a bad thing. Because lets be realistic. The average kid today SHOULD learn about it because they're likely to use them in their professional life.

This is why you have a fucked up market. Churning out millions of college grads who take the path of least resistance because "being forced to learn things" is "stupid".

Tom

Windows Works Well for the Average User? Not!

[frohsinn]

Implicit in Asa's article is an assumption that Windows works well for the average user.

Windows works well for the "average" user? You must be kidding. I'll tell you what the "average" user experience in Windows is. The "average" user falls into one of two camps. The "Camp 1" user accepts the fact that his or her system operates with seriously degraded functionality, because it works well enough to satisfy the most important of his or her meager computing demands. "Camp 2 "people routinely reinstall windows when enough stuff breaks; mean time between reinstalls is about six months. How do I know this? I used to do ISP support work, and spent lots of time working with "Joe Sixpack" and his buddies. Sorry Asa, but you're not an "average" user. I'm glad that Windows is working well for you, but that by definition puts you in a category that is definitely not "average". When will the average user migrate to Linux? Simple. "Joe Sixpack" understands very well that you can't be cheaper than free. Once a critical mass of "Joe Sixpacks" start to realize they now have a free albeit slightly more cryptic option to replace an OS which costs money and tends to be broken most of the time for them.

Re:less stupid users

[PocketPick]

Your missing the point of his post, or simply didn't care to read it hard enough. He's taking his argument from the USER's point of view, not the developers. Chances are, most people don't even know what INF or Kernel even mean.

You talk about productivity, but outside of Administrators who have nothing better to do than micromanage, who really cares about whether it takes a few clicks to get something done. All that matters is that the process is clean, simple and understandable.

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally, one shouldn't have to not be stupid, ignorant, or lazy to use a computer effectively. The computer should make the productivity for me, not the other way around.

If you're contending that people are too lazy to set up something that has more of an investment in the beginning, but a bigger payoff in the end (and for less total), then sure, you're right. But saying people are too lazy to use a certain OS is bullcrap, I shouldn't have to work hard just to operate my OS. Or else it's the OS that's operating us.

We?

[msimm]

I've been using Linux fulltime on the desktop since 1999-2000. What pisses me off is applications switching between ok/cancel positions themselves. When I don't need to worry about where the OK button is going to pop up in Firefox/Mozilla then I'll start to worry about the rest of the OE.

I think part of the problem is Linux (as a Unix) is just so damn good on the server. So we get the distro's/developers with a kind of hybrid mindset. There needs to be some kind of official split between the Desktop and the Unix server (don't get me wrong, I love the server and cry when I have to work on our Solaris ..2.8.. boxes, but hey).

I mean seriously, where are the UI RFC's?

So for the record this portion of we still thinks Linux on the desktop is more of a hobbyists adventure (I love a good adventure).

Re:We?

[snorklewacker]

I've been using Linux fulltime on the desktop since 1999-2000. What pisses me off is applications switching between ok/cancel positions themselves. When I don't need to worry about where the OK button is going to pop up in Firefox/Mozilla then I'll start to worry about the rest of the OE.

You can thank gnome for that. They decided that since That Other Desktop Environment was ordering buttons according to the Windows interface convention (of "ok/cancel", "yes/no"), they'd just switch to the mac convention of "cancel/ok", "no/yes". They trotted out some high minded theory about how the lower-right corner of the dialog was "special", and how all these HCI studies (all put on by Apple of course) proved this was an enlightened change ... but as usual for gnome these days, it was just another gratuitous jarring change. End users were told to suck it up and bask in the glow of gnome's superior wisdom.

So that's why they're backward.

Re:We?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are right, by the way.

Try using it instead of using "That other desktop" which is such an ass backwards clone of Windows it hurts.

Re:We?

[msimm]

Gnome is like a little world of its own. "High-minded" is right, and as usual only the user suffers. No harm, no foul?

Re:We?

[ookaze]

You and the GP are still have not snapped out of this troll ?
There is no gnome app with "cancel/ok", "no/yes". DO you hear what I'm telling you ? So all your petty troll is based on nothing actually.
Want to save ? You will get "cancel/save" at worst. This is well known fact for any Gnome user, but you MS shills would not know that. The visual cue is so much enough, that my users never realised that galeon, a near Gnome app, was not a KDE app.

And citing Mozilla and Firefox, which are NOT Gnome apps, as examples, just shows how much your argument is flawed.

It just shows another thing. In Gnome apps, the equivalent of "canceling" is always a "X", sometimes red, sometimes black, but always.
So you never search or even read anything.
Actually, Escape, by default, always activate this option.
Your flawed argument implies that Windows still has not solved this ?!!

Re:We?

[snorklewacker]

> There is no gnome app with "cancel/ok", "no/yes". DO you hear what I'm telling you ? So all your petty troll is based on nothing actually.

Except for firefox. The change is in GTK+ itself, actually. Who maintains GTK+ now?

Oh goody I'm a shill. Could you report me to Astroturf_Alert? I've been trying without success to get on his shitlist, but he just keeps ignoring me.

And wipe the spittle off your lips.

My site says YES

[ylikone]

Linux is ready for the desktop!

http://DesktopLinuxAtHome.com

Rephrasing your sig ..

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's +1 Insightful is another man's -1 Bullshit

Good, I say

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is for the few, the dedicated, the elite. Why do we want every Windoze loser to run a Linux desktop?

Some of these points suck!

[Volvogga]

While Dotzler makes a few good points, I don't entirly agree with most of them. These in particular.

And what is a Regular Person to think when confronted with a choice between Helix Player, CD Player, and Music Player? Does the Music Player not understand CDs? What's "Helix" mean?
I threw this argument right out the fucking window. Anyone bought a Dell Computer lately? Ye Gods! You get Dell Musicmatch Jukebox (which has explorer controll over the music files), Windows Media Player (Movie control, I think), and Dell Media Experience. All of these play audio. Movies are Dell Media Experience, Windows Media Player, and the Start menu yeilds Power DVD by Cyberlink. Futher investigation would yeild that the Dell Media Experience seems to be nothing more than a front end for other programs, but is our so called "average user" going to be able to deduce that? Moving on to burning software, two icons were on my Dell Laptop desktop by default. "Burn CDs & DVDs with Sonic DigitalMedia LE" and "MyDVD LE". [Average User time] "So, lets see. Sonic does DVDs, so why is there another DVD program right next to it?" [Dummy mode is now on!]. And then we have 3 ISPs to choose from; AOL, Earthlink, and NetZero. Bah!

I don't want to start a desktop war but I really gotta say to the distros, pick a desktop and be happy. Regular People shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when they're installing your product.
This also irked me a bit. How many of the average users actually install windows now? Going back to my Dell Laptop I just got, WinXP was already installed on it, so much that I didn't have to activate the installation. If a computer company like Dell, IBM, Compaq, Sony, etc. were to preinstall Linux on their machines instead, would they allow the user to select the desktop on bootup? Personally, I think they would choose one and have you be stuck with it. The "average user" probably would not know the difference.

Meh. I liked the idea of Raskin with the Archy OS (http://rchi.raskincenter.org/aboutrchi/index.php) . Give the average users something simplistic and good enough to do what the average user wants, and leave the complex systems (Linux and, dare I say it, Windows) to those of us who know a little bit about what the box under the desk is and are willing to learn a little more.

Re:Some of these points suck!

[drsquare]

He's got a point about the apps. Just look in the typical KDE menu. It's be quicker to read War and Peace.

I've got eight text editors, fourteen media players, nineteen development environments and tools, fourteen image viewers, seven graphic editing programs (the Gimp appears twice in the same menu), the Internet section has thirty-four entries, seventeen in the office section, thirty in the system section and FORTY-SIX in the utilities section.

And with all those menu entries, they didn't have room for open office, so I had to manually make an icon for it.

Someone really needs to think about what the hell is going on here. But they'll probably work on some transparency features instead.

Sums up my reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been dabbling with linux since the late 90's.

Say what you want about how much better it is, Linux won't become widely adopted until it can satisfy the lowest common denominators - your manager, your parents, your cousin who keeps asking why he gets all those pop-ups...

I applaud the companies who are working to make this happen. But until mom & pop can turn the PC on and make it do what they want it to on the first go, it's an uphill battle. They don't want to have to remember their password or the root password - security be damned. They're also working with years of windows experience in most cases. If you can't put it into windows terms they will relate to, they won't buy in ("your 'My documents' is now 'Home'").

For dedicated techs, yeah - linux is a great thing. But try telling your mom to go read the MAN file the modify a config file in her editor of choice. Wait for the blank stare...

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

Ok, tell me how you pipe the output of a command through a regex then get the 5th column, sort it and then paginate it for viewing in cmd.exe language without additional tools.

Oh, tell me how to background tasks and then kill them from the command line? Can you show me how to kill the window manager but not take the system down?

How about write cross-platform guis with any standard windows C library?

I really want to quickly edit a C file without loading notepad [which also doesn't handle unix format]. Got any good TTY based editors?

Hell, how do I even compile a source file with what comes on the standard WinXP cd? ... etc ... etc ... etc ...

Things like vi or nano, GTK+ or motif, gcc, etc are fairly standard on just about ANY modern linux distro [gentoo, ubuntu, debian, fedora, etc]. None of those come with WinXP.

Tom

Absolute nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla/Firefox is in the same place as WordPerfect for Mac was when Microsoft ignored the Apple platform and let their word processor fall far behind the needs of users. People started installing WordPerfect which was better than word. Microsoft improved Word, WordPerfect disappeared.

IE is terrible. You are almost guaranteed some kind of spyware or virus if you use it. People install Firefox and most of the problems go away. And Firefox gets what, 10-15% market share?

The real test will be when people install Longhorn, find a much improved IE, and find no reason to install Firefox.

The linux desktop is not quite finished. It gets much better every release, and users who migrate do so for positive reasons as opposed to trying to avoid a problem with IE. The desktop is gaining developer mindshare. Competing with Microsoft on their platform is a losers game.

Derek

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

That's like saying the house you build that won't stand a 10km/h wind shows how "construction work is easy".

If windows were easy to use it would be easy to use securely.

The fact that grandpa can't install, update, manage, us the anti-{spy, mal, virus, windows} software you have to install shows that it's not easy to use.

Next you'll say open-heart surgery is easy as well....

Tom

Average computer users...

[distantbody]

...dont know what the hell OSS is. Average users shit their pants when you ask them to choose the "right distro for them", "WTF is a distro?" they say, "Who the fuck are you and what are you doing in my house?" usually follows.
You see, linux is overwhelming from the very beginning eg:

Choose a browser:

1.IE or,
2.Firefox

Choose an OS:

1.Latest Windows or,
2.Latest OSX or,
3.Linux (Fedora, Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu, MEPIS, Mandriva, KNOPPIX, Debian, and so-on and so-on.

And to add to the problem, no single distro has a perfectly rounded feature set; decent GUI or simplicity etc. In addition noobs HATE the command line, the quickest way to turn someone of linux is to force them to try to use it for some insignificant function that should be able to be accomplished without it. OK...I can feel myself rambling and my spelling going out the window, So basically my message is to conglomorate all of the features of the various distros into one powerful package, make it SIMPLE to use, relagate the command line to power-users only, and have a SINGLE prominant distro that the average Joe can instantly think of when you ask them about linux. Call it UniLin or some crap, or heck just call that distro LINUX

sorry for my incoherant rambling, but I really think that these things are preventing linux from becoming mainstream. Someone take up the challenge (heck, contact me thru /.and i'll direct the damn project!)

Re:Average computer users...

[Anonymous Coward]

> In addition noobs HATE the command line

I believe you, but what is up with that, anyway?

In the 70's the command line was all there _was_, and somehow "noobs" managed to learn it just fine. Are noobs today dumber than noobs from 30 years ago? Or what?

I was a noob back when there weren't any GUIs, and somehow everyone managed. It's not rocket science. You can learn the essentials of a command line in around a few hours, and be proficient within days. Maybe total rocking gurudom takes a long time, but almost nobody needs that level of expertise.

nonsense

[Luke-Jr]

KDE can't get much more user-friendly without becoming unusable to non-idiots. Now Windows... that is a difficult UI.

Re:nonsense

[drsquare]

KDE is far from user-friendly. Yeah, most of the ingredients are there, they're just all over the place. Dialog boxes and windows are bloated and disorganised. The menus are cluttered and messy. Even the smallest things take up the entire screen, it's as if the developers are on 2000x1500 monitors and think everyone else is.

And even if you set up some nice colour scheme that's easy on the eyes, it's all for nothing if when you run gnumeric or open office or gv it comes up with a completely different theme, for no apparent reason.

Instead of adding more bloat and worthless features like transparency and all that crap, why don't they clean up and sort out what they've already done.

Development should have two stages:

1. Implementation.
2. Refinement.

You make something, then smooth the edges and perfect it. A lot of open source programmers only seem to do the first stage, and instead of moving onto the second, they go back to the first stage and implement even more stuff, so you end up with thousands of half-decent apps that just about get the job done but it's like they were rushed out as soon as they got it to compile.

I suppose coding new fancy features is more enjoyable than thinking about making the interface more congruent and consistent, and optimising code. But then they're not paid for it so they'll do what's more enjoyable rather than what needs doing.

Re:nonsense

[Luke-Jr]

Bloated and disorganised how? They work/look fine here.
I agree that the defaults require at least 800x600, but I'm sure we all know that the majority of people have at least that and besides... defaults are just defaults.

gnumeric, openoffice.org, and gv are not parts of KDE, but if you insist in including them in your judgement, also setup gtk-qt so GTK2 apps are wrapped to Qt.

Everything works at least as good as Windows right now. The only thing needed is new features to give people and incentive to switch.

Why? You wanna know really why? I'll tell you why.

[Man in Spandex]

I'll tell you what's the problem and this is one thing the author of this article has not addressed. The problem is having tens of thousands of different linux distributions. Sounds crazy? Hear me out.

It's time for a story, a story about a man called Art Vandelay. He's an importer/exporter who has used Windows in his business until today when he heard about this "Linux" thing.

Mr. Vandelay wasn't sure how to start off for he is confused of how many variations of Linux there are online. Nevertheless, he will not give up and seek an answer.

Art found a discussion forum where he could talk about Linux (e.g Linuxquestions.org) so he decides to become part of the community and there he posts the following:

-----
Hello everbody! I'm Art Vandelay. I have done a lot of reading about Linux and it looks really neat from the screenshots and all the things it has to offer for free so I decided to give it a shot.

What I want to know is which distribution should I go with. I read about Fedora but also Gentoo and Ubuntu. Which is the easiest and best to use?
-----

That was the story. The problem with this story is it has no end. The end is always different.

Before the user even starts migrating, he has to make a decision of what linux distro to go for. Some random select a distro that appeared nice in screenshots (simple but not the best way of choosing) and others will ask linux-savvy users.

It has to be simple folks. End-users like simple things. The choice of how to start off to these new incoming windows users has to be simple.

Another thing that would vastly help is if there would be a universal file format/package throughout all distros to install/manage/remove programs. Having .deb's with Debian, Ubunto and rpm's for Fedora, SuSE, RedHat, Mandriva and .tgz for Slackware... That's no good.

Imagine if you take all the communities of every distro and combine them into one and combien the best of every distro into one distro. It's like taking your 5 fingers and forming a fist. Each finger is a distro but take the best of each, combine them and you got one solid rock ready to face off.

my 2 fkn cents!

Re:less stupid users

[OzRoy]

it just works? You've obviously never been in driver or inf hell with windows... Also, you've probably never seen a kernel panic...

Of course I have. But drivers in linux are no easier than windows. And you missed my point. We are talking about average users. An average user will NEVER experience driver hell because they purchase their computer from the local Gateway store where everything is all set up nice for them. They switch it on and it all works nice for them.

If these users start to disagree with the way windows works do you really believe they will migrate to linux and find things are better? Of course they won't. If anything they will migrate to an Mac.

I failed to set up a printer on linux ... :-(

[dr_leviathan]

I'm a GNU/linux user (8 years, currently using Debian sarg via Knoppix) and have been recommending GNU/linux to friends and colleagues for years. I recenlty set my mom up with BeatrIX so she could do spreadsheet stuff.

She went ahead and bought a printer... but she couldn't set it up, so I drove three hours just to set up her printer (an HP OfficeJet 4215 connected via USB)... and failed miserably. The GUI wizard was able to detect the printer model string, but beyond that there was no evidence that it could reach the printer at all. Although the model string had the make and model the wizard couldn't use that information to select the make and model and thereby pick the right CUPS configuration. When I manually picked the make and model nothing happened. I searched all over for something wrong, but didn't know enough to figure it out (I've only successfully set up one or two printers on GNU/linux in my entire career, the most recent success was using CUPS to connect to a SAMBA shareed printer... that just worked and was easier than doing it on Windows 2000).

Not only did BeatrIX fail but so did Knoppix-V_3.8! I was rather demoralized. Meanwhile my step father (a WindowsXP user) chuckled at the botched attempts.

Granted, if she had a broadband connection I probably could have searched the internet for tips and tricks and eventually figured it out, however the conclusion I had to make was that my favorite distribution wasn't ready for the vast majority of regular computer users out there.

My solution will be to buy a !@#$%^&*() OfficeJet 4215 for myself just so I can figure out how to make the stupid thing work, and then make that 3 hour trip again.

But for Christmas she'll probably get a digital camera and a new struggle will begin. Notice, I'm not optimisitc anymore.

I LOVE GNU/linux as my desktop, but it sure isn't ready for the masses.

Re:I failed to set up a printer on linux ... :-(

[tomstdenis]

Buy samsung laser printers. My 200$ Samsung 2010 USB worked out of the box. Only grief is the lack of 64-bit drivers, but for that I just print to .ps format then lp the file.

Good thing I have a 32-bit box just "laying around".

HP and Cannon make stupid windows crap and don't care about users at all. Samsung at least has some view of reality.

Tom

Re:I failed to set up a printer on linux ... :-(

[griblik]

I drove three hours just to set up her printer ... and failed miserably ... the conclusion I had to make was that my favorite distribution wasn't ready for the vast majority of regular computer users out there

Heh, I've been there, my friend, just trying to install a mouse of all things (ok, it was an original apple ADB one-button-classic under gentoo, but still...).
For comparison though, my GF borrowed a scanner from her parents to digitise all her holiday photos. Several hours of effort later, with a broadband connection, all the info the web can offer, AND the manufacturer's drivers, we still couldn't get it to work.

All this under Win2k.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that problems with hardware aren't unique to linux distros. Following your argument, I could say that Win2k isn't ready for the vast majority of regular computer users out there...

I'd agree that there are more unsupported/problematic hardware issues if you want to use linux, but I don't think that should be regarded as the root of the problem. Most people don't sort out their own hardware anyway - they expect it to just work when they take it home from the store.

I'd say the thing that is slowing Linux adoption on the home desktop is less the hardware drivers/support and more the fact that you're less likely to find a fully installed and properly configured linux kit when your mom wants to go looking for a new kit. Being able to buy a set-up and supported machine from a reputable vendor would fix most problems, I think.

Re:I failed to set up a printer on linux ... :-(

[Martin Soto]

But for Christmas she'll probably get a digital camera and a new struggle will begin. Notice, I'm not optimisitc anymore.

My mother got a digital camera for Christmas six months ago. We attached it to her newly installed Ubuntu computer, and it not only mounted it automatically, but offered to start the photo editing application.

Yeah, some printers are a real PITA, but USB cameras work like a charm.

Re:I failed to set up a printer on linux ... :-(

[renoX]

>I LOVE GNU/linux as my desktop, but it sure isn't ready for the masses.

Well I fear that this struggle with HW will last a long time..
And IMHO Linux is definitely not ready to use without a (broadband) Internet connection.

I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that there tends to be a lot of confusion about the difference between Linux the OS and the desktop applications that sit on top of it...

I can't fault Linux the OS for stability and reliability and being relatively easy to use (once you know the commands to use ;)...

I can fault the desktops and apps though and their lack of integration... But this is more down to the fact that there is no one driving force behind the Linux desktop so everyone carries on trying to produce their own solutions and there is often an impedance mismatch between clicking "open" on an email attachment and something actually happening... Whilst this does sometimes happen on Windows, it's less often and the mismatches are not as jarring... Personally I don't think there is a way out of this because there won't ever be a "Linus" for the desktop...

You mean Linspire and Mepis are *not* ready???

[ArielMT]

Not ready for the desktop, my tail. Linspire, Mepis, and a few other *nix distros are easier to install, easier to use, easier to expand, and a heck of a lot easier to secure and update -- even for the average joe -- than anything Microsoft has. The only one who comes close to being as ready for the desktop is Apple's Mac OS X. Asa's remarks are grossly uninformed.

Aieeeeeee!

[ev0l]

Linux has ...

Aieeeeeee! Kernel Panic!!!

But you have probably never seen it.

Re:Aieeeeeee!

[akorvemaker]

I have. I don't like that screen. It scares me. Not a happy thing to see after a kernel upgrade.

Re:Aieeeeeee!

[PenguinRigger]

Ah.. Yes.. Once, long ago.. My machine screamed the bloody scream of death. "Aieeeeeee!" it said.. Followed by: "Shit happened" I've never been so frightened and so amused by a kernal panic. :)

Re:Aieeeeeee!

[TERdON]

Actually it's quite easy to get to see it. 1) Get an old 386, 486, P1 or P2 junkputer. 2) Install Linux. 3) Compile the kernel for P3 or higher. 4) ! 5) This should be profit, heh? Noticed myself one installing Gentoo to a P2 a year or so ago. The default setting was to compile for P3 and it wasn't mentioned in the installation manual. The problem has been fixed since...

The Problem Isn't Linux

[alucinor]

The problem isn't Linux. It's a great kernel, very stable, and makes a great server of nearly any sort.

The problem is with trying to integrate the whole freakin' OSS world (plus a piece or three of proprietary stuff here and there) into a functioning distro.

Yeah, it'd be great (in a way) to have central control over the Free Desktop System, but that'd be a bit of an oxymoron.

Slowly, though, things are standardizing quite naturally ... the OSS ecosystem is killing off the weaker projects (like sound servers, oh jeez ... way too many of those) and little by little, all the pieces of a fully-functioning Linux/*BSD-based desktop OS are coming together. (And when I say *BSD, I mean anything but Darwin :)

Of course, as I say this, I had to run fsck.ext3 /dev/hdc1 today, as my Hoary Hedgehog installation mysteriously got hosed. The only thing I can think of causing this was that I was transcoding Return of the King overnight ... but that's just a shot in the dark.

Linux is just a KERNEL. 1 million distributions!

[zymano]

Linux isn't an operating system. People still don't get that. It's just a core part of the OS. There are now millions of distributions OS's that use linux and all are slightly different. Makes installing software tough. But they are fixing that with a ....tada....standard .

What else needs to be done ?

How about Hardware recognition. Winmodems are not recognized out of the box on all these distros. It's a total pain to configure. Graphics and network cards weren't recognized by my latest UBUNTU distro. That bugs me ! I think I am pretty computer savy. I could imagine someone like my mom using this os.

So Distros need to work together and STANDARDIZE a better hardware recognizer along with an installer. Then we will cure some major frustrations.

Re:less stupid users

[Ravatar]

It's not a matter of "forcing users to learn about computers", it's a matter of "forcing users to learn way more than what they need."

You just proved my point.

[khasim]

You claim to be a power user, but you had problems with your wireless card and power management.

I said that power users would be the last segment (#4) to move to Linux because they wouldn't be happy until their hardware was supported.

I run Ubuntu and it runs great on fully supported hardware. But then, I also run my LCD screen as 1280x1024 so I don't have the space problems you do.

Re:You just proved my point.

[the_womble]

Not only will "power users" be the last to use Windows because they want all their hardware supported, but they are also usually specially "windows power users" they have invested a lot in learning how Windows and whatever apps they use do things, but they do not actually understand how they work so their "knowledge" is not transferable.

This is actually the group who the article call "regular users", real regular users are quite happy with Linux desktops - copy their files over, export their bookmarks and import into Firefox and that's it. This has worked fine for my father, my wife and some guys who worked for me (one is now planning to install Linux at home).

I also do not understand what he is talking about when it comes to installing applications. There are only three pieces of software I have installed which required anything more complicated than downloading the RPM, clicking in it to start the installer, and then typing the root password and clicking OK a few times. These were: Erlang, Firefox and Thunderbird.

In fact, bar Erlang (which needed to be compiled), Firefox has been by for the most problematic thing to install.

Re:You just proved my point.

[dusik]

Indeed, a power user having trouble with power management?!?!

Seriously, though, you're right. That's Linux's main problem at this time, as I see it. I have fun tweaking and fixing things every day in Gentoo, but like the original article says, it's not for Regular People (and probably not for many of the Rest either). It will probably be a few more years before things like that really get ironed out. I'm trying to keep a positive attitude (and I sure hope I'm not kidding myself).

Re:You just proved my point.

[WhiteBandit]

Not only will "power users" be the last to use Windows because they want all their hardware supported, but they are also usually specially "windows power users" they have invested a lot in learning how Windows and whatever apps they use do things, but they do not actually understand how they work so their "knowledge" is not transferable.

That is complete and utter bullshit. I'm not sure how you're able to make the claim that Windows power users only know how to do things, but don't know how it actually works. Part of the process in figuring out how to configure your computer for whatever reason, is understanding how it works.

Sure, for some hardcore gamers and such, you can read a guide on some cheesy gaming website that tells you how to opitimize for Battlefield 2 by increasing virtual memory or something. But it's part of a learning process nonetheless.

Then again, you could be saying that because a "GUI dumbs things down." I'm sorry, but I'd be willing to wager that the majority of mainstream users don't want to spend there time using various shells and hacking at text files all day.

This is actually the group who the article call "regular users", real regular users are quite happy with Linux desktops - copy their files over, export their bookmarks and import into Firefox and that's it. This has worked fine for my father, my wife and some guys who worked for me (one is now planning to install Linux at home).

That said, I'm willing to agree with you. A default Linux package ships with everything the average user needs and usually it just works.

In my experience however (and ask 10 slashdotter's about their linux experiences and you'll have 12 different opinions), once you start installing more packages and such, it starts getting harder to maintain and keep track of. This can make it quite difficult for novice users. Especially using RPMS and the so-called "dependancy hell" that can result from it.

I also do not understand what he is talking about when it comes to installing applications. There are only three pieces of software I have installed which required anything more complicated than downloading the RPM, clicking in it to start the installer, and then typing the root password and clicking OK a few times. These were: Erlang, Firefox and Thunderbird.

I have to say, by far the easiest operating system I've ever installed anything on is OS X. Just open the disc image and basically drag the file onto your desktop or wherever and boom! It (usually) works! After that, I feel that Windows is the next easiest (that might have to do with the fact that Windows programs are so ubiquitous and therefore easy to find... and you usually have all the DLLs and such from previous installs that actually shipped with them. Then again, this leads to "DLL-Hell"...) followed by Linux as being the most difficult to install things on, on average.

Re:You just proved my point.

[the_womble]

I'm not sure how you're able to make the claim that Windows power users only know how to do things, but don't know how it actually works.

I make the claim because I have known people for whom it is true. "Power users" known recipes for getting things done, and secondly their knowledge tends to be very narrow.

I think that you do not understand how people who know absolutely nothing about computers approach them. I would have agreed with your statement at one time, but I have slowly realised how many people get a lot of stuff done by learning sequences of actions, rather than actually understanding what is going on. Yes they do inevitably learn a little (especially if they start writing macros), but it is much less than you might think. If you have absolutely no idea of how computers work, you have no framework to learn from. A computer becomes a black box device that produces certain outputs for certain inputs and that's it.

Most people do not actually do much configuration beyond installing software (which these days is easy), and setting backgrounds and screen savers (and even there many users call the former the latter).

As of the narrowness of power users knowledge, let me give you a few examples. Many years ago I came across someone keeping a database in Wordperfect. They knew WordPerfect so they wrote a set of macros to do what they needed. That is a power user in action. More recently I have seen Excel used to circulate information - so that in order to see a single page that you wanted, you had to download an Excel file that ran to several megabyte with macros etc., the file had to be manually copied to the file server at each branch office. Putting the information on a web server would have been obviously better. This was the product of a "power user" who knew how to write VB scripts in Excel but little else.

As for software installation, I have not used OS X , but I would say that the better Linux distros (such as Mandrake) are at least as easy as Windows - easier if you stick to software from your distro. The hardest are of course very difficult to install (both OS and additional software), but they are designed for a different user base.

Re:You just proved my point.

[indifferent children]

I have to say, by far the easiest operating system I've ever installed anything on is OS X. Just open the disc image and basically drag the file onto your desktop or wherever and boom! It (usually) works! After that, I feel that Windows is the next easiest (that might have to do with the fact that Windows programs are so ubiquitous and therefore easy to find... and you usually have all the DLLs and such from previous installs that actually shipped with them. Then again, this leads to "DLL-Hell"...) followed by Linux as being the most difficult to install things on, on average.

I don't think that you have used any of the Debian-based distros. The Debian apt-get is fantastic (the RPM-based apt-gets are still inferior). You need to know the name of the program that you want to install. After that, it is: apt-get install mozilla-firefox . And apt-get resolves all DLL-Hell-ish dependencies for you (recursively).

If you prefer GUIs, 'synaptic' shows you lists of all known applications, you click the apps that you want, and synaptic runs apt-get for you.

With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.

Re:You just proved my point.

[netsyd]

With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.

I'm sorry, but when have you ever had to go out to the internet to download "packages" for Windows to satisfy "Dependancies"?? Dependancies are not a Windows issue. The only instance I recall ever seeing something like this is when you need WinpCap, and thats because they aren't allowed to include it in the installer, but a link is always included, as opposed to some cryptic message about libnasl.0.1.22bblahblahblah required for package Xfg86.14.56.

That said I completely agree that in 99% of the cases apt-get kicks ass over any other installer.

But again the biggest issues realistically for most any user, myself included, is that I just want stuff to work. When I go home at night having sat in front of servers all day, the last thing I want to do is sit there trying to get my laptop to suspend when I close the lid. ACPI or APM? Explain that to my wife. If Linux could remove the barriers of simple things like suspend, screen resolution, etc. Windows would not exist in my world. But alas, When I go home I want to check my email maybe check out a couple things online and close the lid. Screw knowing how the magic happens, just make it happen. I'll save my brain power and desire for when the fit hits the shan in my NCC.

Windows Works. When I close the lid it takes a nap, and when I open the lid it wakes up. I didn't have to and create a script in /etc/apci/events to listen for the lid event, and then go back into /etc/acpi and create another scipt that does echo 3 > blah blah. Yea, my wife is capable of that. Sure. She's capable of bitching at me that I made her use this crap. (I say this from experience... she really wasn't thrilled). The average desktop user wants simplicity. Most computer users (which any sys admin will agree with) could give 2 shits how it works... they just want it to work, and if it doesn't then its useless. That's the whole point of articles like this.
Linux is ready for people who like to tinker with stuff. Linux is not ready for your average AOL user who has been preprogramed to having everything work right out of the box.

Re:You just proved my point.

[indifferent children]

When I go home at night having sat in front of servers all day, the last thing I want to do is sit there trying to get my laptop to suspend when I close the lid.

You're right that the biggest obstacle to the adoption of Linux is that it does not come pre-installed, and configured for exactly the hardware that ships with a machine. When Dell ships machines pre-configured with Linux and every piece of hardware working, Linux adoption will skyrocket.

That said I completely agree that in 99% of the cases apt-get kicks ass over any other installer.

I am glad that you agree (esp. since we were discussing installing software packages, not hardware drivers). When it comes to software package installation, apt-get is 'it' and Win32 and OSX are teh suck.

Re:You just proved my point.

[teromajusa]

With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.

You are comparing installing a packaged Debian application against unpackaged or poorly packaged Windows and OS X applications. A properly packaged OS X application does not need to be installed at all as long as its on your computer. You can run it from anywhere and uninstall it by throwing it in the trash. Windows installs are a bit more complicated, but they often have all their dependencies packed with them so its usually just a matter of launching the installer and specifying where you want it. It might be more difficult to find the app on the internet than just typing install but IMO finding which package to install is usually harder than finding the actual package. Admittedly I'm no Apt-get expert. I haven't used my Debian system much since I rendered it unbootable while trying to install Mono ;)

My Long Linux Adventure...

[TheNarrator]

I started using Linux on the Desktop in about 97 with Redhat 5.2. It sucked, badly. I basically used three applications. Xemacs, Netscape, the Shell and some now forgotten window manager. I used it for Real Work (TM) to build production Linux systems using mod_perl, which was also a screwy system, but that's another story.

For years I waited anxiously as KDE and Gnome faught their Open Source/Free war. I watched as I envangelized other developers to use Linux and dealt with their machines becoming totally foobared with the audio or video card not working right and having them not use any applications except shells and xload. I watched as Linux fortune's waxed and wained. I kept hoping for a good desktop and a sane system. I did every little update I could, waiting for the fix that would fix everything. I was disapointed over and over again by Ximian and early versions of KDE. RPM was maddening hell. Things were looking good for Linux at that time though. Windows was still unstable and Linux felt a lot more powerful at that time. Linux world in 1999 was a crazy party. Then the low point over the last 10 years for Linux came, Microsoft released Windows 2000. Finally they had a stable reasonable Internet ready operating system that didn't crash. I started hearing a lot of Linux desktop users giving Win2k it's due and switching back. I struggled on. Over the next five years there were bright spots such as Java getting released and stable on Linux and Firefox and Openoffice developing. I used redhat 9 for a long time. Stuck in a barely usable combination of Firefox, OpenOffice, Eclipse and terminal windows. Things were slow though. The system sucked. I even switched back to Win2k at home because I was sick of not being able to play Multimedia.

This year things have gotten a lot better. I discovered Ubuntu which has a no thinking required install system in apt-get. I have Firefox, Database Clients, JDK1.5, Eclipse (I rarely touch xemacs), KDE 3.4 ,which has finally worked out most of the bugs, Gaim, good hardware support, Linux 2.6, much improved performance. I EVEN HAVE GOOD FONTS, a huge accomplishment! When I go back to Windows XP at home there's really nothing that I get too excited about. Video is still an issue and cut and paste of course, but I don't do any non text authoring, except with open office which works fine, that's about it. Linux really needs to get something like COM/OLE nailed down and it will solve almost all of its problems. Mono and KParts seem to be attempts at this. So I went from 3 buggy barely usable desktop applications on Linux (Xemacs,netscape,terms) to at least 15 or more usable desktop applications. That's certainly progress.

(Warning: disgruntled unix user rant follows)

BTW, three things I'm sick of in Linux:

1. The C Language
Security Holes,
Constant Reinvention of the wheel due to lack
of portability and good component model.

2. Anti-XML Sentiment
Delimited Files Are Terrible.

3. Bloat Complaints
Are the only people left using Linux embedded systems developers??

4. Perl/Awk/Sed
I used it for years, totally ugly, unparsable, etc.

5. RPM
More time wasted than any thing else I've ever used in all of Linux.

Re:My Long Linux Adventure...

[SanityInAnarchy]

1: C is fine. Anything I've ever seen done in OO can be done sanely in C. Note that I said "sanely". If your two lines of Perl translate into fifteen lines of C, you're not using it right / need library X / etc.
Security holes? You have a point there, and I don't really like C, for reasons like that. But, I would much rather have open source C with the occasional, very visible hole than closed C++ that's theoretically bulletproof with tons and tons of hidden holes.
Reinvention of the wheel? Due to lack of portability: I can remember once, and that was reading archives about when Linux was first ported off x86. Due to lack of good component model: yes, but a good component model doesn't have to be supplied by the language.
2: Anti-XML? OSS is the FIRST place to do XML for any serious work, like saving word processing documents. That said, XML is bloated and not human-readable enough to justify that. JSON is less bloated and maybe human-readable enough to justify that. Plain text is about as bloated as JSON, sometimes less, and extremely human-readable. I like the idea of XML, but putting <foo>bar</foo> instead of foo=bar is ridiculous, and foo=bar is just as easy to parse or create a universal parser for.
3: Linux does need to be usable on embedded systems, thin clients, etc. I love it when bloat gets taken out of things like window managers. It means, among other things, that my system starts up faster and that I can use those resources for other things, even other bloat, like bloaty Flash pages.
4: Perl, at least -- parsable by machine, they've done that for us, a lot of the ugliness will go away in perl6, but even without that, you can make ugly code in any language, Perl just makes it easy. You can make pretty code in any language except Java, it just takes some discipline in Perl.
5: Good god, man, try another distro! Apt if you like binary, Portage if you don't mind waiting for stuff to compile.
6: Your "three things" are really five.

Re:My Long Linux Adventure...

[BlueLightning]

1. The C Language
Security Holes, Constant Reinvention of the wheel due to lack of portability and good component model.

This is no more a Linux problem than it is a Windows problem, currently.

"Portability"? C is among the most source-portable languages in existence. What do you mean?

2. Anti-XML Sentiment
Delimited Files Are Terrible.

But editing XML files by hand is an absolute nightmare. OK, I grant you that we should not be editing files by hand these days. I would have to ask though, if you don't edit them by hand then why would you care whether they are encoded in XML or not?

5. RPM

Use a distribution that supports the newer frontends (yum, apt-rpm, etc.) that don't suffer from "dependency hell", or use a distribution not based on RPM at all. I see you have been using Ubuntu so I guess you have already done this.

Re:less stupid users

[Luke-Jr]

Actually, you should flip nVidia and ATi in that statement...

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

I know first hand this isn't true. When DirectX was new and they upgraded to I think 7 or 8 someone I knew [work contact who didn't know much about windows] pestered me about how to make their sons NHL game work...

The problem with the average [not all though] retail box is that they cut corners to no end. If you just want a web browser you don't need an AMD64 running WinXP32-bit ... a simple duron core, 64M of ram and linux will do for that.

And again at this point it's not about getting people to switch from Windows. It's to get them to NEVER USE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Start young. Get linux in the schools. Let kids learn how computers are actually used and work.

I mean I know how to use bash to navigate dirs [and script]. Doesn't mean I know how ReiserFS works... but at least I have the ability to work the computer at the lowest level [e.g. for install scripts or when the GUI is unavailable].

We've come to a point in society where absolutely nothing is a learning experience because if we challenge someone that's a negative experience. Well what do you think happens in 20 years when absolutely nobody can code in ASM or C? Or hell use a shell, build tools, etc...

Tom

killer ap?

[LWATCDR]

How about not needing adaware and spybot?

Interface

[hawado]

Plain and simple. Although Linux has come a long way in its interface mom and pop want the simplicity of plug and play for all their toys, cameras, mp3 players, movie cameras &c.
Install is still a bit of a pain, but much better.
There is also the issue of support. With windows there is one place to go for support. Linux, to most mom and pops is a fragmented world of too many choices. Given the option, all things equal, people will go with the simplest answer. Linux distros on their own each offer support, but when you say Linux to a non user for the most part they think, too many options, in number of distros, and, which one is for me... I can't decide. Pan to Windows, One size fits all.
Red hat has been trying to centralize the mentality by pushing with the idea, We are the source for your Linux desktop needs, but again simplicity is key and marketing the 'important' stuff to mom and pop needs to be key in their message.
The only other thing I can think of is the name. I am not a pure linguist, but the name Linux, is a bit harsh. The Terminal x creates a hard ending to the word .
Dos suffered from this too until they changed the mentality by naming it Windows. Windows was a great name for them to choose as it brings to mind the limitlessness of potential. Look out a window and see the world...
Now if a distro of Linux rebrands its self in the same vein or with a deeper meaning losing the Linux, I think it would stand a better chance of making market headway. This may cheese off the hard core users as they would feel like the distro sold out, but hey it is whats under the hood that counts. Ever seen a pinto with a 454 hemi. The outside may have been changed, it may not be called a Cobra or Camero or other cool name, but the get up and go is still there.

Re:Interface

[The_Wilschon]

Ever seen a pinto with a 454 hemi...

... explode? I don't mean to diss your car or anything, man, great post and all... but... a pinto?

Re:Interface

[quintesse]

With windows there is one place to go for support. Linux, to most mom and pops is a fragmented world of too many choices.

I don't know about your mom and pop but mine will come to me because they have no frikkin' idea where else to go for support. Maybe if something was really broken they would return it to the place where they bought it but they sure as hell aren't going to call Microsoft if they can't figure out which button to click! All these moms and pops arguments are silly anyway, most moms and pops wouldn't know the difference between Windows and Linux because the only thing they ever do is click the icons that their Microsoft/neighbour/12 year old kid has placed for them on the desktop. They couldn't care less if that icon fires up IE or Firefox, Outlook Express or Thunderbird etc.

YOU FORGOT DEBIAN!! AHHHH!

[ylikone]

My first thought when I want to make an old system a desktop machine is Debian with IceWM. The system you describe is much more than enough for this. I used to run Debian on a P133 with 64M ram and IceWM as a window manager with no problems. That runs just like W95/W98.

Reread that article, dammit!

[diamondsw]

This link is so critical I'm putting it first: Progressive Disclosure

There's a lot of bullshit comments being made already, and the vast majority surround this one chunk:

Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely tuned muscle memory. Regular People shouldn't have to learn what /home means or how it differs from My Documents. ... Linux UI fundamentals need a reworking to match the habits that Windows users have been building over the last decade

Nothing else makes any real reference to being "Windows-like". Toss it out and read that article again. And again. And for anyone who designs a distro, read it, bookmark it, make it your home page, or print it and put it on your wall.

Asa is saying that Linux *must* be more user-focused, and there's almost nothing in his article except good suggestions that will not remove any of the "geeky cred" or usefulness of Linux.

Things like (for those too lazy to read the RTFA, or are reading with blinders on):

• Migration of user settings - even if just basic ones like bookmarks, documents, e-mail settings. Users will immediately feel more at home if their stuff is there and ready for them. Start small with things that are easy (bookmarks, a symbolic link back to their old documents, e-mail settings, perhaps their current wallpaper setting) and continue to build.
  
• Simple software installation - honestly, things like synaptic do a lot to help on this, but Linux needs to have a way for someone to download one thing and have it work. If that means that various Linux subsystems need to freeze their API's more, so be it. The Linux Standard Base project was working on this, and it needs to happen.
  
• Progressive Disclosure - Fewer features in front of the user, not more (but feel free to keep an "advanced" button with all the rest). Only show options that are applicable (the settings vs preferences example was excellent). Only show the "major" programs. The file browser/Open/Save dialogs need a lot of work - show the user how to easily get to where they need to be, and by default hide the "UNIXy" stuff - look at OS X for some inspiration.
  
• Defaults - Continue refining the "out-of-box" desktop experience (leaner main menus, more familiar default taskbar configuration, cleaner and more "professional" UI - Fedora is doing a *lot* right in this regard). Let it all be customizeable, but the defaults must be sensible for the largest (and simplest) audience.
  
• Comfort - This does not mean "like Windows". This means things should work as expected. Drives should mount automatically without any settings or fiddling. Documents should be easy to find. Applications should be easy to install. For God's sake, never allow the X clipboard near a "normal" user (FreeDesktop is working well on that one). Terminology should be simplified ("Home", "Mount", "Execute", and others must go). You should never, ever, ever have to touch a text file, or even hear about something called "fstab".

So, what functionality is the Linux power user going to lose? None. But you'll make it a lot easier for "normal" users to not only get things done, but have fewer questions for their support staff (you).

Re:Reread that article, dammit!

[AKAImBatman]

Asa is saying that Linux *must* be more user-focused, and there's almost nothing in his article except good suggestions that will not remove any of the "geeky cred" or usefulness of Linux.

Indeed. FWIW, I wrote an article on this not so long ago. One of the biggest backlashes was the complaint that "We don't want Linux to be like Windows!" I found this complaint to be humorous, because I never suggested anything even remotely like Windows. The design I suggested was more like OS X, but more advanced, powerful, and Linux focused.

Even so, I had to do a followup article to clear up many of the misconceptions people had about my suggested design.

Re:Reread that article, dammit!

[xenocide2]

You know, part of the problem is that Linux distributors (the people who stand to profit most from desktop usability beyond the "configure make install" mantra) have been addressing other issues equally pertinant and at the same time unique to smaller competitor OS softwares: the installer. Debian makes a great hullabaloo about apt-get during the install, multilingual installs from a single disk, and pressing enter a number of times to get a reasonable system. Fedora Core has a wonderful GUI based system that includes a great deal of explainatory text that can help guide you along, although many believe that nobody reads anything software developers actually write. I have nothing fantastic to say about gentoo, sorry.

Linux faces a great hurdle in that people must actually install it, and they must often allow themselves to co-exist with Windows. Windows affords itself the luxury of refusing to recognize the existance of non MS OS's. So it's no wonder that getting the install correctly has taken more time than Windows, and that only now is Linux stepping beyond the incumbents in what counts to desktop users. FDO is slowly moving on some of the basic problems that have been previously addressed by agreeing to disagree (ie X clipboards), and as they figure out how to grease the wheels of communication and create a connected community of desktop oriented developers outside the realm of the inaccessible desktop environments, things will improve and overtake the market leaders again.

Re:Reread that article, dammit!

[BackInIraq]

One of the biggest backlashes was the complaint that "We don't want Linux to be like Windows!"

Why is Windows so popular (other than the fact that it established a monopoly and abused it to push everybody else out of the market)? Because, though many a Linux zealot may try to argue otherwise, it is easy to use. Yeah, spyware and malware have started to tip the balance, but since 3.1 Windows has focused on trying to be easy to use, for everybody from students to home users to businesses.

I think most Linux users LIKE that Linux has a steeper learning curve. Partly because this is a result of having more control over the OS (which is a good thing). But I think part of it is that it makes them feel geekier being able to master it. Knowing the ins and outs of Linux is something to be proud of.

So here's the problem. Many of your Linux zealots cringe at the idea of making Linux as easy to use as Windows (or OSX), even if the advanced options are still available. They don't want their hands held. They don't want a candy-coated OS. This isn't a bad thing, and I see where they're coming from.

But they also want Linux to take over the desktop market.

Microsoft owns the desktop market largely because Windows is easy to use. Linux users don't want Linux to be as easy to use as Windows. Linux users want Linux to take over the desktop market.

Is anybody else seeing why that's not going to work?

(So you know where I'm coming from, I own two computers...a desktop that dual-boots Windows and Linux (Windows mostly for games and the wife, Linux for me), and a PowerBook running OSX)

Re:Reread that article, dammit!

[Anonymous Coward]

"For God's sake, never allow the X clipboard near a "normal" user (FreeDesktop is working well on that one)."

fd.o's clipboard document explains how the X clipboard works. How it had always worked. That's all it does. The fd.o document exists because Trolltech's programmers didn't understand the previous documentation and shipped several years worth of software that did things wrongly, with the result that we have confused users. From what I can tell through years of "Linux isn't ready" rants, Trolltech owes other X desktop users several billion dollars worth of damages for wasted time and stress. I do know from experience that if they'd got it wrong on Windows people would blame Trolltech, whereas on Linux everyone blames "Linux". Weird.

Don't confuse "I don't know what I'm doing but someone showed me this trick with the middle mouse button" with "the X clipboard". If a Windows user showed you that their custom 4 button mouse had a "paste" button would you assume that Microsoft had stupidly designed their OS so that you had to buy a four button mouse to use the clipboard?

Don't Do It!

[timeOday]

Was the "objective" of Linux ever world domination?

I don't want Linux to become the leader.

I have a two-partition laptop. I run my office apps under VMare on the Windows partition. Lately the thing runs like a pig. The problem is, there's so much company-mandated anti-virus software, manditory patches, and software inventory scanning, that the computer just sits there and scans all the files looking for danger or rebooting all the time.

And besides being sluggish, just getting anything to work (like mounting a network drive) is a nightmare because of a locked-down firewall they installed. The thing is almost unusable. I can't even see which ports are blocked because the UI is a simplistic happy-face sort of thing consisting of big round green buttons and fake reports on how many "attacks" it has saved me from.

I've come to firmly believe it's better to stay a step ahead of the masses. If linux became #1 it would become the target for all this crap, and go into the toilet. I just want linux to become popular enough that it has drivers for everything, other than that I'm satisified.

Just look at Mozilla's popup blockers. For the longest time they worked perfectly. Then it got popular, and now it's been circumvented.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

Knowing how to use a shell or edit a conf file is not "way more than you need".

I mean granted I too agree that some programs need better interfaces. That doesn't mean I think perfection is a GUI interface... Things like a .nanorc file or something is easy to strap together and fun to tinker with in spare time...

I don't look at the learning as a negative. It empowers the users to make better use and choices with computers. If they realized the bloat in Windows [and KDE for that matter] and realized that 64M of ram and icewm + firefox is all they need to read their daily websites... they'd look at their 1024M of ram + explorer + ie + bloat and shake their heads.

If they took the time to learn how a computer works they could install Linux or BSD and free themselves of the monopoly to which they've fallen victim.

Learning information is never a punishment. It's freedom.

Tom

Duh

[edmicman]

How many "this is why linux is failing..." articles will we have? Come on!

Configuration Problems, Management Utilities

[Zombie Ryushu]

As I have said before, and I will say again, It is not Linux software that is lacking in functionality, nor the Kernel, nor the operating system itself. It is the Pompusly bad descions of distributors to ship distrobutions that are too top-heavy, and stocked with bad configurations that break becausee, in setting the default configurations of the OS.

Linux is not so hard to use as it is just plain top-heavy, and inconistant to manage. I'm a Mandrake User. Proud and true. I do alot of my configuration from the command line as well. But I can't configure a Gentoo or Slackware box at all. Why? Because none of them have so much as in ifup command. Thats right. ifup doesn't exist in Gentoo Linux.

There needs to be management consistency. Command line Utilities like ifup, ifdown, chkconfig, grep., locate.... I need these where I can find them.

As for bad configurations, yeah, alot of the configuration I have to do would be easier on my if someone would do a little planning ahead.

Lets say I install Flashplayer for Linux in /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox-1.0.4/plugins and that works fine. Okay. Lets say I install Mozilla 1.0.5 in an RPM update.... Oh no! Flash does work!

Why?
Because FireFox is now looking for plugins in /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox-1.0.5/plugins and my flashplayer hasn't moved. Did I mention Mozilla Seamonkey 1.7.6 can't see it either?

How could this have been avoided? Simple. /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox-1.0.4/plugins should be a symlink to a unifying /usr/lib/mozilla

But again, Distributors didn't plan for this problem. Its not the fault of the Linux Kernel or FireFox.

About Linux being too top-heavy. I have an old i586 200 Mhz, I need to be able to do something with it. There should be an edition of modern Linux that will work for these architechtures of older Pentium I and II. I'm not expecting anything grandiose, just *usable* for Server services or low power cients. Right now, I can't upgrade that computer from Mandrake 7.1 as a result of its low power.

Shhhhhhhhh......

[khasim]

I put "power users" in there because that's how they describe themselves. They're the ones who buy the latest toys for their machines/OS.

Linux rocks for real power users. The people who will rip out anything they don't want and jack up the priority on what they do want. Real power users read the documentation and launch apps with command line flags.

But Windows has resulted in people who believe that clicking on a "use DMA" button is "hacking" their machine.

These are the kids who just love to have the newest toys. Toy-philes. I work for one of them. He likes to show off his newest PDA toy, but he doesn't have a clue how it connects to the Internet.

That's where I come in. I set it up for him and write all the steps down so if it breaks, he can set it up the same way it was. He loves toys, but he doesn't have a clue about the technology.

There is no way he would be happy with Linux until he could drop in his latest purchase and just click on a "make it work" button to complete the installation (even better would be for it to just magically work). That's not going to happen until Linux has 51%+ of the desktop market.

So I just tell that segment of the population that Linux isn't ready for their "power user" needs.

Re:Shhhhhhhhh......

[Anonymous Coward]

But Windows has resulted in people who believe that clicking on a "use DMA" button is "hacking" their machine.

Linux has resulted in people who believe that entering

hdparm -c3 -m16 -d1 -X66 /dev/hda

is so much cooler that clicking.

Re:Shhhhhhhhh......

[the_bard17]

Cooler? Maybe. Depends on your definition.

Configurable? Yes.

I run Linux mainly because I like buttons, dials, and switches. I want to be able to change this, and see what happens... fiddle with that, and watch as this and that changes.

I take pride out of what I assemble, what I've modified, and what I've changed. I like someone looking at my desktop, and saying "Never seen that before. What's this?"

I want the ability to do all that. I don't want a mega-corporation in charge of deciding what I can change, and what I can't.

To me, that's cool. Your definition of cool might differ, at which point you'll figure it's not cool. That's ok... you do your thing, I'll do mine.

Re:Shhhhhhhhh......

[name773]

amen.

i really like all the buttons too... i wish they'd put even more of them in! but i'm quite happy with how configurable it is now.

Re:Shhhhhhhhh......

[Anonymous Coward]

On any street there are a few people who like to do those sorts of things with their cars too. But everyone else on the block just takes the car in for service when it needs it.

Saying Linux is the best "hobbiest" OS isn't helping the desktop case...

Point-by-point

[Anonymous Coward]

Migration: Not really a problem with Linux itself, but with the fact that people run different software on their Linux and non-Linux machines. The commercial vendors make no effort to make their settings and document formats portable to Linux, and the Linux crowd is burdened with reverse-engineering everything. The commercial vendors are the cause and the only long-term solution. Linux can't do anything about this but keep reverse-engineering. An end-run around this problem is to get everyone on proprietary platforms to switch to software that migrates easily to Linux (i.e. Firefox and OpenOffice) first, making subsequent migration a snap. The other migration issue is hardware, which again Linux can only help by reverse-engineering drivers as fast as they can until the hardware vendors decide to open their specs or even write drivers.

API stability is overblown. API changes only really seriously affect proprietary applications that cannot be recompiled. Users savvy enough to install their own software are often savvy enough to read the product requirements list. Still a problem, but it's pretty minor.

Simplicity is a real problem but it's a distro problem. Most people do not want to have to choose which bootloader to use. Luckily, many of the major distros hide these choices in an "expert-only" section of the installer. Still, you do end up with multiple media players out of the box--distros should do what they can to cut down on this in their "newbie" installs. Easy enough, really, and I'm sure some more minor distros do this already (and cut their audience in half by choosing Gnome or KDE).

Comfort is pretty much altogether a BS argument (it assumes "what you're used to" is always good), but Asa's examples are actually genuine usability issues. Linux CAN change the way things work as long as the way things work isn't worse. Mounting drives is fine feature, but automounting makes that feature user-friendly. The /home directory actually makes more sense than My Documents in a lot of ways, and I see no reason to change it--to me, this change was a big IMPROVEMENT from Windows. Reversing the OK and Cancel buttons is really the only example where Linux usability is just plain wrong, and it's only wrong in Gnome. Don't like it? Use KDE. Problem solved. But Gnome should look long at hard at that boneheaded decision.

Basically most of the arguments are overblown, although there are grains of truth throughout. The number-one problem with Linux on the desktop doesn't even make Asa's list--it doesn't come pre-installed on many computers.

Most users do not choose software, they do not comparison shop, they do not see software on the shelf and think it is even possible to put it n their PC. They get what Dell puts on their computer, they learn to use that software, and they never ever change it. If Dell pre-installed Linux, it would be no different for those users.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

How so? nvidia is the company with all the drivers and ATI is the one denying that they make mobile chipsets...

Me thinks you're not a linux user. but some asshat poser windows user who thinks that the latest in technology is DirectX++ or whatever they're pawning on ya.

Tom

Linux is a kernel, not a desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is talking about Linux on the desktop, Linux on the desktop... blah blah blah... KDE, Gnome, etc. do not equal Linux. Linux may have popularized them, but those desktop enviornments are used on nearly every Unix(like) OS out there today. Look at Sun's JDS (Gnome based) and even AIX ships with Gnome, not to mention FreeBSD, etc. Linux is a kernel, the rest of the stuff in the distros is just that, stuff. Much of which has existed prior to Linus ever writing a line of code (thank you FSF, GNU, etc..).

The real thing I don't understand is why everyone talks about what Linux or KDE or Gnome should do, as if it is a corporation with some sort of product roadmap. If you think Gnome should have a certain feature, then go add it yourself. Most of the open source developers are not writing code for you, they are writing it for themselves. Yes, there are companies who are trying to make a dollar or two on open source, and they may listen to you, but they don't make the final decisions (assuming they wish to continue being part of the mainstream code base), as they have a development community to contend with that consists mainly of independent minded individuals with their own personal agendas.

I don't believe we will ever see a non-commercial driven desktop environment that will gain any substantial market share. It's just the way the world works. Open source products as a whole are about self satisfaction. Commercial products are about customer satisfaction. Each fills a need for different people. Just stop expecting them to fill the needs of all people.

A major hangup that still remains

[Y-Crate]

Every few months, a new technical feature designed to improve the visual look of the desktop, migrates over from OS X or Windows some time after it was originally implemented there.

The feature adds some visual flourish and like clockwork, the chorus rings out: "Now Linux looks more like OS X/Windows, we are that much closer to being ready for the desktop!"

I would like to say that's true, but it's far from it. The notion so often expressed in the OSS community that the superficial appearance of the user interface is the primary stumbling block on the road to feature parity, is absolute nonsense.

The functionality remains absolutely ridiculously inconsistent - even by Microsoft standards. The user is assaulted with a constant mish-mash of UI philosophies from one program to another, most of which are cooked up on the spot by whomever coded that portion of the app.

The features do not make the interface, the methods in which you employ them are.

To move beyond this issue, the OSS community will have to conquer the much broader problem of "If you don't like it, code it yourself!" There needs to be a broad understanding that the users are vitally important and that you are not doing some great favor to them by "letting" them use what you've coded. What works for them first, what works for you second. That's the way it needs to be. The bruising of egos will be immense, I know. However, non-expert users will reject Linux otherwise.

If Linux makes a big splash on the desktop and then suffers mass rejection, the recovery will be difficult if not impossible. "Use it because it's cheaper. isn't enough. U.S. carmakers tried that with their half-assed diesel models they rushed into showrooms shortly after the oil embargo of the 1970s. It became clear that the cars were simply under-engineered and the diesel market was shoved into a tiny niche from then on. An enormous amount of effort has been placed in the uphill climb to change perceptions ever since.

Don't let it happen here.

Re:less stupid users

[chris_mahan]

You know what I found the best intro to linux to new people? Viruses:

Noob: Hey, I have a virus on my pc, can you help me?
Me: Get norton antivirus.
Noob: How much is it?
Me: $50, plus $30 every year after that.
Noob: Really? That's a lot!
Me: Try this disk. (I hand them the knoppix cd)

By the time the virus(es) has taken down their machine, there's nothing to do but reinstall (from the dreaded oem recovery disk) so their data is hosed anyway. They have nothing to lose.

I keep knoppix cds around just for that.

He wants MacOS X.

[bcrowell]

Problems on Linux:

migration -- He's right, it's a huge issue, but the problem can't be solved. Too many Windows apps have proprietary formats, and even if someone wanted to reproduce the app's functionality on Linux, it's impossible because the format isn't published.

simplicity -- He's wrong, the problem has been solved, but it's been solved too many times in too many different ways (apt, RPM, etc.). (Yeah, I know apt and RPM aren't analogous, you know what I mean.)

comfort -- Have you heard the quote, "If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution"? If I can't choose my desktop (for me, it's fluxbox), then it's not my revolution.

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like what he wants is MacOS X, not Linux:

migration -- The problem isn't as bad, because in many cases Apple has had the clout to solve it, and because Apple sells proprietary software, they can do a lot of things with proprietary software vendors that Linux can't.

simplicity -- Apple used its power to decree a single, unified system for installing software. Linux can't do that, because it's not a dictatorship.

comfort -- Apple gives you only one desktop to choose from. Congratulations.

We have Ubuntu and Mepis which are FREE...

[ylikone]

as well as Linspire, Xandros, and Lycoris which are commercial. These distro's all qualify as very good desktop platforms.

I have been using Linux as my desktop exclusively since the year 2000. I can watch DVD's, listen to MP3's, burn CDs and DVDs, download and edit digital video from my MiniDV camcorder, download and edit pictures from my digital camera, print with my laser printer, scan with my scanner, manage files on my USB pen drive, play doom3, neverwinter nights, ut2004, etc... WHAT MORE ARE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR? With the exception of decent CAD software (which I don't need) and tax/accounting software, what am I missing that the Windows users have? I don't even feel the need to run wine/cedega/crossover crap.

Linux desktop has arrived years ago... it just keeps being refined.

Re:We have Ubuntu and Mepis which are FREE...

[chip33az]

I use Linux at home, and I even set a machine up in the office for people to use for personal e-mail, web checking, etc. While I like using it, I think it is missing commercial apps. People are sheep and they like to do the same thing as in the past. When I set up the machine in the office someone asked about burning CDs, how much would that software cost? Nothing, it is included. What about XYZ, it's included. I think there needs to be more good, commercial applications for Linux to catch on. If a person wants to burn a CD, let them purchase the boxed software for $20. I know it sounds stupid, but the average person goes to Best Buy/Fry's and looks at the software they can install. Since there is nothing there for Linux, it won't go to the masses. I bet if there was a mad rush of applications to the market, people would start switching to Linux because it is the "in" thing and they would be curious. Does the iPod do anything different than other devices? Not that I know of, but it is "in".

Re:We have Ubuntu and Mepis which are FREE...

[Chaoticmass]

People want:

- to go to the store, pick up any game, put it in their computer, click next a few times in the installer, and play the game.

- to buy any MiniDV Camcorder from bestbuy, plug it into thier computer, install the software from CD, and start editing video.

- buy any Scanner at the store, plug it in.. blah blah blah

You know where I'm going with this.

Less Stupid Slashdot Users

[PocketPick]

The argument is not about a developer's perpective, it's about the users. NORMAL users. Why in the world would any normal user be concerned with these things?

Killing a windows manager? In Windows? Did you even think WHY they would need to do that? I find it hard to believe that most people go to work and say "Damn. You know what? I could kill a DOS command line right now."

GTK, Motif, Win32, MFC. VI, Wordpad. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Do you really think the average user cares about these things when the go about thier jobs? They want what works at the least cost to thier time.

Re:Less Stupid Slashdot Users

[tomstdenis]

First, killing a wm? Um DX locks up about as often as old people drive dangerously.

As for the others... If you were aware of how computers and the field operated you'd be aware of alternatives like openoffice or firefox or gnome or .... that are often much better, cheaper, progressive, etc...

Do you think the average user actually understands the boot process? Is it really that complicated? You think if they did they'd have zero problems installing a new os?

Your [and others] argument seems to be "they can get away with knowing nothing if they [without knowing] accept servitude to MSFT."

My argument is that "stop taking things for granted and you'll see there is a bigger world out there".

I mean I'd be saying the same thing if everyone just up and jumped to Fedora core. You'd be locked into whatever choices they made as for the distro etc.

I think people should learn about software and computers. Not to a masters level but enough to know about file formats and vendor lockin, etc, etc....

All these things are about empowerment.

So if you ask me "shouldn't we dumb down linux to make it zero-learning curve?" I'd say a straightfaced "no." Part of the learning curve is learning the broad field of available options...

I mean your arguments are essentially all just "this is the way it will be forever so why try." That's a bit self-fulfilling.

Even still, I've been using Linux only for over two years now [I was on the fence before that] and I really haven't missed anything. Sure I'd love a good FPS once and a while but the benefits for my sanity and professional life are way more worth it. And with all the money I make writing software in Linux ... I go out and buy and xbox or PSP or DS game every once and a while... :-)

Anyways, nuff ranting. The simple point I'm making is encouraging people to learn is not a bad thing. Sure it's work but if your criteria of what is good is "no work" then you're as useless as the day is long and productive people are just going to shove you out of the way.

Tom

Re:Less Stupid Slashdot Users

[OzRoy]

Should we be able to take things for granted? Yes. I take my car for granted, why not the computer?

Shouldn't we dumb down linux to make it zero-learning curve? YES YES YES!!!! That should be the ultimate goal for EVERYTHING! Should users be able to be empowered? YES! But that is the wrong question. The real question is "Should users be forced to be empowered?" and the answer to that is a loud and definate "NO!" Zero learning curve and empowerment are NOT mutually exclusive, and you will only cripple yourself if you believe that.

The best tool for the job is always the easiest one to use. As a desktop "Mum's and Dad's" machine linux is not that tool. Can linux be that tool? YES! But there is a long way to go, and until we start to address the issues mentioned in the article we will never get there.

Sure we can encourage a user to learn, but never force! As soon as you force a user to learn something you will lose that user.

Asa is right

[jalefkowit]

Unsurprisingly there's already a lot of "bah, this guy wants Linux dumbed down for n00bs" comments on this thread. Which totally misses the point:

Linux-on-the-desktop isn't just too complicated for n00bs -- it's too complicated for reasonably sharp users, too. And that's the problem.

I offer myself as an example. I am not the God of All Things Computing. But I've been tinkering with PCs since MS-DOS 3 days, I've used Windows, Macs, Linux and even CP/M for pete's sake. Today my primary desktop at home runs Ubuntu Linux. I'm comfortable compiling software from source tarballs and rooting through Google for HOWTOs and FAQs.

In short, I know my way around a computer -- and yet Ubuntu still manages to throw me for a loop more frequently than I'd like.

Example. The other day I installed the new Deer Park preview of Firefox. For some reason, its installer (bonus points to it for even having a graphical installer, btw) didn't add a shortcut for launching it to my GNOME panel. So I wanted to add one myself.

Easy? Right? Bzzt.

On Windows, here's the steps for adding a new item to the Start menu:

1. Click Start menu button
2. Navigate to folder where you'd like to add shortcut
3. Right-click folder name
4. Select "New Shortcut"
5. Wizard launches that walks you through finding the program you want the shortcut to point to, and giving the shortcut a name.

I figured there must be a way to manipulate the GNOME panel in a similar fashion. Nope. There is no direct way in Ubuntu Hoary to add a panel item to the menus through the GUI. Instead you have to open a shell, find /usr/share/applications, and create a .desktop file in there for your application.

But! You don't have permission to do that by default, so you have to use sudo to create the file. ("You do know how to use sudo, right Mom?")

And then -- once you figure out that you need to create a .desktop file, and where this file needs to go, and what format this file needs to be in, and you actually go and create it -- nothing happens! That's right, you don't see the item in your panel until the next time you log in, unless you manually restart the X server with CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE.

(Yes, you have to restart the window manager, or else it will appear that all your work was for naught. "Just restart the X server, Mom. Mom? Hello? Noob.")

The icing on the cake is that to find this answer, you have to go through three levels of redirection:

• Ubuntu tells you to refer to GNOME, since it's their desktop, Ubuntu's just distributing it
• GNOME tells you to refer to FreeDesktop.org, since it's their standard for panel items, GNOME is just packaging it
• FreeDesktop.org hides the instructions on how to write a .desktop file deep in a standards document.

("You do read standards documents, right Mom?")

I went through all that and finally got my shortcut added to the panel. But how many average users are gonna put up with that? (And Ubuntu does better at this stuff than most others.)

With all the spit and polish issues that Linux has, Asa is not the only Mozillian to find fault with it; former Moz UI gadfly Matthew Thomas (aka mpt), who's now with Ubuntu sponsor Canonical, recently posted a list of 69 usability flaws in Ubuntu Hoary, and old skooler Jamie Zawinski gave up Linux for OS X for good.

My case was not a case of "user who could not snap out of Windows-ism". I'm more than willing to embrace a better approach when I see it. But this is not a better approach fo

Re:Asa is right

[msuarezalvarez]

There is a direct way to add stuff to GNOME panels, as long as the apps you are trying to add comunicate with their environment in rather well-defined ways (specified the standards you refer to): you right click on a panel and select the "Add to Panel" item in the context menu. By design, the panel expects applications to present a precisely defined interface, the .desktop file, which should be set up by the application itself. If Deer Park does not conform with the interface, and you feel it should, you should file a bug against it.

This expectation on behalf of the panel is not very different from the expectation the window manager has about apps adhering to the ICCCM, or apps assuming the cos function they get when they dynamically link to libc will compute the cosine of the argument passed to it when called. And, I think, it is as reasonable.

You can expect a response along the lines of "well, this is an alpha release, so you should really tell your mom to use our released versions, or, even better, the packages set up by her distro". This response should be met with understanding on your part, but, determined, you should insist (politely and with a constructive undertone) remarking that if Deer Park installed a .desktop file properly it might get more testers.

(If you want to create a launcher on a panel, you can also simply drag an item from the Applications menu to it---this has been possible since the beginning of time, IIRC. Of course, this also depends on your having a menu item to begin with, and this in turn depends on the .desktop file being there.)

Re: the indirection you notice. That indirection is a good thing, actually. The fact that you stumbled upon this problem is completely separate from it; your problem is due to the app not presented the interface it should. Also, fd.o does not hide the information in its specs; at least, not more so than the W3C hides the information on HTML in its spec. The intended audience for those specs is formed by developers, and though they may be terse and sometimes even slightly obtuse, the community which develops them is notably helpful in clearifying them.

Re: nothing happens when you create the .desktop file: The panel uses fam/gamin to monitor the directory in which you created the .desktop file, and when things are working it gets notified of the file-cretaing event, and updates its menus and what not. If this did not happen, then this is a problem, maybe a bug (but it does work correctly for most people). It is an orthogonal issue, though. Unless you've done tweaking affecting this, this is the kind of thing that you probably should report to your distro.

In my very humble opinion, if the problem you can think to exemplify the non-readiness of the Linux Desktop (tm) is that an alpha release, intended only for developers, of Firefox is not behaving as a end-user-targetted released version of Firefox, well, I have to admit that I for one do not worry much.

Re:Asa is right

[jalefkowit]

In my very humble opinion, if the problem you can think to exemplify the non-readiness of the Linux Desktop (tm) is that an alpha release, intended only for developers, of Firefox is not behaving as a end-user-targetted released version of Firefox, well, I have to admit that I for one do not worry much.

You've completely missed my point.

My issue had nothing to do with the fact that I was using an alpha developer release of Firefox. There are tons of applications I've installed on Ubuntu that do not create panel icons. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the ones that are well-behaved and set things up properly are outnumbered by the ones that aren't.

Now, compare this to the situation on Win32, where even the most trivial shareware knows to set up a Start menu folder.

So, seeing that, let me boil down what I was getting at for you:

1. Users expect apps to add themselves to the appropriate panel menus when they are installed
2. This does not happen consistently on Linux (at least Ubuntu and Fedora, the two desktop distros I've worked with most)
3. Given that, there should be an easy way (i.e. no editing .desktop files) to manually add shortcuts to apps to a given panel menu
4. There isn't.

If it helps, swap in "application Foo" for "Deer Park" in my original post -- none of what I was talking about was DP-specific, beyond the initial failure to update the panel (which, as noted above, is hardly only a Deer Park thing).

Re:Asa is right

[msuarezalvarez]

I guess that depends on the apps you use. I cannot think of an app I have installed and use that has not set itself up properly, and certainly none of the apps I work on as developer fails to set itself up. I have also explained to a non-negligeable number of people how to set up an app so that it does set itself up correctly when installed, so I have had the opportunity to appreciate that doing so is essentially trivial and, in fact, in the large majority of cases, just a matter of cutting and pasting 3 lines from a configure.ac file from an existing app, copying its .desktop file and merely editing the appropriate fields (of course, after finding an appropriately licenced app to copy from!).

So what you are saying here is basically that there are developers out there who will not follow essentially trivial steps to ensure their apps follow standard (albeit relatively recently standarized) interfaces. Well. It is hard to disagree with that. The readiness of the Linux Desktop cannot be made dependent on them, I think, though.

Try using Win32 in a locale different from English, and check how many of those shareware apps that do know how to set up a start menu folder know to put themselves in the localized versions of "My Programs", "My Pictures" or "My Whatever"---that is, how many of those apps use the correct interface to get to those directories. The fact that most of them do not can grow into a rather serious annoyance. Claiming thereupon that Windows is not ready for the desktop is... well... incorrect.

Re:Asa is right

[ookaze]

Linux-on-the-desktop isn't just too complicated for n00bs -- it's too complicated for reasonably sharp users, too. And that's the problem.

No, the problem is that you think you are a reasonnably sharp user, when in fact you are just more Windows formatted than Linux formatted.

I offer myself as an example. I am not the God of All Things Computing. But I've been tinkering with PCs since MS-DOS 3 days, I've used Windows, Macs, Linux and even CP/M for pete's sake.

OK, now me : I never used MS-DOS, I've used Amiga, HP-UX, AIX, Windows (95,98,2000,XP) and Linux.

Today my primary desktop at home runs Ubuntu Linux.

Mine runs my own Linux. I have Ubuntu on a laptop though. I decided to try Ubuntu ... 2 months ago, after hearing about it for several months before that.

I'm comfortable compiling software from source tarballs and rooting through Google for HOWTOs and FAQs.

Me too. I'm also full Linux user since january 2001, and started trying Linux in january 1999.

Example. The other day I installed the new Deer Park preview of Firefox.

And your example is already flawed, as no ordinary user would do such a thing. Hell, even I do not do that on my own Linux OS, I sure would not do that on the ubuntu laptop. But OK.

For some reason, its installer (bonus points to it for even having a graphical installer, btw) didn't add a shortcut for launching it to my GNOME panel. So I wanted to add one myself.

And now it's finished : the provider of the installer did not provide a shortcut for this software, which is not even consumer grade, and you then blame the Linux desktop for that ?
Ah no, you take a well known fact that Gnome 2.10+ do not have an official menu editor yet to try to make others believe that you are right. That is the death of your argument that comes now ...

Easy? Right? Bzzt.

On Windows, here's the steps for adding a new item to the Start menu:

1. Click Start menu button
2. Navigate to folder where you'd like to add shortcut
3. Right-click folder name
4. Select "New Shortcut"
5. Wizard launches that walks you through finding the program you want the shortcut to point to, and giving the shortcut a name.

I knew it. Now, here comes the death of your stupid argument :
- The steps you described are so complicated, no ordinary user can do it, even I have difficulty with this.
- The Windows way forces you to put a shortcut in the menu for a alpha-beta app that you will soon delete, so clutter your menu, is complicated to do (and you deliberately forgot some steps), and forces you to go through a wizard, which is tedious.
- At the very least, you now need 2 clicks (probably 3) to access your new shortcut, or several delays to replace the clicks.
- Me, not so sharp as you, but a real user of Linux, have TWO simple way to achieve MUCH BETTER than what you did : right-click the panel and "add a launcher" or right click the desktop and "add a launcher".
- I'm then presented with a simple dialog, with two tabs (basic, advanced, you are on basic by default), with things like "name", "comment", "command". I have all the other standard dialogs to browse, to find an icon for my launcher, ...
- On the panel and on the desktop, my new shortcut has far more visibility. Hell, I can even put an emblem on it, to have more visual cues. For example, a danger emblem, for all developpement versions I will have to delete later.

So the reasonning is different, but you, the self called "sharp user", who supposedly used Linux, can not come with that in mind, when two better solutions came to mine.
And you think Windows users put up with crap like yours, of putting shortcuts in menus, which need navigating a menu and several clicks ?
And you feel your example shows problems with the Linux desktop ?

I figured there must be a way

Re:Asa is right

[ookaze]

Wrong on all counts.

BTW, you say you installed 'tons' of applications on Ubuntu, which just invalidate a lot of people saying installing apps on Linux is hard.

A lot of freeware on Windows do not install any shortcut anywhere, some even come in ZIP files with no installer. Now, being the perfect astroturfer, you carefully chose to talk about shareware on Windows, because shareware authors HAVE to do such basic things to have a chance to get money. Of course, comparing sharewares to a development version of Firefox, which is no shareware, is stupid and biased, but you surely thought you would get away with it.

Points 3 and 4 are, well, amazing, given the fact that there IS a way to do that. It is to use smeg, the unofficial gnome menu editor. But that destroys your argument, shows you did not research anything before spewing nonsense, like every astroturfers bashing Linux desktop.
Of course, smeg just edits the desktop file, which is no shortcut like in Windows, but a much more powerful thing.

The rest is the usual troll of uninformed Windows shill that try to find flaws in Linux, but never manage to find the right ones.
Some years ago, these "all is greener on Windows" post made me switch back to Windows, because, well, I must have been deluded. Less than one day after, I was always back on Linux, the Windows experience beeing unbearable and showing me all the hidden flaws in the "greener Windows" argument. Nowadays, the Linux desktop is so much more powerful, that even the "greener in Windows" posts are still pitiful when compared.

Re:Asa is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I figured there must be a way to manipulate the GNOME panel in a similar fashion. Nope. There is no direct way in Ubuntu Hoary to add a panel item to the menus through the GUI. Instead you have to open a shell, find /usr/share/applications, and create a .desktop file in there for your application.

Its not nearly that bad. The first program the Ubuntu Guide (a very well known documentation) tells you how to install Smeg to do the job.

Plus, that is a Gnome problem, not a Linux problem. Its easy to do in KDE.

And then -- once you figure out that you need to create a .desktop file, and where this file needs to go, and what format this file needs to be in, and you actually go and create it -- nothing happens! That's right, you don't see the item in your panel until the next time you log in, unless you manually restart the X server with CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE.

Actually you don't even have to do that. You can restart the gnome panel by running this:

killall gnome-panel

I know all these solutions involve the CLI, so if to you "desktop user=GUI" you will no doubt conclude that its not "ready." Its fine for me (and you I guess).

Re:Well, here's my take...a... corporate workhorse

[Anonymous Coward]

"The most important design issue...is that Linux is supposed to be fun..." Linus Torvalds
( Linux Journal, March 1995 )

Maybe the problem is that too many people have lost sight of the wisdom quoted above. Linux was not originally intended as a corporate tool. If IT departments find it useful, GREAT; but if they find it inappropriate for some corporate purpose, they should consider NOT using it for that purpose ( the ability to make such decisions is the essence of being a "professional" IMHO).

In any case, the needs and desires of the corporate world should be -at MOST- "A" factor driving the development of Linux or any other FLOSS project.

"World Domination" will come -if ever- when a significant fraction of users find that Linux meets their needs in a manner that they find at least adequate - and that is just FINE! Until such time as users naturally grow into FLOSS products , commercial products are quite appropriate. If some developer(s) decide to make a "training wheeled" version of a FLOSS product, that too is an excellent thing. I think, however, that such a training version should primarily serve as a stepping stone to "power-user" status, rather than as a dumbed-down standard.

Developers who are not paid should not feel compelled to cater to either the timid individual, the "engulf and devour" world of the corporate mindset, or any other particular special interest - unless one of those regimes happens to appeal to the tastes of the developer in question.

Please, No More!

[zet0n]

Seriously, articles about why Linux isn't ready for the desktop are growing more redudant than this post.

Re:Please, No More!

[MSDos-486]

Yes but articles to propaganizing it grow at a greater rate.

You forgot the the biggest segment

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Embedded. Cell phones, TVs, dektop boxes.

Linux excells where Joe Sixpack does not have to fiddle with set up. That includes situations where the computer is not visible to the users (embedded and servers) as well as those where someone else completely manages the box (eg. corporate desktops).

For the general home user I agree that Linux is a pig. I can't get my PC to play MP3s. The Winmodem needed a bunnch of hacking etc.

Re:You forgot the the biggest segment

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't get my PC to play MP3s.

So you're an asshole. Thanks for sharing.

Re:You forgot the the biggest segment

[Anonymous Coward]

The Winmodem needed a bunnch of hacking etc.

Duh, get a Linmodem

This whole debate is misplaced

[jesterzog]

Does this whole "Linux on the desktop" thing even matter any more? Linux is just a kernel. It'd make more sense to talk about "KDE on the desktop" or "Gnome on the desktop" or "Suse on the desktop" or "Redhat on the desktop". Then it's actually about companies, organisations and applications that are aiming to provide a "desktop experience", and they won't be as confused with each other. The "Linux on the desktop" debate somehow groups them all together, quite unfairly.

It's not even a debate about the suitability of open source software for the desktop. Windows honestly implements some horrible UI decisions which cause all sorts of problems that users have simply learned to put up with because they don't know what alternative options they have, if any. Open source apps clearly have their shortcomings, but if Windows were put up to the same sort of desktop scrutiny as open source applications, it'd have a lot of problems to answer for. Studies of Windows (especially when comparing with linux apps), however, are often biased by the issue that so many people are already entrenched into using Windows products, and putting up with all their annoyances. If more people more often moved from open source systems to Windows, problems with Windows desktops would be noticed and reported much more frequently.

Instead, this debate is actually about the ability of open source software to mimic Windows closely enough so that people, who have trained themselves for and only understand Windows, can migrate (or be migrated) and re-train themselves without complaining too much or having serious problems during the migration process. It's a meaningful debate and important, but let's be clear on what we're talking about. Linux has desktop problems, but Windows also has different desktop problems... and people tolerate them because they've decided they have to. The debate's about barriers of migration between two substantially different systems.

Personally I use WindowMaker on my desktop. For me it's great --- I can have a desktop that I like, which doesn't try to make everything work the same as Windows, which I don't like. At home I have Linux running underneath it, elsewhere I have NetBSD running underneath it. WindowMaker's certainly not ideal for everyone, though.

If Linux has anything to do with this, it's that it's based on the development model that allows me to choose the desktop I want rather than have a one-style-fits-all desktop forced on me by a gigantic corporation.

I think its ready...

[zoftie]

but there is real lack of desktop applications. People WILL migrate to another operating system if they have the tools they need for whatever they do. Casual users won't bother, anyone who does use internet fairly often, by this time is sick and tired of viruses, worms and other internet grit, that gets into their lives. Now alot of people have always on connections, this implies greater exposure of your computer , when your system, no only not secured, but also runs OS that is very hard to secure , even for professionals.

Often the hardcore people who still want to play windows games, would make restore DVD of their bare system and reimage drive once a week, to keep slime off the machine.

From browser vendor that does't fix scrolling divs

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox and Mozilla should get their own house in order and ship a version of their browser in which scrollable divs, etc. works with keystrokes, scroll wheel, etc. so people don't need IE for proper website operation.

This sort of thing forces many people to recommend avoiding Firefox because scrollable divs are so important.

Yes, IE lacks transparent PNGs, but there are reasonable workarounds for that, but not for the completely broken scrolling divs known for years, since long before Firefox version 1.0, and not fixed yet in a released version of Mozilla or Firefox.

Windows rapidly approaching desktop usability

[e_AltF4]

Windows rapidly approaching desktop usability

It's the grandma test again

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the verbose morons who advocate an operating system that even grandma can use aren't too keen in owning a car designed with grandma in mind.

way different philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linux GUI Desktops want to imitate Windows even more everything might be getting a little awkward. Microsoft's main philosophy is to keep their consistent menu and data access structures, to have a plug and play, learn by clicking around interface. Also, they have a big issue about backwards compatibility. People will complain if they can't read their files from 1993.
However, this comes at a price - once you have clicked through all those masks and menus you realize there are practically thousands of masks to remember where and how to change information. Also, it's pretty difficult to customize windows to one's needs. Everything is the same for everyone.
Linux a based on the UNIX philosophy, founded in the 1960s on the first and at that time most powerful computer systems, developed in an academic setting and used by the first computer freaks that existed on this planet. It's beautiful to have this system philosophy in plain form available as Linux today. This way one can experience what only a few people had access to for many years since the 60s.
Linux is so fundamentally different from windows, not developed primarily for personal computer use, and above all - not for use with a GUI. The beauty is the beast. It is not remotely realistic to believe that one could appreciate the power of Linux as a common windows user even if there would be a clone of windows glued on top of linux. The windows user sitting in front of gnome or kde first thinks "what do i need that ugly xterm or shell there, let's close it" then "where's my browser, word, excel, outlook, media player, cd burn application,", then "why doesnt my printer print, my soundcard makes no sound, etc."
Hardware manufacturers - especially those that produce mass products like graphics cards, soundcards, printers, game stuff, write their drivers first and often only for windows. The hardware is optimized for windows and even a big company like microsoft has to struggle with millions of possible parts becoming connected to their system and to guarantee that everything works right away. Thats a major problem, how would Linux ever try make it there.
Look at who's using Linux and related today, mostly people with a background in Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, IT Professionals, Computer freaks,...
One great experience for quite some of them was that after first childhood experience with computers they wanted to start coding themselves, do some scripts, guis, complicated maths, whatever. On windows to start serious coding you might want to buy very expensive developer software to be up to date with documentation etc. Take as an example the vc++. Isn't it totally confusing from a purist standpoint to figure out where in this monstrum lies the small and beautiful core c concept ? So it comes as a revelation to see that Linux basically is C. There is no way to not be able to get in contact with the purest C programming concepts when using Linux. Linux without the C compiler is like a car without an engine. You take away what drives the system. So, to really appreciate Linux, you have to code. Everything in the system evolved around stuff that people wrote for convenience to get their things done. Usually, when there is a new task you modify the code a little. From the experience what is the general solution to the problem you put out a nice shell command with these 30 switches or so.
I like the gnome and kde philosophy, GUI is a must in every sense. But not to imitate a windows desktop but to run some scientific or customized software there.
But I give up when I google for 2 hours to find out how to get some soundcard running that would do it immediately on windows. Isn't it ridiculous going to the 15th link and then downloading a driver written by somebody who figured out somehow "but you might have to change this and that to make it work".
Just my two cents

It's getting there.

[rangefinder]

From TFA:

When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data. Without this, the hill is just too steep to climb and Regular People will not make the climb.

This is not quite true. People will migrate, even with some pain, if they know the cost of not migrating. From privacy issues to monopolistic/illegal practises to security problems, there are many good reasons to stop using Microsoft products.

The third issue is a lack [of] simplicity.

That's right. Asking someone during an install if they want Gnome or KDE is useless if they have nothing to base a decision on. Give them one and they can explore later. It's traditional to underestimate lusers here on Slashdot, but believe it or not, they can grasp certain concepts... if not all:)

Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely tuned muscle memory

That's a joke, right? Finely tuned muscle memory? To do what, install spyware? Those who work on GUIs for Linux should feel free to continue improving on the use of meaningless button labels in Windows. I applaud their efforts.

No one can deny that Linux has to overcome some problems. As an outsider, and off the top of my head, some of these problems are: the confusing multitude of different distros (which is at the same time a good thing); the rough-around-the-edges interface; the lack of a single, unified marketing campaign leading to little or no brand recognition; and the merest mention of a CLI to a Windows user.

But it's worth trying. Today I got Ubuntu to run (not a big accomplishment, happily)... and tonight, I was asked "What's Linux?"

I continually advocate open source software, both personally and at the workplace, and I really consider that a natural evolution toward Linux. If you can use, for example, Firefox in Windows, then you can certainly use it in Linux. There is no migration pain, and there is now one less stumbling block to adopting Linux.

I once helped build a house for Habitat for Humanity. A critic asked me, "Do you really think building one house is going to solve the housing crisis?" And I answered "No. But it's going to solve this family's housing crisis."

In the same way, Linux may not be ready for the desktop; but it's ready for mine. Maybe it's ready for someone else, too. Thank you to its developers, and keep up the good work.

The real problem

[Penguinoflight]

Until we can effectively determine the viability of linux and what steps should be taken to bring it mainstream, people will still be coming up with random garbage for their own explanation. Dumb journalists get their garbage posted here, less dumb slashdotters post their own thesis and get a +5 insightful, others counter and get a +4 interesting... None of these posts ever answer the question, so posting articles that boast nothing special is pointless.

Before I hear from anyone on 1) Linux ready for the desktop? or 2) What's keeping linux from mainstream, I want to see some credibility. How many IT jobs have your worked in the last 5 years? How much time do you have supporting _stupid_ users (dumber than grandma bootsie)? Write a thesis on the lazyness of the average user. Hold a LPI and RHCE certification. Be good enough in perl to work for mp3.com (not a huge accomplishment, but coding is important).

Unfortunatly there's virtually nobody who meets half of these qualifications in journalism (and only about 10% of slashdot, in fact I couldn't claim all of the stuff I just listed). The only journalist I remember who at least seemed to meet all these qualifications was a writer for infoworld, who at least used to run varlinux.org
He concluded that linux was ready for mainstream use! The problem isn't that linux isn't good enough the problem is the population isn't good enough. They aren't ready to handle windows as it is so why should things be any different with linux? You are supporting the platform, so you choose the platform.

You don't want to see it!

[ylikone]

oh it's there... it's not blue, it's not red, it has no pretty icons associated with... but it's there.

KERNEL PANIC

CORE DUMPED

Pray that you don't ever see it... if you do, it usually means there is something seriously wrong... sometimes get-out-the-boot-cd-and-try-to-recover wrong, often system-is-pooched-you're-screwed wrong. But even then, it's not the end of the world. Just mount the drive using a Knoppix boot CD and copy your /home directory to another drive and start again.

Define "Linux" and "desktop Linux"

[kollivier]

People always say "Linux" like it is one big community all moving towards one ultimate goal. It's not. All "Linux" is, really, is a kernel that can be used as the core of an operating system.

Look at the comments in the article. Do all the comments apply to all Linux-based distros? Many of the criticisms are not only already known (in a general sense), but also being addressed by some distros. If you look at Ubuntu Linux, for example, they've already taken steps to address many of the issues Asa pointed out. (One GUI, remove app clutter, focus on simplicity.) So exactly what is this "desktop Linux" he says is not ready? Is he talking about Ubuntu, RedHat, SuSE, Debian, Gentoo, etc., etc. Really, he's just talking in generalities.

And thinking and talking in generalities is a major part of the problem - how do you address a problem with 100 distributions? How do you standardize all these operating systems out there based on Linux? You can't, really. You can't sit around and wait for even a majority of distros to decide to come up with, and support, some standardized "Desktop Linux" experience.

In fact, the main issue with most *nix-based distros is that they're bound by their components and build systems to remain mostly the same as other *nix distros. They're different enough to not be the same, but similar enough not to really be different. There's a glut of distros but there's not that much going on in terms of actual desktop work outside of people tweaking GUIs and maintaining packages. So long as no one wants to try anything radical, how does anyone plan on this new and compelling alternative to Windows appearing?

But I wouldn't want to stop yet another person from pointing out the same deficiencies that people have been pointing out for years. Somehow it seems it's still news here. :-)

It's Direct X holding Linux back

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to be Direct X that will kill Linux, like it or not, that is the truth...just look at the direction is pointing in Longhorn. Anything with imbedded DX will be exclusive to MIcrosoft, their products and their partners.

Re:It's Direct X holding Linux back

[Anonymous Coward]

Carmack should be GPL'ing his quake 3 engine in the next few years and unless some really unconventional thinking goes into it's coordination, marketing and accessibility, most likely Linux will go the way of the dinosaur within the next decade.

One major thing that everyone ignores...

[SparklingClearWit]

Pre-built, ready-to-run software that people want and use. Fuck all your endless variations on editors and mahjongg.

Let Bootsie buy Betty Crocker's recipes, and make it work.

Replace Photoshop with something that doesn't SO resemble its name (*cough*fucking Gimp*cough*).

Give users an easy way to buy a game/program and install it.

Mom, Joe Sixpack, and Bootsie NEVER want to see the command line. What if some new car company just decided that you'd use your left foot for the accelerator, and you'd use a motorcycle-style clutch "because studies show it's better"?

Christ. This site is becoming a blog for Linux cumguzzlers. Can't discuss shortcomings rationally.

Linux does some things WONDERFULLY. Windows does some things better. People like what they are USED to - don't fuck with it because "we say it's better!!1" - until people get that through their heads, desktop adoption will stagnate.

If you're the tech support, all are easy.

[khasim]

And I'm sure that those people are as happy with their systems now as they were with Windows (or happier without the spyware/adware).

The Linux desktop is pretty much ready. The only limitations are hardware and tech support.

Most people who buy home computers don't have Linux tech support handy. They have to depend upon whomever sold them the system. As more OEM's sell Linux systems to corporate/government offices, their tech support staff will become familiar with Linux and be able to provide the same type of support that you do. Congrats!

Re:If you're the tech support, all are easy.

[BiggyP]

Hardware support in linux is, in some ways, better than that available on windows, your average linux distro just works out of the box, a fresh installation of Windows XP, on the other hand, needs drivers for my NIC and onboard sound card, which is ok if you have the driver disks around but can be tricky if upgrading or reinstalling the OS on a PC that you didn't build yourself(no motherboard driver disc) or have lost the driver discs for. While that doesn't necessarily mean that linux hardware support is great, it may suggest that installation could be less troublesome for novice users.

Another thought is that, while scanner makers don't tend to produce linux drivers themselves, the SANE project allows scanners that are no longer supported under windows XP, to continue their useful lives. I just wish that the likes of HP, who sell computers with linux installed, would put some serious effort into supporting their peripherals under linux.

Re:If you're the tech support, all are easy.

[It'sYerMam]

Don't forget specific app support, such as games (N/A for Grannies) genealogical apps (N/A for gamers) and whatever the hell it is they want. Hardware support is actually pretty good in that it's possible to get pretty much anything that's 6 months/a year old to run, with a bit (or more) of hacking. With software, it either ports, it runs in Wine or it flops. Usually the latter.

Most people don't use computers

[Hal XP]

[...] and the Linux system which is an alien world to most people.

I can't disagree more. Most people don't use computers. Check the most bloated statistics. Windows users number in the hundreds of millions vs. a world population in the billions. So most people couldn't care a wot what the Windows XPerience is all about. There's actually still a market out there. Go after the Great Unwashed, not the Windows or Mac geeks.

Re:Most people don't use computers

[Hal XP]

On second thought, I think you're right: Linux and Windows are alien worlds to most people in our overpopulated generation starship.

sadly, it's not ready yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I just did an install of Fedora Core 4, and I can say for sure that it's not ready for "ordinary people" yet.

I say that with great sadness, because I really wanted desktop Linux to be ready.

Too many weird little things drive us nuts about it. I'm a sophisticated user, and my wife is not, but we both agreed on many shortcomings.

Ironically, the things that drive us absolutely nuts are the things that seem on the surface like they should be small issues: Not remembering window placement and size -- or always defaulting to Icon file view -- or not supporing drag-and-drop when we expect it to. We both have found that we're CONSTANTLY clicking the mouse all the time to work around these little things. This profuse mouse-clicking makes the interface feel very clunky and "not-ready".

I mention the UI problems here specifically because I think that they are problems that could be fixed in the near future. (I was also quite disappointed by the lack of drivers, but I recognize that's a much more difficult problem to solve.)

My experiences with both Gnome and KDE have given me a tremendous appreciation for the huge amount of work that Microsoft has done in getting the "little details" right.

Admittedly, it's a psychological thing -- for example, when someone's been used to the right mouse button consistently bringing up a little menu all the time, it can be quite depressing when that feature is suddenly taken away for no apparent reason. Maybe Linux has a "better way", but the point is that it's almost impossible for us to figure out what that "better way" might be without LOTS and LOTS of dedication and experience with Linux. I might be that dedicated -- I'm not sure yet -- but I doubt that many others are.

Re:less stupid users

[Zone5]

Don't be any more of a frothing idiot than you need to be. None of those come with WinXP because none of those are of interest to 99% of the WinXP market.

What's that? Geeks will rule the world? Not until they outnumber the bubbas of the world, Jimbo.

Almost There ....

[alucinor]

The Linux desktop is almost ready. Two major places to keep your eyes over the next two years:

Ubuntu
Suse

I'm deliberately leaving out Fedora/RedHat. Not to troll, but they don't really seem nearly as motivated in the desktop space as these other two entities do.

But then again, I get the sneaking suspiscion that the ultimate Linux desktop isn't going to come from a U.S. or Euro country ... keep your eyes on:

Brazil. They're preping to kick some desktop ass. Linux is definitely going to be a phenomenon as the 3rd world moves up.

Oh but it has!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not blue, not red, but black.
I'd call it the black screen of paralysis for Joe users.
It's called...

the shell.

Convince someone to install Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear a lot of you taking about how to concince moms and dads to switch to Linux. I think a good question to ask is why would they want to switch.

They are perfectly comfortable with Windows and it's applications which they use every day. And any working dad (that is payed good) will tell you that he doesn't mind spendign some extra cash as long as it just works. I remember when my dad brought me his old computer to see what was wrong with it. Turns out it was a disk and a floppy failure (dads still use those, yeah). I could replace the disk and buy some used floppy, but thw whole computer was old and I didn't want to deal with it. So I just told him to buy a new PC. The same day we went and bought a new (rather modern) PC and I installed him all that crap and he has never had problems again - apart from the regular icons appearing on his desktop of too much porn browsing (but I installed him Firefox :p). If I would have installed him Linux he would probably agreed to try it, but I'm sure after he would have realized that he doesn't know crap about it (where his documents are, how to burn a CD,...) and after he might have gotten a .doc that wouldn't render correctly in OO.o and after he would have found out that he can no longer use his online bank, because they don't support Firefox...
He would probably tell me to fuck off and give him back his "old" computer. That is the "problem" with older (mature) people - they don't want to take that risk. They rather spit out $150 for Windows and have everything work.

I personally don't use Linux. I used to dual boot into Slackware a couple of times, tried Xandros, Mandrake and FreeBSD a lot but with time I just deleted that partition. Not because I didn't like it, but because I didn't feel the need to use it. I have absolutely no use for it._All_ the apps that I use run on Windows (pretty much every GNU app has been ported if I may want to use it), I have drivers that actually work (I'm looking at you ATI), I have iTunes to handle my iPod,... Beeing a sane person I don't get any viruses or spyware or any other crap.

Say you would want to switch a person like me to Linux, what would have you told me? What benefits do I gain when using Linux? (btw, spare me the bullshit that I will be free as I, as most other sane people, don't gie a shit.

Hasn't made it on the desktop ... never will

[Dr. Mu]

Linux on the desktop is doomed. It can't make it there simply because the F/OSS model has neither a coherent vision of what Linux on the desktop should be nor the leadership or clout to enforce such a vision. There's no Gates or a Jobs beating the drum while the galley slaves row in unison. Without that, individual egos will always run rampant and will never be focussed.

I don't mean to besmirch the F/OSS model entirely. It works fine for individual programs. I written my share of them. But for something as complex as a modern, consumer-oriented OS? Forget it!

Re:less stupid users

[PocketPick]

Information can be power if it's put in the hands of those who need it or think they can use it. Anything else is overkill. Computers are evidently a large part in your life. But not for many others, at least to the extent that they would need the knowledge you have mentioned above. You need to understand that!

We're not a renaissance men, in that we feel we must specialize in everything. We focus on our choosen trades and learn enough about everything else to get by.

The answer is even simpler than that, folks.

[kiliwongo]

The fact is linux users and developers simply dont want its use to be that easy. Ive found repeatedly, time and again that those in the know dont want YOU to know. Perhaps out of fear that you might grow to learn (or make more) than them (too 133t for your own good)? There are myriad reasons for this mentality but in the end people dont want it to be easy.

Ive been to many *LUG meetings in my area, been on usergroups, forums and had long discussions and running arguments with friends and associates who could be classified as "linux people" and they all treat those outside of their community the same way. n00bz. i agree with the points made in this post completely, but in the end its what linux devs and current users decide to do and decide what to accept that will tell the fate of linux. the fact that for the most part, linux developers and linux users are one in the same is proof that unless the bulk of the community takes a more professional, COMMERCIAL approach the OS will forever be in the hands of hobbyists, amateurs and small-scale developers. all users have the power to steer the community in another direction by not accepting software, updates, etc that would require kernel tweaking to get it to function, for example. demanding that final builds have a standard (clean) UI and do not require you to download numerous or large libraries. as the article says, if you download it - it should WORK. and never doubt the value of a clean, smooth, tight UI. even piddling proggys with limited functionality will be accepted if the dashboard looks pretty enough.

don't worry, digital camera's are easy

[ylikone]

I've yet to meet a USB digital camera which I couldn't easily mount under Linux.

grandma linux

[Al Al Cool J]

I've helped a lot of older people (70s+) with their computers, and one thing I've noticed is that many of them simply don't grok the whole idea behind windows management - minimize, maximize, resize, it'll all beyond them. They start an app, they work in that app, they close the app, then they start another one. The idea of having two apps running together side-by-side or overlapping, and jumping between them is too much for them.

My father, who has been using Windows on an almost daly basis since the Win3.1 days, is like that. Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, I had to go and help him because he said Word was no longer coming up. It was coming up, but had been inadvertantly resized to just the top window frame, and was so small that he hadn't noticed it. There were about a dozen instances of Word, all on top of each other.

And who here hasn't helped somebody who had accidently dragged the Winddows task bar to another edge of the desktop?

I would love to see a linux distro and/or window manager where I could lock down the behavior, preventing the user from accidently screwing everything up. I imagine you could do something like that, with a bit of effort, with icewm or fvwm. But it would be nice to have a ready-to-go distro, ubuntu-grandma or something, along with some remote admin tools already set up, like sshd and an easy way to connect a Remote Desktop session so I could see exactly what they were seeing.

Re:less stupid users

[Ravatar]

Knowing how to use a shell or edit a conf file is not "way more than you need".

However, going on lib hunting expeditions and stumbling through the multitude of distros, how to install them, and how to configure them, usually requires a little more knowledge than what is required to edit a conf file.


I mean granted I too agree that some programs need better interfaces. That doesn't mean I think perfection is a GUI interface... Things like a .nanorc file or something is easy to strap together and fun to tinker with in spare time...

I agree that GUI isn't necessarily the end-all solution for every situation, but the average desktop user is already familiar with it. Therefore, it is a nice place to start.


I don't look at the learning as a negative. It empowers the users to make better use and choices with computers. If they realized the bloat in Windows [and KDE for that matter] and realized that 64M of ram and icewm + firefox is all they need to read their daily websites... they'd look at their 1024M of ram + explorer + ie + bloat and shake their heads.

We live in an age of 512MB/1GB memory on the most basic dell/hp systems, memory use is of little concern. Compact/small footprint applications may appeal to experienced users, but the average user just doesn't care. In my experience, they want features, and usability, and for it all to just work.


If they took the time to learn how a computer works they could install Linux or BSD and free themselves of the monopoly to which they've fallen victim.

My main machine is Windows, by choice. I use it because it works well, and does what I need it to. I don't consider Microsoft the "evil monopoly that held me down and stole my wallet", I consider them a company who did it right (for my needs, anyway).


Learning information is never a punishment. It's freedom.

The average user wants to use a PC like I use a toaster. I input information (or bread), hit the button, and get my output (or toast). I don't need to know how the toaster circuits work, I just want my toast. (Bad analogy of course, but hopefully you'll understand.)

Differnet Tribes

[eno2001]

I think the solution is that there should be a specific Linux distribution dedicated to the average user. So far, I don't think any of the distributions have made a serious attempt at appealing to the average user. None of them have complete migration features as Asa pointed out. None of them have really tried. Lycoris and Linspire have come the closest, but... no real migration features. Instead Linspire tried to integrate WINE and failed. Allowing people to use the Windows applications in Linux is not going to work unless the desktop environment itself mimcs Windows completely. And at that point... we have an OS that people like me aren't going to want to use.

So the solution is to have the distribution packagers add a "Windows Migration" mode for the installation. It would be a choice along with Workstation/Server/Development/Custom modes. The default installation should then be the Windows Migration mode. People like me will go staright to Workstation, Devel or Custom and won't feel like we're using a hunk of garbage. If there's one thing I hate, it's systems that make assumptions about what I want instead of just letting me do everything. That seems to be the "Windows" way.

So there you have it. Just a simple installation option could make the world take a little more notice about a really nice OS. Now... who is going to write this beast? Think about all the apps on top of the Windows OS settings that would need to be migrated. That's a tall order!

I see dead penguins! N/T

[Technomancer]

A cute penguin with x x for eyes would be cool ;-)

Re:less stupid users

[TheLink]

Yes. People keep saying that Linux etc have solved the security problems of Windows. If Linux as easy to use as that, users will just be as vulnerable.

What we need is a distro/OS that will automatically run stuff by default with restricted privileges. Less than the main user account. Then when they run the little thing that shows them stock prices, it can only show stuff and it can't hang around.

Already seeing signs of that sort of stuff with windows firewall software, however it is still a bit klunky.

Bingo, finally someone said it clearly!

[kollivier]

The value of Linux doesn't exist for the last two market segments (both home segments).

You've said this far more clearly than I could. This hits the nail on the head. Unlike OS X, a Linux desktop cannot be sold to value concsious markets (like the home) because they can legally get it for free due to Linux licensing. Not to mention, unlike the enterprise market, the home market won't buy into 'subscription' models for support, or to be able to install programs/manage desktops, which leaves little to no revenue stream for Linux as a desktop OS.

It's nice to think that maybe the community would step in and fill the gaps, but realistically they don't have access to the hardware vendors, they can't afford usability studies, and they don't have access to marketing or distribution channels to really gather resources to fight with MS or anyone else.

Re:Bingo, finally someone said it clearly!

[jbolden]

The desktop gets sold with the computer. The main thing would for the home user would be the huge application bundle that an OEM could include (say 20 gigs of fully legal software covering every possible niche a home user might want).

Re:Bingo, finally someone said it clearly!

[kollivier]

That's a bit like saying you just need to add 100 hours of public domain DVDs with each DVD player to sell them better.

People want quality software, and most people don't need more than 5-6 packages. Who wants to sift through 20 GB of software to find 10 different programs that do what they're looking for, then sort through them to find out which one is least likely to crash, most intuitive, and supports their needs? People who are this cheap and place such a low value on their time aren't going to buy anything over a $300 computer so the profit margins are going to be small anyways. Why bother working to making these people happy? These people will take the time out to learn to scour the web and find their free software.

Re:Bingo, finally someone said it clearly!

[jbolden]

I'm not saying low quality I'm saying lots of vertical apps, "covering every possible niche". And while it is true that the average person may only use a 1/2 dozen apps or so (though I'm not sure) they certainly will all need 1 or 2 that aren't mainstream.

Re:Bingo, finally someone said it clearly!

[kollivier]

I'm not saying low quality I'm saying lots of vertical apps, "covering every possible niche". And while it is true that the average person may only use a 1/2 dozen apps or so (though I'm not sure) they certainly will all need 1 or 2 that aren't mainstream.

I know what you're trying to say, but you're not really thinking it through. Exactly how do you plan to have a bunch of free, high quality niche market apps? You can't take for granted that open source just "does" this. Mozilla and OpenOffice succeed becuase 1) they have real money coming in and devs on their payrolls and 2) they are NOT niche apps so they have tons of people testing them and reporting bugs every day. Niche market apps will not have either of those two.

So vendors will have to test and QA themselves, which will cost them money. And how will they make up that money? Linux desktops don't considerably reduce costs (~$50/comp), and it will be hard to convince users to pay such a high premium for their Linux desktop that will justify all the QA costs that went into creating their software library CD.

And lastly, some distros already come with TONS of apps, so why haven't they taken off?

Re:Bingo, finally someone said it clearly!

[jbolden]

Exactly how do you plan to have a bunch of free, high quality niche market apps?

Europe, third world, academia, or derived from preexisting Unix software. Big issues so far are:

1) Windows apps are better (but I think that's fixable Linux are improving much faster than their windows counterparts)

2) A lot of the European stuff isn't in English (but English is the 2nd or 3rd language added to most apps).

As for a distributor QAing niche apps no way. They can't possibly do it. They have to assume the QA is happing upstream (Debian, Redhat... level).

Re:less stupid users

[PocketPick]

Question:

Does downtime cost you because of the loss of traffic due to your inability to traffic "latin women in thongs and russian brides"? Your profile link would indicate so.

Re:From browser vendor that does't fix scrolling d

[Anonymous Coward]

FIXED:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97283
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25198 6

Suggested Change.

[rejecting]

Please from now on, don't say

Linux isn't ready for the desktop.

please say:

Linux isn't ready for the average user.

I believe my gnome desktop works very well, and my 'desktop' computer works very well. BUT it can be argued that it doesn't work very well for the average user. I believe the symantics of this termanology is hurting rather than helping.

Easy Linux, not Windows Clone Linux

[try_anything]

The answer to every usability question is not "copy Microsoft" or "make it work like Windows." Linux is a different system, and any attempt to put a Windows-clone GUI on top of it will give us a crippled system with a hard-to-discern inconsistencies that are more insidious to Windows users than obvious differences are. A policy of making the Linux GUI a clone of Windows will make the Linux desktop cheap-feeling and mediocre forever.

A ridiculous example of equating "different from Windows" with "too hard" is the article's comment about Helix Player. "Helix Player" is no less intuitive than "WinAmp," it's simpy different, and not arbitrarily so, because it would be a lie (and probably illegal) to call it "WinAmp."

What makes Windows popular and "easy" today is its history. Microsoft went through years of trial and error during which the Windows GUI was turned into a (relatively) intuitive handle on the Windows system. Windows was popular during this awkward growing period because of a variety of forces that no longer apply today. Microsoft seized the one and only chance to make a crappy, immature desktop GUI a commercial success, and now they have the advantage of a huge user base.

Linux simply can't replicate what happened with Windows. It must become polished before it becomes popular, and there aren't any shortcuts. The goal for Linux GUIs must be to make Linux as easy to learn and understand as possible, not to make Linux into a Windows work-alike.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

As for distros... A good distro [like Gentoo] minimizes the "hunt for libs" to essentially "once every 6 months you may have to manually configure something".

As for resources. RAM like processors wastes electricity and other natural resources. Granted the monitor [specially CRT] is the biggest waste but feeding a 3Ghz P4 to run IE is also a huge waste in the longer run.

You may say "1GB of ram is easy to find" but surely you must see that 64M of ram is EASIER tofind...

As for the features being present... Even firefox has code bloat issues. That's the point though of OSS is to encourage new projects to take their place and fight for their existence. Who knows in 10 years I may be using a new web browser that is 1/4th the footprint of Firefox and just as capable...

As for the toaster... this would be like comparing a toaster which only has 1.5 slots, burns 60% of the toast and takes up 200% more desk space then the other toaster on the other end of the shelf out of level eye site...

Linux and BSD are the more efficient toasters.

Tom

I've said it before

[rockhome]

When Mac OS X came out, any hopes that Linux had for the desktop died. Linux is a great OS to work with as a server platform, most of the time. It does share a similar problem as Perl in that it can be sometimes a pain to install and configure, but it is free, just as powerful as any commercial UNIX, and extremely stable.

All that said, Linux is a pain for the average user to learn to use as a desktop OS. there is too much variation between interfaces, an inconsistent set of applications, and few click to install user applications. Apple took BSD, made a great "Joe Sixpack" desktop OS, and forced the learning curve on the gearheads.

If you are a UNIX gear head, making somethings work right on OS X is a bit of a pain, but once you figure out the environment, you are good to go. The big problem with Linux is the "desktop ready" variations, still force a HUGE learning curve on Windows users, with no concerted support for those switching.

I switched both of my parents to jaguar a few years ago and wasn't even there when my father started using his Mac. Do you think I could switch my parents to a Linux distro with 12 minutes of introduction and the walk out the door? I don't think so, but I could with Mac OS.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

the url in my profile is just some random crap I put in there. The fact it points to anything doesn't surprise me but doesn't interest me either.

Downtime costs me because I fall behind on my projects which I stake my reputation on. If I fail to deliver then it looks like I can't maintain a project.

Tom

Re:less stupid users

[PocketPick]

And now shows Buy-From-Us.org. Title still reads the same thing though. Boy, you're a busy man.

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Butthead]

I beleive he was making a reference to the closed source nature of the nvidia drivers...

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!

[Anonymous Coward]

how could this guy have posted this comment that was already in his journal the day before without being the anoymous submitter and knowing that the story would get posted.

i think this guy working for the slashdot and is taking an unfair insider advantage of his power. dont stand for it. grab the torches and storm the castle in.

Asa Dotzler is full of it

[typical]

It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.

Not going to happen. Doesn't happen with Mac OS. Too much proprietary setting information that changes format from version to version. This is a significant convenience, but I do not see it as crucial to adoption. People reconfigure all their apps when they upgrade their computer anyway -- Windows has extremely poor support for retaining application settings.

A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.

I'll give that the environment is not perfect, and could be improved, but running a program, getting a list of packages and just choosing what you want and having it all automatically downloaded and installed (with dependencies autohandled, just as they have been for a long time) it's honestly easier to use than the Windows world. I'll give you that not everything is packaged, but I am a developer and power user, and I have only a few binaries in /usr/local/bin (thus unpackaged), and most of those were things that I wrote. Of the others, an nzb client, a readline wrapper to add readline support to apps that lack it (not of interest to the typical user), and a fuse userspace utility are the only things sitting in there. ~/bin contains a few more unpackaged things, but again almost everything was written by me -- the exceptions include a bin2iso converter, a grep colorizer, an ebook converter, a process memory dumper, a Gnutella client that I hack on, a parity file generator, an X11 memory usage analysis program, two interactive fiction game runtimes, a console MUD client, a console UNIX-DOS linefeed converter, a pair of programs to pack and unpack executables for reverse engineering, and a Super Nintendo emulator. A couple of those programs would be interesting to the typical user, but most probably would not. The rest of the binaries on my system come from just usage of yum. I will admit that configuring yum properly to use third-party repositories is a bit of a pain, but it's not *that* hard, and there are step-by-step instructions on dag/dries/atrpms/etc. And that's really the only unusual step.

The problem comes in when people treat Linux distros as they do proprietary software, which is designed around systems where all the vendors can't cooperate to provide downloads, because they *sell* their software. They start hunting around webpages to download software, when all they have to do is just fire up their package downloader. And compat-libstdc++ and friends get handled automatically.

Asking them to figure out complex system library and kernel compatibility issues is a one way ticket off of their desktop.

Is asking them to try synaptic or yum or another package manager?

I mean, Windows Update has at least as complex an interface, and Windows users are expected to use *that*.

I guess that some users might want somethng a bit more like Red Carpet -- a package manager that does a bit more hand-holding ("click on this square if you want a program to write letters with, and this one if you want to get games"), but it really isn't *that* complex. It's just different.

Regular People shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when they're installing your product.

IIRC, Fedora Core lets you choose which desktop environment you want to use every time you log in -- it's not as if trying it out is that bad. (I can't be sure of this, because I just use sawfish+gkrellm+xbindkeys, but I distinctly remember seeing a friend using a vanilla Fedora Core having a menu to select.)

Regular People don't need 15-20 mediocre games in a highly visible Games menu at the top of the Applications list.

Actually, I don't think that

From TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is going to need a serious migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.

Yeah? I guess a lot like WinME, which didn't allow any fallback to the original OS. And, of course, all of my settings moved seemlessly to my upgrade of Windows, be it 98 to 2K, 2K to XP, etc, etc. Anybody who maintains Windows systems on a regular basis must be laughing their ass off right now!

The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability.... a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from download.com. A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.

Yeah, Windows does that!? I can't count on any app moving over to a new version of Windows. And, when I do move to a new version of the app, do you think my data moves seemlessly to the new version? NO! I refer you to Quickbooks, Peachtree, Crystal Reports, Adobe whatever and even Microsoft's own Office programs and their inability to deal with previous versions of the stuff they created.

The third issue is a lack simplicity. Just because you can include a feature doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a user preference doesn't mean you should.

Riiiight! just like Windows! Just like all proprietary software running on Windows! Just like Microsoft's own Office suite!

Do you get my gist? The original poster is asking for things that aren't even provided in Windows and revisions of its own OS and Office suite, let alone any of the proprietary programs provided to run under Windows.

The final major issue is comfort. Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users.

Well, it already is! It is just as confusing, just as obtuse and just as inconsistent as the varioius versions of Windows.

WTF is the problem?

My two cents

[crazy2k]

The answer to why Linux is not running on most of the desktops is pretty straightforward: Because it doesn't want to. Most of the articles which criticize Linux are correct when they say that if Linux was a united OS it would win a great deal of the market. However, they forget not everybody in the Linux community wants this to happen. Yes, there are a lot of geek users in this community and their objectives are quite different to the common belief. They don't want Linux to become the main Desktop OS. Why would they want that? Instead, they prefer to have a powerful OS they can handle. It's not that they're failing to achieve their goals. It's that they have different goals than the ones people think they have.

It's the apps.

[khasim]

Yep. Most people don't buy an OS for the OS (except during the Win95 roll out).

They want to run certain apps. Their apps.

But the first step is getting their hardware supported. Once the hardware is supported, the Linux desktop market can start to grow.

Then we'll see how large it grows and whether it provides enough of a market for the developers of those apps to port them to Linux.

I believe it will. Just as the Linux server segment grew enough to support Oracle sales. But server apps are different than desktop apps so I may be wrong.

The OS is just the portion between the apps and the hardware.

Re:It's the apps.

[Thing 1]

Yep. Most people don't buy an OS for the OS (except during the Win95 roll out).

Wow, thanks! I just had to google "windows 95 rolling stones" to recall the song... "Start Me Up"... LOL

Re:It's the apps.

[TheRaven64]

This is exactly true. My father's company used to run DOS PCs with GEM and WordStar on the desktop (along with some esoteric UNIX systems, and a few things like OS/9, RMX, QNX, etc.) Then they bought a diagram package called Meta-Design. This came with some kind of windowing system that they'd not used before for handling the low-level stuff. It was useful because it allowed the developers to do high-level things (like say `draw line'), and handled printing and file management and a whole host of other things, and the cost was sufficiently low that it could be bundled with an app that cost several hundred pounds without noticeably increasing the price. The name of this system? Microsoft Windows 3.0.

A few years later, this company had Windows 3.0 on all of their desktops. A little later they moved to 3.1 and bought Microsoft Office to go with it.

The moral of this story? If you can provide something that makes developers' lives significantly easier then they will use your product and even bundle it with theirs. Once a large enough set of applications supports your OS then people can move without even noticing.

Linux on desktop - What we need

[Anonymous Coward]

1) A common package management system. People should be able to install/remove applications by clicking a mouse.

2) Distribution that has preinstalled:

-Nice looking GUI (KDE/Gnome, user decides)
-Calculator application
-Notepad application
-Word processing application
-Spreadsheet application
-Image manipulation application
-Email reader
-Web browser that has all signifigant plugins preinstalled (Java, Shockwave, Flash, Mediaplayer plugins)
-Audio player
-Movie player, preinstalled in a way that user can watch movies by finding files using explorer and clicking the file
-Messenger application
-IRC client

IF THESE are preinstalled and preconfigured properly, then we can say we have a desktop OS that can rival any other out of the box desktop OS. All these applications should pretty much work out of the box.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

yeah but that's just it. Just because it's linux doesn't mean it has to be OSS.

The nvidia drivers work wonderfully and are provided for 32-bit and 64-bit platforms for all their chipsets.

Yes, it would be better if it was open... however right now does it matter? If nvidia decided they didn't care to support their users I'd find another card or keep the old drivers until they were no longer usable.

I don't see why people think all software in the Linux/BSD world has to be OSS. Hell a proprietary WM would have a fighting chance if it was efficient and more user friendly than gnome/kde.

The fact that there aren't many [any?] competent WMs that are commercial shows a lack of understanding from industry.

Same goes for other tools.

About the only real tool I can think of that is closed in linux are things like compilers and hardware tools [synthesizers, verilog compilers, etc, whatever].

No reason why there aren't closed proprietary compilers, developement studios, media encoders/servers, etc, etc, etc for linux or bsd.

Tom

Linux is not a desktop OS

[JChung2006]

...for the masses, because it doesn't come pre-installed on PC's. It doesn't come pre-installed on Mac's either, for that matter. The bottom line is that most customers don't care what OS it's running. It matters about as much to them as what type of gas they use in their car or what brand of toilet paper (or silk) they use to wipe their asses with.

Several different subjects.

[mwillems]

We are all talking - sensibly mainly, but at cross purposes.

I have used Windows since 1.0 (really; and in*a*vision was the only app) and Linux on the desktop since Redhat 5.0. Here's why I keep coming back to Windows all the time:

a) Apps. I need Photoshop, Canin Digital Photo Professional, Corel Draw and a few others. 90% what I do is OOo and browsing, but those 10% I cannot live without. Yes I know the Gimp and so on - sorry, not there.

b) Still too complex. Fonts are a nightmare. Printer server always takes days. Disk combinations that are supported easily by WIn (e.g. one IDE drive and one Serial ATA 100 drive) do not get recognised. And so on. I mean, we do not even have one COPY and PASTE combination that works across apps!

The showstopper is (a) of course. (b) you can work around if you want to or have to.

Some of you here make the point "why does it matter, we do not want to make converts". Well, that is circular: the article asks "why are we not making enough of them", so presumably we do.

And we DO. The more people use Linux, the more apps there will be, and the easier life gets for you and me all. If you buy a pro digital camera you have to buy a Mac or PC - end of story. And I want that to end one day because I want the stability, control, server features, and multiple desktops I can have in Linux.

Mike

Re:less stupid users

[OzRoy]

We've come to a point in society where absolutely nothing is a learning experience because if we challenge someone that's a negative experience. Well what do you think happens in 20 years when absolutely nobody can code in ASM or C? Or hell use a shell, build tools, etc...

That is a completely theoretical situation that will never happen. How do I know that? Because we are already at that point with some aspects of computing. By your argument every programmer should be forced to learn machine code. We should all understand exactly how a CPU works. I'm a programmer and don't know how to use machine code, but I don't think it detracts from my skills. Yet there are people out there who do know how to use machine code.

We should not be forced to understand something that is ultimatly useless to us. Not knowing how to service my car doesn't detract from my experience of using my car.

For exactly the same reason I should not be forced to understand system libraries. I should not be forced to learn shell scripting. I should not forced to understand why this software won't work because I don't have the correct library versions installed. People have their own work to do, and a computer should be a tool to assist them. They should not have to become an expert to use one. That kind of elitest attitude serves no one, and only holds us back.

Linux on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

i been using Linux on my desktop for several years now, you say its not ready? why didnt they tell me it not ready, well its too late to turn back now, damn the torpedos i am sticking with Linux on my desktop anyway...

Re:Linux on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that a typical open source developer writes software with someone other than her/himself in mind. That said, most people who create something to solve a problem (e.g. engineers) want other people to benefit from that solution. That's most likely why GNU/Linux fanboys, Microsoft fanboys, and the rest care deeply about which OS Joe Sixpack installs and uses.

Now, I'm not suggesting that developers are fanboys (or vice versa). I'm merely making the claim that the attitudes of both can be contagious.

Since I'm not a developer, I'm in your camp. I just hope that being apathetic doesn't come back to bite me because some day the developers stop writing software, albeit indirectly, for me (free, open, or otherwise).

My personal experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a few weeks back I found myself with a laptop with WindowsME on it, and a two month trip ahead of me. I really wanted to get rid of ME. Really, really wanted to. So I figured I'd give Linux a shot, since through random luck I had a Knoppix disc handy. My perspective here is as a hobbyist programmer and long-time computer user, but I've never had meaningful Linux experience. I've used shell accounts, I am reasonably comfortable with a command line, computers don't scare me, so I figured what the heck. I paid close attention to what I was doing as I went, since I develop computer games for a living and have learned that first impressions count for a lot.

And hey, that first impression was really positive! I tossed the Live CD in the drive, and it booted up into KDE no problem. Sound and graphics worked, net connection worked, everything was impressively smooth. I wish Windows went that cleanly. Awesome.

At some point in here I use KDE's file manager to browse my drives, and get a shock when I see what a horrific mess the root of the operating drive is. Lord, somebody needs to take all that and pare it down to just "OS", "Applications", and "Other" or something along those lines. It's just intimidating as hell as is. I recognize Linux is using the traditional UNIX directory structure, but it's unapproachable and needs to go. Tradition be damned.

I tinkered with things for a while, decided this looked promising enough and had a useable selection of apps, and looked up online what I'd need to to do install the CD onto the actual hard drive. There were some worrying things going on there so far as useability went, but I'm overlooking that since Knoppix isn't really geared towards hard disk install anyway. Moving on...

I've got everything successfully installed, and it all works on the first try. Goddamn that's nice. I mess with the control panel and choose appearances and options I like. I configure the toolbar some. Things are going well.

Then I decide to try playing a DVD, since I expect I'll want to do this on my trip. It says I don't have an appropriate device for this. It's a useless and opaque error message to me, but I'm guessing it's some sort of codec/driver thing and if I snag an appropriate player I'll be fine. There's probably like ten open-source ones out there, right?

Indeed there are. I don't remember the names, but the first page I go to tells me I should download the source and compile it myself, then edit a series of text files to install it. Er, what?

I try the next one I find, and this one's got actual binaries. I download the archive, the find myself reading through a document explaining where I need to edit text files again. Except I guess the distribution I'm using doesn't match theirs so I'm leery of messing with it.

Next! This one's got an RPM file, which I gather stands for Redhat Package Manager and is an actual honest-to-god installer! Except I'm not using Redhat. Darn.

Okay, so I give up on that. Impressions: Jesus god Linux needs a standardized installation concept. If I can't download a file, double-click on it, and have it install itself something is very, VERY wrong. This is front-line useability stuff here. Advocates, I gather, will turn around and say Windows is DLL hell and blah blah blah, but honestly no, that's not true. If something needs a DLL it's probably in the installer. That's what installers are FOR.

At this point I decided to to play an MP3. I have a dedicated file server in my closet running Win2k with something like 300 gig of media on it, and I'd like to use it. It's got drives shared out, so I should be able to access them, right?

Apparently not. I need to use something called Samba, and apparently it wants a Lisa daemon or something running. Sorry, it's been a couple weeks and I don't recall the name. There's a configuration menu for this in the KDE control panel, so I start walking through it. I do so, picking what seem like the right settings

Posting blogs as news?

[NullProg]

Yet another opinion on why Linux sucks, Windows is better. Yada, Yada, Yada

IMHO Linux doesn't suck. CUPS installation does suck. I can't buy a cheap laptop without Windows. Six years and he can't install synaptic for linux program installs? There is no unified API, get over it (Target xlib). There was no migration issues when my wife decided to go with Linux/KDE vs the Mac. The outlook emails she wanted to keep she just emailed the back to herself (now stored in mozilla format).

Asa Dotzler is the QA guy for Mozilla. My QA person bitches at me constantly about the differences between the Win32 and AIX/SCO/NCR/Linux binaries. Differences between OS level and GUI, shit happens.

Sorry, I didn't mean to bitch.
Enjoy,

Installing programs sucks!

[bigbigbison]

When I started messing around with Ubuntu, the hardest thing was installing programs. If it isn't in the Synaptic packet manager, there isn't any obvious way to get it installed. I'll be honest, I still don't know how to install programs when they don't show up in Synaptic.
Why the hell is it so hard to install programs?

Re:Installing programs sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

tar -xzf prog.tar.gz
tar -xjf prog.tar.bz2
man tar
cd prog ./configure
make
su -
#your password
mv /home/$USER/prog /usr/local/
cd /usr/local/prog
make install
make check
make clean
exit
prog

I know that all looks complicated, but the man command will tell you what every single one of those does to some extent. And trust me, you'll learn what they mean in fairly short order. Source ends up being the one true way to install software under *nix, and it's nice: Although not nice for working out all the dependency libraries!
Most of the time I hear the complaint it's because they want to install some random program off kde-look or gnomefiles that's totally unstable because it's test code anyway. And I say "why are you complaining, do you think those apps on download.com offer you working previews?!"

Re:Installing programs sucks!

[runner_one]

Just being Devils Advocate.

Doing the same thing under Windows.
Click "Setup",
Click OK a couple of times,
Run prog.

Re:Installing programs sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

have you tried asking on the ubuntu forums whether someone wants to package that specific program?

maybe someone already has done it, and it will be included in the next version of ubuntu.

My part on the stone soup.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must disagree with the disagreeing. :-)

However right the text is, some important view angles on reality are missing... which I'd like to discuss.

Migration:

Let's face it: Windows users seldom migrate. First, many have been pirating the OS, so Linux being costless means exactly nada. Second, being independent (free-as-in-speech) also means squat, because they are just lay users. I guess they feel like Windows is a burden, if it goes Linux will come and it will also be a burden (well, Linux is much less of an annoyance, but they don't believe this). Third, if Linux _really_ makes transition easy, they'll ask what I already have heard: what will I gain by changing OS? And honestly, _nothing_, as I've already answered, if Linux gets to be just like Windows they'll have a super easy migration, with some work to get to a place identical to where they are (I know about Linux' robustness but Windows is improving).

We must go for the younger ones. For them migration is a non-issue.

Stability:

This Linux already has. I tipically don't upgrade everytime there is a new distro version.
And I've did ok these last 6 years. I suppose Windows people install almost as often as I do, but out of need because "the computer got slow or weird".

Simplicity:

Here is a point I agree to some extent. Personally, I like the way Linux is. Configurability is my addiction. Also, those Windows-like schemes are idiotic, with advanced buttons nearly on every dialog. Not to mention shrinking menus.

There should be a global toggle "advanced/newbie". Better yet if it could be toggled with a single key, like, e.g., Pause. It could work desktop-wide or for a single window/application, which would be redrawn to show/conceal advanced options. And the key should be the same over the entire desktop... no, I don't know how to make Motif apps comply with this.

Comfort:

I touched the "familiarity with Windows" above, but I'd say comfort is in the eyes of the beholder. Some feel at home with doubleclick "a la Windows"; some (like me) find great not having to doubleclick things, both because of less RSI _and_ because of a greater sense of power -- which would only be better if things worked "on mouseover".

Also, I was thinking the other day about Windows changing colors and appearance when versions come out, and how this is much, much easier with Linux software -- which are themable or get their looks from KDE/Gnome.

Let me add the following:

1. Linux as is is being adopted by many people. Here in Brazil, it is being sold as OEM (i.e., pre-installed) in supermarkets like Wal-Mart. No installation hurdles, it works from the box.

2. The poorer ones already use it in public internet access facilities. It's not a matter of "if", they use it now to daily chores like finishing homework, printing documents, sending emails (with, e.g., resumés) etc.

3. My family, wife and daughter, use it. Of course, I configure the desktop, but I use Mandrake to have less work and the final result is just like the readymade product I mentioned on item 1. It is coming to a point where I'll get to be superfluous.

4. I suppose freelancers will soon offer Linux support with ads on papers; banners on the street have already appeared. Techie relatives will also continue to be exploited for free top-tier quality support. 8-P

5. Most distros come with lots of software. It's not like Windows where new features require downloading of new programs. It's almost everything already installed, kitchen sink and all.

Installing Programs

[natrius]

I agree with the points Asa makes about migration and installing programs, and of these, I'll address the one where I know progress is being made.

Installing programs has been a pain for new Linux users for a long time. It's hard enough to adjust to the new paradigm of getting programs from a central repository, and laying an inadequate interface on top of that doesn't help much either. The main problem with Synaptic, the best apt frontend I've used, is that you have to wade through tons of packages for libraries and servers that few end users will ever touch. To fix this, Ross Burton put together a program that lets you install and remove programs through a tree that mirrors the Applications menu. Instead of installing some cryptic package, you're adding a menu entry. It may not be perfect, but it's vastly simpler. I'm currently working on expanding the program to let you install any application, among other things.

The other issue that people have with installing applications is that the repository might not have the latest, greatest version that the user wants. Ubuntu freezes a set of packages and stabilizes them, which is an approach that works for many users and keeps things bug free. For the next version, the backports project will be come an official part of Ubuntu, making it easier for users to choose if they want the latest packages or the most stable ones. Users won't have to try to install the Firefox binary that the MoFo provides since they'll be able to get it straight from the repositories, precluding any weird library incompatibility problems.

Things are getting better.

Re:Installing Programs

[petrus4]

The main problem here is that specfiles (dunno what they're called for .debs, cos I haven't made those) specify bogus dependencies. An example which really bugs me is that I noticed once while using apt that CUPS is listed as a mandatory dep for open office, and it *isn't*. I don't have a printer myself...so I hardly need printer software, do I? Because of that though, a lot of packages force people to download a heap of false dependencies which they do not genuinely need in many cases.

If dpkg/rpm had support for optional deps a la Gentoo, that would go a long way toward improving them. I get annoyed by Debian users claiming apt is the holy grail...because it quite simply ain't, and by claiming that it is, they create a misconception that the package management problem has been genuinely solved...when in a lot of ways it hasn't been.

typical

[timbo234]

It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings

This is probably the only good point in the article, but still the lack of 'one-click' migration like there is in Firefox isn't the death knell of Linux on the desktop.

doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from download.com

This tired old argument. How many times does it have to be said that you need to use the package management thingo (urpmi/yum/apt whatever) that came with your distro? Then software is a simple 'one-click' install away.

Regular People shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE

Honestly this is the most stupid argument I've ever heard against Linux. The distro you use will have a default (either KDE or GNOME), either is good enough now for the average user. Perhaps the user will become interested in the system and see what the other one looks like, if not then so what - all their programs will still run just fine.

I mean do people not choose Windows because they have the choice between Windows Media Player and Winamp to play their MP3s? Do power-user's heads explode at the decision between photoshop, paint shop pro and corel painter?

Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window -- Notepad has about three

And Notepad is the worst text editor ever written. Its simply useless for anything you would want to use a text editor for - like editing any reasonable complex text file. I like the fact that Open Source apps have lots of options and buttons and features. I also like the fact that the defaults chosen are usually pretty good so the average user need never confuse themself in a sea of choices if all they want to do is use the system.

Regular people do not know what it means to "mount a drive" and they shouldn't have to

Any modern desktop-oriented distro automounts drives for you

Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed

You'll get used to it in a few days

Regular People shouldn't have to learn what /home means or how it differs from My Documents.

'Home is that folder that has all my stuff in it'. Gee that's hard isn't it, esp. when KDE and GNOME both have pre-configured shortcuts to it that say 'Home' with a little icon of a house on it. I wonder how many Windows users can explain the function of the 'Documents and Settings' folder, despite the name.

Regular People don't want two clipboards that seem to constantly overwrite each other

What the normal ctrl+c/right-click->Copy clipboard and the mouse clipboard? They don't overwrite each other. Methinks you need to learn to co-ordinate your hands a bit better - remember which is on the keyboard and which is on the mouse.

Linux UI fundamentals need a reworking to match the habits that Windows users have been building over the last decade

Why? Linux is not a clone of Windows and shouldn't try to be.

This article is typical of the poorly written 'here's what I think is holding back Linux from the desktop' articles popping up everywhere. Its full of flawed arguments and half-understood concepts that make it look like it was written by someone who's installed Linux, saw it isn't exactly like Windows then blogged about their misconceptions without taking the time to learn something about the new OS.

I use fedora core 3 every day

[the-real-cheesypeas]

And it really truely sucks... Can't edit the menus, can't edit the sysem colours, can't edit the file types, can't cancel configuration changes, can't page scroll with a mouse wheel, can't install things where I want them, installing any program is treated like an operating system upgrade, has a case insensitive file system with arcane commands and a filesystem hierarchy created by a drug crazed monkey, ok/cancel buttons are the wrong way round, natulius, I could go on and on, and do whenever anyone at work says anything positive about this shit system.

Re:less stupid users

[Ravatar]

My toaster works just fine for me, and if I was the average user, I would probably avoid having to read the 200 page manual for the other toaster that hass less "bloat" and stick with what I have.

Nail on the Head!!

[marcybots]

Linux is just not easy to use, when a hardcore geek like me cant print or update his graphics card driver without consulting multiple forms of documentation (because some of the documenation is utter gibberish), there is a problem. The problem isnt that its a bad operating system, it isthat it lacke elegance. Having tried multipel distributions for a long period of time, I have experience with that which I speak. I spent to much time using linux and not enough time getting work done with it. The first time I used mac I asked like two questions to the guy working in the computer lab, and felt stupid for not realizing the answer for myself...it is very much a pick up an use instantly operating system, no fuss no muss and no manual required. That is a good thing, believe it or not users dont like to have to consult poorly written manuals to use options that should have been designed with simplicity in mind. Windows is easy to use as long as you dont need to change any setting whatsoever, which most people usually dont..which is why computer security is so bad. But just getting on the web, working on documents and the checking email, installing software with an autoinstaller is a breeze with windows.
Linux on the other hand is exceptionally hard to install programs, drivers etc for compared to these two operating systems, and honestly fonts dont look as good. No matter what issues are causing this, no excuses can be made, these problems have to be fixed before it will be accepted. People are willing to pay for windows and linux vendors cant even give away linux for free..as John Dvorak pointed out that is a big problem.

Please Spare Me!

[!Freeky2BGeeky]

Someone once wrote an online form to create a typical Dave Barry article (forgive me for not having the link). You put in a few MadLib-type words and hit submit and out pops an article that sounds/looks just like a something Dave Barry would write.

This is how I feel everytime I see another "Dooms-day" artical on how Linux isn't "ready" for the desktop. Someone somewhere pulls out the 'ol article generator and hits submit and viola! it gets the press attention it so desperately doesn't deserve.

I've used PC OSes in the workplace since the DOS 2.x days (sorry not old enough for the 1.x) and have lived through all the pains of supporting lame hardware drivers, lack of support, and a myriad of buggy software issues all the way up through the current stuff coming out of Redmond. Thankfully I'm now in a position of supporting UNIX servers/apps and work in a company that (currently) allows me to have a Linux workstation next to my "corporate desktop" build of Windows.

The things I use Linux for saves me hours of point-clicky stuff I'd otherwise be chained to on my Windows box.

Do I still deal with driver issues? Yes. Buggy software? Occasionally. Lack of support? Not nearly as much (I love Google). I've not had to re-compile the Kern. in a couple of versions.

Linux works wonders for me where I need it to. Windows works for me when I have to comply with corporate standards. At home I run a Mac (as does my wife) because I got tired of rebuilding my/her Windows box every couple of weeks due to spyware/virus du jur/etc.

The beauty of it all? Use what works, where it works best and deal with whatever learning curve comes your way as a challenge, not a problem. My definition of a power-user is someone who becomes proficient in knowing what works best and getting the job done as elegantly as possible.

I don't want them to use Linux

[Starji]

The more I think about it, the less I think it's a good idea to let an average user use Linux. I get sick and tired of having to do tech support on windows, sure; but can you imagine listening to every inane question that a user would come up with?

"How do I play a quicktime file?"
"My friend just sent me this awesome .exe file I want to install, how do I do that?"
"How do I install Microsoft Office?"
"Is it ok if I delete the /usr folder?" (only applicable if you're dumb enough to give them root)

I'm sure the /. crowd could come up with more. My point is, the average user doesn't know how to use a computer, doesn't care they don't know how to use a computer, and won't learn a damn thing about a computer unless they're dragged kicking and screaming. Linux is ready for the desktop for the user who is not afraid to try to learn. For everyone else, Linux will never be ready, and I say let it stay that way.

The classic arguement!

[graveyardduckx]

"Linux is cheaper [for the desktop]!" Yeah that's true for people that actually buy their software. How many Windows users hear about a piece of software (Office, Photoshop, even Windows itself) and ask their friend "hey, could you burn me a copy of that?" To a lot (majority probably) of Windows users, Windows is just as cheap as Linux. Combine that with the "idiot-friendly" mentality of Windows, and there is a great reason for not using Linux.

Another problem is uniformity. In Windows, every program has a "setup.exe" or "install.exe" that will install a program and put icons on your desktop and start menu. I've tinkered with Linux/FreeBSD for years and have gotten entirely too frustrated with RPM files, TAR files, CVS, and god knows what else, only to find that after installing (if it installed) that I couldn't find the program anywhere to use it.

Maybe there needs to be ONE standard for installation of software?

-1 Troll

I'm glad Linux isn't growing..

[pair-a-noyd]

Leave things as they are.

Why should we be so gung-ho to unseat M$??
Really, if Linux were as big and wide spread as M$ is would fall to the same corruption as M$..
Greedsters and profiteers would crowd out the well intentioned geeks and nerds and FREE software would go the way of the dodo bird.
And being a bigger product means being a bigger target. Virus and spyware and all the other malware crap would soon be a problem.

There's just so many good reasons to leave things as they are.

I'm perfectly happy with Linux being a tiny, minority, niche thing. The rest of the world treats me as if I were from another planet and that's fine with me.
I bask in the warm happiness of my very secure and very stable Linux network and all the happy Linux machines on it..

Thanks but no thanks to pushing Linux into the mainstream.. If it ain't broke, don't fix it..

Mom, dad and wife already using Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because I administer their systems. They wouldn't even have known the difference if I hadn't of told them.

They can do everything they need, they can't F up their systems, and the vast majority of script-kiddie kneebiting blackhat virus laden malware propagating spyware purveyors are powerless against it.

Before I transitioned them, I'd routinely have to waste a full day or two every couple of months disinfecting their machines. In the more than a year since I've switched them all I've done is install new software and download software updates.

That's it.

Oh, Linux on the desktop is ready all right. There just isn't umpteen billion dollars of marketing might behind it.

[Can't find my account ATM, sorry for the AC]
Brian Jamison, http://opensourcery.com/

Retaining mail

[kiore]

can you maintain all their previously sent mail

Last time I moved a grandmother from Windows to Linux I imported her mail into Netscape on Windows, rsynced the Netscape mail folder across to the new machine & imported the profile into Netscape on Linux. All the saved and sent mail came along for the ride.

This was a couple of years back using SuSE 9.0, but I can't imagine things have changed that much in the interim.

Yes it was a luxury having the old & new machines both up and networked, but I feel it would have been nearly as easy if upgrading a single computer.

good

[timmarhy]

i encourage my competitors to use windows. ha ha. (incase your slow, it's because it fucks up and makes me look just that much better)

New Wine in an Old Bottle

[creativity]

This question seems to be popping up every few weeks, and we have a huge discussion if Linux is better, suited etc

I did a comprehensive study about a year back to see if Linux can push Microsoft out of the office. In the study I compare SuSe, RedHat, Mandarake and a bunch of others. They fell wowefully short in the desktop, a major reason being the UI, it is just too unstable and compared to GUI of Windows and OS X looks shabby. Second, the lack of support, I will stick my neck out and say this, the level of support that is available to Linux is just not there. If I pay RedHat everytime based on their tier system to service my PCs, I might as well go with windows.

However, in the server space Linux is quite competitive, its easy to administer and maintain. I have a built a ton of servers using Linux, but for stability I am kind of partial to Free BSD.

For Linux to break into the Desktop market, it needs a fresh UI. Something, like what Apple did with BSD and packaged it with this Fresh UI. If the UI is stable, fast and looks great, the rest of pieces will fall in place. But before that lets not even have this discussion and just say Linux is a great server OS.

But postponed and never released

[Anonymous Coward]

But postponed and never released.

I am sure that many of his criticisms of Linux are also "fixed".

It's all in the terminology!

[CherniyVolk]

3y3 7h1n/http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/ image-2718.jpg

h3r3 l4y d4 pr0bL3m, d4t f00 oF 4 t3acH3r d0eSn'7 eV3N /d33r m0m 4nD d4d, wH0 pwnS alL!
l33t lInUx bi0Ls d0wN t0 tWo (aR4cT3r1st1cS.

1) d0p3 sCr33nsH0tS! pwn!
2) m4d skIlLz0rZ!! pwn!
3) e60s th4t t0w3r 0v3r mT. 3ver3s7!

m0m 4nD d4d 4r3 iLLit3r4t3! c4n7 3veN r3l4t3 t0 c0mMoN 3veRyd4y cHa7! tH3y... TH3Y Ph33R L1NuX!!!

Of course we bash them

[colinrichardday]

Well of course we bash them, what do think the default shell in Linux is?

As far as using the system equally well, I have a question. I have a C program to generate single-page graphical LaTeX files, say 400. How do I convert them to jpegs (to then make a movie) using a mouse? It's easy to do with a bash script (assuming that you have the netpbm utilities).

Re:Of course we bash them

[steelfood]

Make a program with a GUI that opens up LaTeX files and has a button named "Convert to JPEG." Have the program run the bash script at the click of the button. You might want to add things like a save-to directory, batch-conversion, quick preview, etc. afterwards, but that's basically the answer to your question.

That is, after all, the purpose of a GUI.

Now, you might have wanted to ask how a GUI would help write the bash script. Well, it won't. But writing the bash script requires a whole different level of knowledge and expertise, and the people who write scripts aren't the ones who'd be using the GUI. However, if you do have a GUI front-end to your script, you'd probably attract a lot more users.

Re:Of course we bash them

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Now, you might have wanted to ask how a GUI would help write the bash script. Well, it won't. But writing the bash script requires a whole different level of knowledge and expertise, and the people who write scripts aren't the ones who'd be using the GUI. However, if you do have a GUI front-end to your script, you'd probably attract a lot more users.

Of course, it's important to have the bash script in the first place so that someone who knows what he's doing can control it with another program. Modularity is something that Unix has and Windows doesn't. (It's also largely absent on the Mac.) Unfortunately, most graphical Unix apps don't properly utilize this advantage and instead try to act like the Mac OS or Windows, two operating systems that are fundamentally very different from Unix. And what we end up with is just free, copycat Windows. At just a slightly higher level of abstraction (you've added graphics and a file manager, essentially) the OS interface is completely different. Where's my scriptability? Where are all the filter programs for piping I/O? None of my apps seem to be using them. How come so many of these programs are so monolithic? This is anti-Unix!

Rather than imitating the founding fathers of the desktop, we should be trying to one-up them when we write graphical programs by designing them according to time-tested traditions. Graphics should add freedom to a user environment, not take it away.

Re:Of course we bash them

[deaddrunk]

You could use Windows Scripting for such a task.

Re:Of course we bash them

[jbolden]

How do I convert them to jpegs (to then make a movie) using a mouse?

http://www.winbatch.com/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/automator/

Re:Of course we bash them

[TheRaven64]

On OS X, you would fire up Automator and drag two filters together. The first would iterate over the files on a specified directory, and the second would convert them to JPEG. You would probably then save it as a Finder plugin so it was available in the context menu whenever you right- or control-click on a directory.

If you have QuickTime Pro installed, then you can also automate the last step (using the New QuickTime Slides Automator action).

In total, creating this workflow is about a dozen mouse clicks, and then running it in the future is two. If you wanted to add compiling the LaTeX to PDF as a step 1, then this would be an extra couple of mouse clicks and a small amount of command-line work (I'd probably do it using the run shell script action).

Automator is built on top of AppleScript, which already has a *NIX equivalent in the form of Steptalk, so building something like Automator on top should be relatively trivial.

Re:Of course we bash them

[colinrichardday]

Yes, but the grandparent spoke about doing it with a mouse, not with Microsoft Windows.

Re:Of course we bash them

[colinrichardday]

It might take more than two filters: tex -> dvi -> ps ->png -> pnm -> jpeg.

Also, once I have the shell script, I can modify it. How does one modify it in Automator?

Re:Of course we bash them

[colinrichardday]

Winbatch doesn't seem to be mouse-oriented. I could do what I did in Windows, as bash and netpbm are both available on that platform.

The grandparent said mouse-oriented, not Microsoft Windows.

Re:Of course we bash them

[jbolden]

It has a recorder feature

Re:Of course we bash them

[TheRaven64]

That sounds like a really screwed up way of making JPEGs from LaTeX. This is the workflow I would use:

TeX ---pdflatex---> PDF ---Preview[1]---> JPEG

I have no idea why you would do:

ps ->png -> pnm -> jpeg

Since GhostScript can go straight from ps to JPEG.

Actually, looking at Automator, I notice that you can go straight from PDF to QuickTime Movie with a single action, so you would only need two filters for your entire workflow. You can also saev it as a folder action, so it will be applied to any files dropped in a specific folder.

Also, once I have the shell script, I can modify it. How does one modify it in Automator?

Exactly the same way it was created. Drag spare filters out of it, drag new filters in, change the properties of some filters.

Oh, and if I were creating a video clip, I probably wouldn't go via JPEG. Use something lossless. Your video encoder will almost certainly do something DCT+quantisation-like, and doing this twice will almost certainly result in image degradation (assuming you are not just encoding to MJPEG using an encoder that understands JPEG bytestreams and uses them directly rather than recompressing).

[1] Or GhostScript, if you are not on OS X.

Re:Of course we bash them

[deaddrunk]

It's easy to do with a bash script

My reply was to that.

Re:Of course we bash them

[colinrichardday]

I didn't know that gs could do that. As far as the lossiness of jpeg, these are simple animations, like vector addition and planetary orbits, where the individual slides could have been rendered as PNGs (except that I don't know how to make an mpeg from PNGs)

As for video encoding, your comments went swoosh! But thanks.

Re:Of course we bash them

[EggyToast]

Oddly enough, OS X does have a great deal of modularity, what with the introduction of Core Audio and Core Image.

It's trivial to pipe audio from any program to another, with no latency. It even works with multiple tracks. Similarly, it's now nothing at all to move image data around as if it were text.

For me, dealing with audio and images defines what I do on my computer, for the most part. Sure, the text is there, and I type stuff, but I don't process text in any real way nor do I need to move a lot of it around. Audio and graphics, though... That's why I bought a computer.

former linux user

[kyle74]

as a former fedora core 3 user who returned to mac, here is my take....linux is a really cool os that is usable as long as everything installs off the rpm or disc correctly the 1st time. if i had to install from source (i.e. that tar.bgz BS) i was sunk. i rate myself as an average user of average ability, but if i couldn't ever figure it out i doubt my mother and/or grandparents could. i think i represent the type of users linux needs for widespread adoption. i gave up on linux when i went wireless and FC3 did not support my wireless card (d-link dwl g510). i believe linux can become a widespread OS if it can be more user friendly but it is obviously not there yet.

Desktop users simply aren't ready for Linux!

[v3xt0r]

'The Average Person' who uses a Desktop PC, is computer illiterate, whether it be windows or mac.

Microsoft makes it easy for 'anybody' to use Windows, and Apple makes it easy for 'anybody with a decent-sized wallet or a job in hollywood' to use Mac OS, which is ok for my grandma & grandpa, and all the gay people in west hollywood, and of coarse... for Bill Gates & Steve Jobs to make money on them.

However, let's try looking at this from a different perspective...

Sit 2 people down who have never used a computer before, make them build a computer from the ground up, guide them thru the OS installation process (1 user installs (insert your favorite distro here) linux, the other user installs (insert your favorite cuss-word here) windows xp), and then guide them thru the login process.

I guarantee you that the user who put together his pc and installed linux, will be FAR more computer literate than the user who built/installed windows.

Sure... when the linux user eventually migrates to windows, chances are he will be relieved that he won't have to apply as much computing techniques in order to use his computer, but he will still be FAR more computer literate than 'the average user'.

Re:less stupid users

[OzRoy]

Why do we always end up comparing linux to windows? OK, anti-{spy, mal, virus, windows} software is a pain in the butt to install in windows. That is fact. Does it detract from the critisisms aimed against linux? No it doesn't!! The problems still exist. Just because you can find an example of the same problem elsewhere doesn't invalidate it!

This kind of argument is like the kid in the playground who's only comeback is "Yeah? Well you smell too!!!"

Heart Surgery IS Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend in medical school says that doing heart surgery is easy. Any person who can follow directions can perform heart surgery. The only reason doctors get paid so much is to make the decision of how to do the heart surgery.

If mom, dad, and bootsie want...

[Anonymous Coward]

an easy-to-use system, then I suggest they roll up their sleeves and send in patches.

Summary

[strider44]

"Linux is not ready for the desktop because it is not yet exactly the same as Windows XP. Keep going guys, eventually you'll get there!"

Hassle for bi- or even trilingual users

[celorfin]

One comment took the words out of my mouth. In Gnome/KDE, it's a pain in the ass if I want to input Chinese and/or Japanese when the locale is set to English or a diffent language. Windows XP handles this good enough. Just change your input method, no need to mess with the region setting or locale.

Re:Hassle for bi- or even trilingual users

[Anonymous Coward]

SCIM is your friend.

Re:Hassle for bi- or even trilingual users

[Omega Blue]

That's not true.

Even RH can install additional language support for years. In Windows (even XP) you can't for example input Chinese unless you change the language setting. You can input English under Chinese, but not the other way around.

Until...

[Mechcozmo]

Until I can just insert the CD and instal without having to read a manual on how to prepare for install, install, and what to do post-install, it isn't worth it.

A Few Comments About Linux and the Home

[malvo]

I usually find out that users are not as dumb as they seem when it comes to computers. Most of these people can easily well adapt a new somewhat-different desktop environment, but are easily intimidated at the very thought of using something that is not mainstream. My 16-year old sister was especially intimidated when I told her I was going to switch her from Windows to Kubuntu. For the first day or so she wouldn't use it one bit because she said she didn't know how to use it. I asked her if she had tried and she said no. So a gave her a little tutorial of KDE and showed her how the desktop and applications are more or less the same. After about 2 or 3 days, its about all she uses. She especially likes Amarok. I mean, honestly, the majority of Windows and Mac users do very limited tasks. Linux and KDE/Gnome are more or less ideal in fulfilling them with plenty of diversity to go around. E-mail: Evolution or KMail Web: Firefox IM: Gaim or Kopete (to argue that any of these programs are more complex that Trillian is a stretch) Music: Amarok The largest problem is of course administration, but ask yourselves: Is Windows XP worth 150$ when you can get something that performs 95% of the tasks you would need performed for free? What about Mac OS X? I'd say no it isn't. So you want to know why Linux has such a small piece of the market? It's all about advertising! If Ubuntu was advertised half as much as XP or OS X, I sincerely doubt that it would be where it is at today regardless of any of the relatively small Linux shortcomings (namely drivers and difficult system administration). Plenty of things sell that are functionally useless, and its because of advertising. So to argue that Linux isn't gaining ground because its not as intuitive to use as Windows is ridiculous. Most people don't even know what Linux is, let alone, how user friendly. The simple fact is that until Linux gets the word out or does something so incredibly useful that Windows can't copy it before it gains momentum, Windows will continue to dominate no matter how user-friendly Unix becomes.

This is EXACTLY why it should be called GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess what I'm trying to understand is, what are the objectives in Linux? What is it trying to achieve? Is world domination still the name of the game? "

This guy proves the reason why we should be calling it GNU/Linux. The point of the prime mover of the movement was to push the free (as in freedom) software agenda. The objective is to eliminate unethical propietary software.

What a choice of foreground/background colors!

[udayb]

That blog entry isn't ready for human eyes.

--
Give me Vim and a place to sit, and I'll move the earth.

Re:less stupid users

[Mr2001]

No, no, no. I don't know how you got modded up this far. (Well, actually, I do. Bashing Windows = instant karma.)

My point was that Windows is easy to use and insecure. Getting spyware is a sign of insecurity, not difficulty of use. People can start programs, edit documents, and change settings easily.

It's true that many of them don't know where to get antivirus and antispyware programs, or don't know that they need them at all, but that doesn't mean Windows is hard to use, it means the users are uneducated. And those uneducated users like Windows precisely because it is easy to use.

Why Linux Isn't Ready for the Desktop: ten points

[damicha]

10) the desktop is disappearing and replaced by portables, special function devices, small form factors (I never had a PC on a desk, btw: put it away, into the next room basement, etc, and just run kbd and video cables)

9) too big a QA team working 24/7 worldwide

8) too long up; if it does not crash, how do I know it is actually working at all?

7) does not support Microsoft only printers

6) does not support Microsoft only scanners

5) does not support Microsoft only cams

4) you need an emulator to run notepad.exe, what a waste!

3) way too many applications and developers; and those developers are actually talking to each other; very very spooky. I want silos!

2) networking is way too fast for normal people

1) no online activation, so how can it work at all, he?

Re:less stupid users

[Luke-Jr]

The primary reason Linux is superior is that it is moral software. Start tainting it with immoral stuff like proprietary drivers and you might as well run OS X or some other immorally licensed *nix.

ATi may be not much better themselves, but at least we have (moral) drivers supporting 3D acceleration on many models. The only way nVidia cards can be nearly as good is if someone ports the apparent 3D acceleration from that open BeOS project...

OS X versus Linux

[jaypaulw]

It always digresses to windows versus linux on a website that doesn't even have a windows section (as if windows isn't a signficant part of the nerd world)

what about OS X versus linux?

Oh and Apple is a for profit corporation in case you weren't aware.

Windows is easy to use?

[Omega Blue]

If Windows is so easy to use why would they need teams of MCSEs to man the stations? Unless "easy to use" is artificially narrowed to "turn on the machine, double click on an icon, and plow along." But you can do that with virtually any Linux distro already, so why the gripe?

When Windows users move a bit out from that tiny circle they start run into trouble. Has any of these people actually installed Windows from scratch? It is a daunting task in itself, especially when you need to deal with things such as multi-byte languages or strange hardware. The number of options isn't significantly less than most Linux distros. There has been counterparts to "Typical" in many Linux distros for years. After about 30 minutes Windows is installed from CD, but that is not even near completion. The next thing to do is to juggle the pile of CDs containing drivers - some of them needed to be installed in a particular order. After many times of swapping CDs and rebooting - well, you are not done yet. Time to connect yourself to the Net to download all the security patches and service packs (of course you need to watch out for SP2 because it may break apps you may use). It's a race against time. Can you make it before the worms find you? That's not the end of it, either. You probably still need to update the BIOS, device drivers, DirectX, and a bunch of other things.

In comparison, even Gentoo is easy to install.

A military analogy

[colinrichardday]

From the designer's notes to the Avalon Hill war game 1776:

The Americans could have remained in the back woods and swamps and probably defeated any British force sent to oppose them, but in doing so they would have abandoned to the enemy their coasts and cities. In such case their army, and their cause, would have withered and died.

The Americans had to adapt their tactics to fight the British (and vice versa). Open-source advocates may have to do the same.

YAACLINR - STFW

[borgheron]

Yet Another Article Claiming Linux Is Not Ready.

So the fuck what.

GJC

What is needed?

[Frankie70]

Linux needs to run on Windows just like Firefox does. That will ensure that mom, dad & grandma use it.

Quit dictating what we want!

[sheepdog43]

Windows users are telling you what it will take to get us to switch.

Linux guys are telling us why we are wrong...

Take a look back at the posts here, you will see what I mean. You can easily tell who is running what in many cases.

Linux users, get off your high horse and listen to what Windows users are telling you.

Oh, one other thing, when a noob asks a question, stop replying with use the search, odds are they did, and found 5000 posts of people saying use the search or RTFM. You are not helping. Also, instead of giving up on them after the 3rd question, do NOT tell them to just switch to OSX.

You guys make terrible salesmen.

I am tired of you guys telling me how great things are for you. They are not. Your install system is a joke. Your help system is a joke. You have not made any progression towards STANDARDS in years. Does everything on KDE run in Gnome? How about reverse? And why in the hell are you still developing drivers for hardware discontinued 3 years ago!

Ready for networks?

[shrewtamer]

I'd agree that Linux isn't ready to be installed by average users. Neither is Windows. I think MacOS is the only OS I'd be happy to see installed by anyone - partly down to Apple's good work but also because of hardware compatibility.

I'd disagree about the need to install alongside windows and shift settings etc. Mostly only nerds upgrade their OS. People buy a computer they switch it on and expect it to work. Many companies are already selling PCs with linux preinstalled. It is up to them to choose good default software.

I think Linux is perfectly ready as a configured desktop for any user. Many of my friends come round my house and have no problem operating my computers - they're often unaware they're using Linux. A browser is a browser. No one has had a problem using Juk.

What I think is more important is that Linux is ready to be connected to a network. Windows obviously isn't. As network services are essential to so many desktop applications this has to be an important consideration.

Maybe MacOS X is ready for the generic desktop and networks. But after being shafted 3 times by Apple hardware I'll wait until I can install it on the quality components of my choice.

For most desktop applications I think all 3 major OS's are 'ready'. The network security is really where the pinch comes. Businesses need secure data and robust systems - a lot of people should be fired for choosing windows.

I hate mormons...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and yet, we don't have nearly as many "What's wrong with mormonism" articles than "What's wrong with Linux." People go out of their way to state their demands of an OS they don't feel caters to their every need (read: works exactly like Windows).

Are we, the GNU/Linux users, forcing this OS down your throat? Do we go door to door and tell you all about the wonders of open source, and why you should convert to our superior system? Well, I mean, I did have a lot of time that weekend, but I swear it was only a 6 hour event. Otherwise, why do people get so up in arms over this issue? I hate Windows, but I don't take every opportunity I get to publish articles about why it's terrible and I demand to see some changes before I'll consider using it.

Seriously folks. Obviously some people like the OS, some don't. It suits some people, others are content with Windows. If you don't like it, WHO THE FUCK CARES?

easier and safer ...

[dbcad7]

Linux systems based on Debian have apt and an easy to use application installer called synaptic http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html

You download your applications from repositories that range from stable to experimental.. However I think you'l find the applications that are in the "testing" and stable repositories are all very stable regardless of the word "testing". everything is tested to work together, and it takes care of all the dependency problems, so that everything you need is installed. It also manages updates for your system, and for new versions of applications

I find this a much safer way to install programs than windows, because these apps are tested and go through a lot to get into the repository in the first place.. (besides, it's a matter of honor to provide clean programs) You can always go to a "respected" place like download.com and well download all the spyware you want for windows. Perhaps some day the windows world will have a look at the Debian way, and some enterprising person will set up a safe spyware-free download site who knows.

It isn't ready

[bahwi]

And neither is Windows. Windows can't even stand on it's own. You need Anti-Virus, Firewall, and multiple spyware/adware tools for it to work properly. Otherwise, it dies a slow, painful death that the regular users aka "Mom and Dad" simply can't use.

To say Linux isn't ready for the desktop is correct. To say Windows is ready for the desktop isn't correct.

BTW, Windows is tolerable on the Workstation(Bigger enviroment, admin necessary), but then, you can say the same for Linux on the Workstation as well!

Two hugely flawed assumptions.

[Erris]

But there's a difference in the way people move to Apple and the way people move to Linux. With Apple, you're buying a completely new system (some would say, a completely new experience). ... the way most Linux advocates talk about attracting Windows users is by starting them on a dual-boot system

That's not quite right and once you understand the best migration time you understand why the migration issue is Bullshit (TM). Windows users dump windows when their computer crashes and burns again. The dual boot thing is a comfort and money saving feature and are the reason Linux share has surpassed Mac share.

Migration is a red hearing. Windows users usually lose all of their settings when they buy a new computer. Programs like Mozilla, Konqueror, Kontact and Thunderbird taking preferences is an extra Microsoft does not provide. It's part of the impressive superiority of free software that free software can install right next to the hulking ruin that is the average user's Winblows install. If they don't go for Linux, what they go for is a new Winblows PC for which they have to buy a new everything. It's difficult for them to get so much as their old favorite software, like Word Perfect, Paint Shop Pro and so on, much less have it work the way it used to. Even Winblows itself confuses the user by rearranging all the configuration settings and obnoxiously changing preferences on "updates".

Re:Two hugely flawed assumptions.

[asa]

Migration is a red hearing. Windows users usually lose all of their settings when they buy a new computer.

Have you used Windows recently? Windows XP comes with a quite capable Files and Settings Transfer Wizard that is prominently featured on new systems. Recent Mac systems do the same.

- A

Re:Two hugely flawed assumptions.

[Dante]

Have you ever used it?
I'm running about a 10% success rate. Moving a user from one box to
another is a bit of a nightmare. And yes I'm a windows Administrator.

Stop complaining about Microsoft

[gamer4Life]

If people feel that Linux should be in the sole domain of hobbyists and power users aka the Slashdot crowd, then I think these same people should stop complaining about Microsoft's domination on the desktop.

Why complain if you don't think anyone should do anything about it?

Linux has the closest shot to diminish Microsoft's power-abusing dominance on the desktop.

Make sure you download the latest ubuntu

[lakeland]

I installed ubuntu on my brother's brand new a64 dream machine a few months ago and had quite a few problems -- nothing I wasn't able to handle after 10 years using linux, but I imagine many of them would have been a showstopper for a newcomer. One thing I noticed is that using the older version of ubuntu I had posted to my brother had resulted in significantly more problems than the one I downloaded when I was there.

I imagine it would be similar with your fancy new laptop; if you get the latest ubuntu, even the 'testing' version, you're likely to have fewer problems on new hardware than the stable version.

Re:Make sure you download the latest ubuntu

[zxnos]

i have the iso for amd64 5.04 ubuntu, which should be the april 2005 release if i understand the naming convention correctly. looking foward to giving it a whack.

In other news...

[Ray Alloc]

Asa Dotzler Isn't Ready for Linux.

I'll wait

[Intocabile]

I tried Linux on an older computer. Everything was fine until it came to the Nvidia graphics card and wireless drivers. Searching the internet for people with the same problem, I found 'answers'. Answers involving using very specific compiler versions to get the wireless drivers working and I never did get the disply drivers over 60Hz and 800*600. Essentially the stars had to align to get everything working the way I wanted it to and I gave up and installed XP. Get it to a point where installing software doesn't require jumping through hoops and I might be back.

Linux Objectives-Fragmentation.

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to what? The papers out on Microsoft's site?

It's nice to know we're all individual. Now see that reflected in the linux community. Linux fragmentation because everyone's going in their own individual direction. How many different packaging solutions do we need? How many different sound systems do we need?

B*llsh*t Linux is Ready

[Ranger]

Windows wasn't ready for the desktop until Windows 2000 came out. It only took Microsoft seven years to catch up with the Mac. Was DOS (any flavor) ready for the desktop? No. Was Windows 3.1 ready for the desktop.? No. Was Windows 95 ready for the desktop? No. Was Windows 98 ready for the deskstop? No. So don't give me that crap about Linux not being ready for the desktop. I'd say that at worst, at worst, Linux for the desktop is at Windows 98 level and probably higher in terms of desktop usability. Where does he get off?

tired of this topic

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't comprehend in articles about linux/windows/whatever is the statement of "users with little or no computer experience." Okay, it's 2005 and computers are everywhere. My bank just installed a new ATM and it's plain to see that it's simply a PC with a touchscreen in a nice, huge, secure shell. How can you live in this society and not come into some kind of contact with computers? The answer is (especially in America) that you would actually have more trouble not coming into contact with them. Most people who have had "no computer experience" are probably the elderly, and more than likely, they don't want any computer experience anyway. A person with "no computer experience" has a learning curve EVEN with Windows. It's inevitable. The thing is people are comfortable with Windows because that's what they've always used, and they have forgotten what it was like to learn where everything was at first. And honestly, a lot people (aka Joe User) still don't know much about Windows. They know how to click the "Blue E" and get on the web. They can click on the green jelly bean and find programs. All the while they have all kinds of spyware and junk on their computer. And this is what keeps your corner computer shops open--cleaning spyware off your PC with free Ad-Aware and charging $30/hr.

So, the next time that you try installing a Linux distro and it takes you a while to find where something is or how to do something, keep in mind that it is a DIFFERENT operating system and you may actually have to LEARN something. I think what most people are trying to say is "Make something EXACTLY like Windows so I don't have to take time to learn something new, even though it's free/stable."

I mean, you gripe about something that's free... how pointless. If linux is for you, use it. Heck, you can't beat the price.

um..

[bmajik]

how is linux light years ahead in viruses and/or spyware ? Are you saying that because there doesn't seem to be a spyware/virus epedemic on linux?

Well, CP/M doesn't currently have a virus/spyware epedemic, and neither does MVS/TSO. Neither does the AppleSoft 3.3 Environment. Is your claim that all of those are "superior" to windows ? :)

Windows suffers from the need to let people run as root because of a variety of applications need that. I'll admit, the last time i used dosemu was a long time ago, but wasn't it suid ?

Once upon a time, you needed euid=0 to run openGL games, to run svgalib apps, etc.

So at least historically, to get the same sorts of features as windows (ability to play games, run legacy software), linux has to let you run with euid=0. Which puts you exactly in the boat a windows xp home user is in - running as admin.

There is _nothing_ technically different about the concept of separation of priviledge between windows and linux. If anything, windows has the more flexible model.

There is no "basic design flaw". if you can explain to me which parts of the windows architecture are flawed and how those flaws dont exist in linux, w.r.t. virii, spyware, security patches, and so on, please let me know. I'm modestly familiar with the architectures of both systems and frankly they're not all that different on the points you're trying to raise.

In any case, I'm excited to see the linux community develop better software. So far i haven't seen it. I've seen the good things about real UNIX cloned, and in the app space, i've seen a lot of the microsoft products cloned. Where's the better software in the vast sea of clones ?

Re:Well, here's my take...a... corporate workhorse

[The_Wilschon]

Hear, hear! Only one small point I'd disagree with. I'm all for peacefully coexisting with commercial/non-free/whathaveyou systems. I see (almost) no reason to aggressively push people towards something for which they have no need or desire. BUT, it is conceivable that the companies behind such systems (yes, I am speaking about Microsoft today, but it could be Apple, or (God forbid!) Google tomorrow) could purposefully use their influence in the computer world to make data formats (for example) that they own all rights to de facto standard, and then, through the use of patents etc, prevent any other system from having any access to those standards. So, I see self-defense (I want to be able to use the internet and the things I find there) as a small reason to encourage people to switch to a free system and use free formats. Switch to a free system to deny the giants the power I mentioned, and use free formats to prevent the de facto standardization of closed ones. The people I encourage to switch might have no other reason to do so, and in fact it might inconvenience them for a time, but, heartless bastard that I am, I am willing for that to happen to protect me and others who use free systems.

G-ma B

[Anonymous Coward]

grandma Bootsie

As for Linux being useable for the others listed, maybe someday. But, I'd have to say that old G-ma B. is a lost cause. And she'll croak soon anyways.

Re:less stupid users

[MisaDaBinksX4evah]

If windows were easy to use it would be easy to use securely.

Well, that's relative. Windows is relatively easy to use securely as far as I'm concerned, but I'm a relatively advanced user. Now, this also depends on what you mean by "securely," as this is also relative and dependant on what a given machine will be used for and where it is located. When it comes to machines I use at home, I have a relatively low standard of what I consider to be secure. I think this is fine to do so long as one keeps in mind the various standards that different environments and uses require.

Take Google for example

[gamer4Life]

Mod parent up.

Things don't have to black and white. An OS can be both user friendly AND powerful.

Look at the companies that Slashdot users rave about: Google, Apple, Mozilla.

All three have something in common...they make powerful and EASY-TO-USE applications. Easy enough for Joe Onepack to use without spending much time to learn. Yet they are powerful enough to satisfy the most hungry power user, and allow for users to tinker all they want.

For example, Firefox with it's plugins, extensions, etc...

Google Maps with it's API

Mac OS runs on BSD

Despite the power, they are easy to use even for first-time users.

HERE is MY take.

[Anonymous Coward]

My general take on Windows, take it or leave it or try to convince me why I should change my outlook.

Windows is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better.

The problem with Windows is not that it's not production ready, it's that it's a system that doesn't have anything special to offer and has nowhere new left to go. It has taken a large chunk of the market share away from the old, cumbersome UNIX systems, with their painful licensing models and lackluster support, but now it has no more market share to chip at because the supermajority of disk space that is left is in the form of desktops.

And Windows is just nothing special in that realm.

I speak authoritatively on the subject because my experience with Windows begins many moons ago with an old system called Windows Mandrake, now called Mandriva Windows. It started with version 5.2, a system forked from the Red Hat 5.2 release. I have since used Mandrake 6.0, Red Hat 7.0 and 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, Fedora Core 2, and variations from SuSE.

The first version I used was painful. It was a horrible system with a horrible interface and horrible documentation. Managing it was excruciating, and it wasn't uncommon for a seemingly simple change to break numerous systems in unrelated modules and drivers. The GUI was weak, disorganized, and difficult to manipulate. The desktop was hard to customize, and the interfaces were slow and cumbersome. Installing and uninstalling was nearly impossible because packages scattered files across a confusing, oblique filesystem, and it was a very common occurrence to find rpm entries had been corrupted and left unusable.

These problems I experienced were not uncommon and plagued Windows for years, leaving astute IT professionals shaking their heads, and young, energetic, and idealistic kids suffering under a burdensome system. I think it is fair to say that the rise in Windows use during the IT bubble and the subsequent pop of that bubble is not a completely coincidental correlation. Literally millions of man hours were lost in this time to troublesome Windows boxes and that sort of loss can hit new IPOs hard when it comes time to pay the piper.

It took many, many years and thousands of developers, but the system finally began to shed its inadequacies and "quirks" and develop into a full-fledged corporate workhorse. The managers who had been shaking their heads warily approached new versions and their confidence was bolstered as the GUIs began to fill out, the quirks began to shrink to the background, and more application support became the norm on new releases.

Now, Windows is a force to be reckoned with in backoffices and server racks. It is not, however, any closer to dethroning Windows as the supreme ruler of meatspace userland.

There is a very simple reason for this: it sucks.

I know, I know, I just finished zipping up the body bag on the "Windows isn't production ready" myth, but we've moved to a whole new realm here. We've gone from the terminology of fsck to frag. From SMP to MMORPG.

The problem is that everyone knows Windows and everyone's applications already run on Windows. There is no purpose in learning a new system because Windows is now polished and stable, and maintains its original attractiveness through its continued ease-of-use. Like Windows, it has shed its inadequacies and become a competent and powerful system in its own right.

So, in effect, we have the Windows system which has provided a consistent and simple interface for a decade now, and the Windows system which is an alien world to most people. Both function competently, though Windows still suffers a bit from the problem of glut thanks to its monolothic structure, and neither really offers a serious bnenefit over the other. As Joe Sixpack sitting in my cubicle, I have to think "Well, then why should I switch?" As the IT manager evaluating the cost of switching, I have to ask, "Well, how can you justify the tens

Firefox, Mozilla are memory and CPU hogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand using firefox anymore. If I leave it for 2 hours it's swapped like a motherfucker and takes forever to load. Even SUNBIRD swaps after a few hours! It's a fucking calendar!!! How much ram can it TAKE UP!!!

"find" dependancy? No Way, must be bundled!

[SuperKendall]

Anything that requires a network be present at point of installation is a bad idea. I know sometimes I take software on trips to install and play with. Or sometimes I just barley manage to get software downloaded over a spotty connection (talkin cable modem here).

With disks as big as they are, why not just include everything bundled with an app and link only what you cannot find on the system already? You could have a preloaded that checked for the exact versions of libraries required for the program to run and make sure it loaded local copies as needed.

*poders why linux is confusing*

[reydar]

Linux is like an ant hill. It was assembled by thousands of seperate bodies working together to create a very complex and intricate system. Unless you are familiar with its construction, then you'll just be lost in the dark.

But, I like Linux the way it is...

[zanidor]

From the article: "Just because you can include a feature doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a user preference doesn't mean you should." This is one of the big things I _like_ about Linux. I like having the options, and being able to configure things exactly the way I want. I like that using Linux allows (forces) me to learn the details of how my system works. Without these things, it just wouldn't be Linux. I'm all for encouraging users to switch over, but not at the expense of what I consider to be the biggest draws of the OS.

Windows Power Users Are The Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Asa is 100% wrong. The biggest obstacles to GNU/Linux or any other OS gaining desktop market share are the so-called Windows power users. The low level structured task workers are fine working with a dumb VT100 terminal, a locked-down Windows desktop, or a locked-down X11 kiosk. They learn to use the keyboard and/or mouse and fill out the forms required by the line-of-business app. If it's a Windows or X11 GUI, they learn to click on an icon or two to start apps. No installing software, no configuration, etc, that's done by the I.T. staff. They'll use what's put in front of them and they have no say in the decision. For embedded devices, users have no choice of interface either. This is 80% of workstation/terminal/POS device users. The real pains in the ass are the hobbyist Windows users, folks who picked up Windows fairly well along the way and consider themselves very computer literate. Because they were never fully professionally trained in computer science or programming (where they would have been exposed to the power of UNIX and other mainframe OSes) and they have little time or simply suffer from apathy, they oppose any changes that would require them to expose themselves to other platforms. Unfortunately many managers and executives fall into this position, as well as self-trained application developers. Their comfort zone is Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, IE, and the Start Button. Their programming skills are often limited to writing VBA applications to automate MS Office Apps which ties them to the Windows platform. This is the real obstacle to any OS that would unseat Microsoft. The best way to win these folks over is to show them a working GNU/Linux solution that solves a business problem, delivers low TCO and good ROI, and doesn't require them to interact with it except through a web interface or a Windows web service (SOAP) client app.
-gnulinuxadmin

Re:Am I the only one

[hdparm]

No, you are not.

cue the fanboys!

[maxpublic]

Here come the Microsofties, ready to tell us why Windows rules and Linux sucks. Some are obvious, others try to snow us with 'reasoned' arguments (read: vague bullshit), yet others still gift us with their own anecdotal disaster stories and how their inability to handle a simple install means that Linux *has* to suck. Because they couldn't possibly be as stupid as they appear to be, of course.

I've been using Linux for years, as has my wife. We settled with SuSE because it's even easier to install than Win2000/XP, regardless of what a few brain-dead MS-lovers have to say about it. Since I'm no longer programming and haven't been for some time (and my wife never has) I don't want to dick around with a system - I just want it to work, period. The computer is just a tool to me now and I have no interest whatsoever in doing anything beyond the minimum required to get it to function. SuSE is perfect for this and has never failed me, which is something I can't even come close to saying about Windows (any version).

But here's the real nail in the coffin of the Microsofties: when I taught computers for middle school students 11-year-olds had *absolutely no problem whatsoever* mastering Linux on the desktop. They easily adapted to it, and ended up prefering it to Windows. If my passle of ordinary 11-year-olds can install (yes, they had to install it themselves) and learn to use Linux without a hitch, I have to wonder just how much brain damage these Windows 'power users' must have suffered to make them incapable of accomplishing something any curious pre-pubescent could do.

Max

Ask not

[vga_init]

...what your operating system can do for you, but what YOU can do for your operating system.

Linux not ready for the desktop? What they mean is linux is not ready for desktop users. However, isn't it that desktop users aren't ready for linux?

I'm surprised no one ever mentions that age-old theory of killer apps. This is probably because most linux desktop applications are mere copies (albeit extended/improved) versions of programs available on other systems (before you flame, realize that I am heavily pro-linux/FOSS).

I can only see linux making headway as a desktop system when it offers something to the user that nothing else does--something they HAVE to get--something that will make their lives and computer experiences complete. Yeah, it's a tough task, but somebody has to do it.

If linux can obtain just one of these holy grail type applications (or more, if possible), then we'll start seeing some numbers.

Dear Linus

[msormune]

How about adding a simple Linux parameter that would remove all the hardware detection masturbation text when my system boots up? No, I don't want a fancy graphical boot up sequence. I want one that just after a while displays a login screen. Is there a way to do this already? I am pretty sure my hardware does not change over every night by itself. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful to relearn every goddamn time someone called Dave Jones created the agpgart interface Linux uses. And oo-wii my Athlon also still supports "hlt" instruction. This is pretty life saving stuff.

Re:Dear Linus

[twistedcubic]

You can disable this in the kernel. You just get a blank screen until the graphical login comes up. Bu t then you might complain about staring at a blank scrren for 5-30 seconds before the login window shows up :)

Mozilla and Linux

[jbolden]

I agree with Asa's main point that Linux today is where Mozilla was in version 1.0 relative to IE. That is:

1) Linux is more feature rich than Windows
2) Linux is better designed than Windows
3) Windows is easier to use than Linux, "it just works" is much more true
4) Support applications are designed around Windows assumptions

However as Mozilla evolved it became vastly better than IE in almost every respect . (Speed and bookmark management would be two areas that IE still beat Mozilla). Then the real issues were:

a) There were transition costs to Mozilla
b) Mozilla was more confusing to use

The Phoenix (later Firefox) project addressed resolving these problems. But Linux is ready for a Phoenix project yet. It doesn't need to be dumbed down it needs to be vastly better than Windows in almost every respect. It ain't there yet. MS Office is still much better than Open Office. Linux vendors are still shy about multimedia applications. OEM's and hardware vendors still don't consider Linux support as part of their standard QA and design processes. Linux doesn't have a suite of very good vertical apps. etc... Linux is ready for the "make it mainstream stage" it still needs to work on features.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a Unix user. OTOH I started trying out Mozilla around the 0.7 stage.

Re:Mozilla and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Beatrix. Small, fast, easy. Install it and it works.

Re:Mozilla and Linux

[jbolden]

AC nice tip. That's an interesting distribution particularly when OskarIX but I don't see how that addresses my points. Unixes have always been better on the diskless workstation front.

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

although this author is biased, there's only one truly unbiased review
-EEDOK

Linux on the desktop

[wakejagr]

Every once in a while, I see someone (usually heavily modded troll, insightful, underrated, overrated, the whole deal) who agrees with me. I haven't noticed the "I don't care" platform on this story yet, though there will probably be several instances by the time I'm done typing this.

Anyhow, here goes: I really don't care what OS people use. I'm a linux person (debian, if you ask (sarge on servers and desktops, if you ask again)) who has even helped a few people switch to Linux from Windows. However, if people are happy to use Windows, I let them. I'll help out family/friends with config issues, but if there's a real problem, they're stuck, as I really don't know (Ok, really don't care to know) Windows config information.

You want to use Windows? Fine. Why does it have anything to do with me?

You want me to help you fix your computer? Run linux. Or pay me. Stupid job . . ..

Duh

[Brandybuck]

The reasons for this are absurdly simple. So simple the pundits keep missing them in their zeal to declare Linux a failure.

1) Firefox is a one-click one-step install. Linux takes much more effort. This does not mean that Linux is a failure, it only means that installing *ANY* operating system is a pain in the butt. Linux will never get to a one-click install, but neither will any other operating system without being destructive to whatever was already on the system. Which leads to point two...

2) You don't have to give anything up to try out Firefox. You don't have to delete Internet Explorer first. You don't have to backup and repartition your harddrive to do it. It peacefully coexists within the same space as its competitors. Compare that to an operating system. This doesn't mean that Linux is a failure, because you're going to have the same problem installing Windows alongside an existing Linux.

Linux isn't taking off like Firefox because it's a failure, it isn't taking off because it's an operating system. Duh.

Linux is a kernel

[pupeno]

Linux is a kernel, it makes no sense to say that Linux should provide a way to migrate configuration from Windows to Linux (Imagine yourself asking that feature to Linus Torvalds and you'll see that it makes no sence). So, comparing Linux to Windows is like comparing apples to chairs.
Now a more useful comparition is KDE+Linux or KDE+FreeBSD or Gnome+OpenBSD vs Windows or just the desktop, KDE vs Windows (after all, when you say Windows you mean the desktop part, almost nobody means the the web server or some other thing which might run on Windows).
Having agreed on that, codding something to import config from Windows to KDE or Gnome would be so hard and useless (because Windows is so different to KDE and Gnome that only little bits could be imported) that would make no sense. Even migration between Gnome and KDE is so hard it is not worth it.
The main reason why people are slower at adopting Linux+KDE/Gnome as the desktop is because installing it means either getting rid of Windows or performing some operations that could corrupt the Windows install. That is different for Firefox. ***I wonder how many people would be using Firefox if the easy way to install would mean deleting IE (even with your conf migrations) or there's a harder way in which you may not delete IE, but you have to be an expert or you would scrow it up***
My answer: Firefox would have even less users than Linux. Comparing Firefox's success to Linux+KDE/Gnome's success on the desktop is comparing apples with chairs.

Exactly!

[enos]

And yet, a linux driver is either distro dependent (including version), or source (which is too much of a PITA for regular users).

Perhaps if the barrier to entry (and maintenance) of a linux driver was shorter, we'd see more support.

Re:Exactly!

[It'sYerMam]

While a universal type of package might be useful, it's probably unlikely. What's more likely, I expect, is a source "package," like the emerge system except universal. You download, say, "firefox.ins" which is a tar.gz/bz2 file including at the root something like an INSTALL file, except designed to be read by a package manager. It could just be a shell script, or something more like an xml file including instructions to hand to make, ./configure and so on. When to ask for root passwords, perhaps define some kind of GUI for options to pass to the configure script.

Basically an installshield equivalent, that then becomes capable of installing on any distro. Sure, you still have the speed of installation being an issue what with compilation, but hopefully a system like this will be available in the not-too-distant future.

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument, Windows is better and Linux is not ready for the desktop is bull. Linux is just as easy to use and is more secure, more flexible and more reliable. It only takes a distributor with enough market power to bring Linux to the fore front. MS$ knows this and that is why you are seeing these articles and attacks against Linux.
This article is pure FUD. I use Fedora 2 & 4. and they are as easy to use as Windows. I am a programmer but I use my Linux home machine for everything but programming - DVD's games, email, surfing. I use Linux at work as a GUI interface to our servers. I use Linux as a Administration desktop tool. Windows cannot hold a candle to it in any way. For writing reports, email and surfing Windows has no edge. In fact, windows is far less secure in doing these basic things. Why would I use such crap.

Power user, my hairy arse

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a power user, then I'm Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt.

Fucktard.

Bootsie?

[drew]

Good lord. Ialways thought "Aunt Tillie" was a dumb expression. Who in the world came up with "Grandma Bootsie"?

DUPE!

[Hanzo]

Oh, no.
Wait.
It's the weekly "Linux is/isn't ready for the (something)" article.

I hate you slashdot.

Disappointed

[RAMMS EIN]

The scoop made me think that this would be a nice comparison of what made Firefox get adopted so quickly, and Linux so slowly. Instead, it gives the same old crappy arguments of why Linux is "not ready":

``The first issue, migration, is pretty serious.''

No, it's not. You don't need to run it next to Windows. You don't need to provide the same applications. You don't even need to provide an equivalent for every app. Nor all the games. OS X doesn't have all this. Is OS X not ready for the desktop?

``The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability.'' (The use of "stability" is confusing. What he means is: you can go to a website, download an application, and expect it to run, i.e. binary compatibility)

This is the Windows Way. Linux has a better alternative: packaging. Applications packaged, tailored, and tested for your distribution. Try Debian. Go through a number of installs, uninstalls, upgrades, and dist-upgrades. Then tell me if you like the Windows Way better.

If you do like the Windows Way better, there is hope for you. It _is_ actually possible to distribute binaries that work. Opera has been doing it. StarOffice did this last time I checked (a very long time ago). I'm sure there are others.

``The third issue is a lack simplicity.''

The complaint here is that Linux gives you too much choice. Choice is not an antonym of simplicity. Try Ubuntu. Installation requires that you select a drive to install on, create a user account, select your keyboard and timezone, and wait for stuff to install. No hard choices there. Once installed, it has a nice GUI environment with one app for every job. Just because the choices exist, doesn't mean _you_ have to face them. You can have other people make them for you.

All the 237584704908c34 window managers are for people who like to experiment and try new things. If you don't want to bother with them, then don't.

``The final major issue is comfort. Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users.''

AKA, everything needs to be called the same and be in the exact same place as on Windows. Again, see the earlier argument about OS X. As for the new concepts of mounting and unmounting, have you heard of automount? I believe KNOPPIX uses it, complete with icons appearing on the desktop when you insert a drive.

So, with all these issues declared junk, what do I think is holding back Linux? Here's my list:

1. Linux isn't shoved down people's throats. This is why people have to "switch" in the first place. When people start using computers, they run Windows. At work, computers run Windows. When you buy a computer, it has Windows installed. Sure, there are exceptions, but for all practical purposes computer = Windows.

2. People don't care. Many in the Linux community want people to switch to this "better" system. To most people, Windows works fine. Why fix what isn't broken? This is also why Firefox users are still outnumbered by MSIE users.

3. The issues you raised are widely _seen_ as problems by people who haven't actually used Linux. Linux has a bad reputation for being user-unfriendly, which is entirely undeserved (and has been for years). One could even argue that the security problems with Windows make Linux easier for non-experts.

4. People are not sufficiently aware. They are not aware of how bad Windows is. They are not aware of how good Linux is. They are often not even aware that there is an alternative (they may have heard of Linux, but not understand what it is). If we want more users to switch, we need to educate people.

As for me, I don't really care what other people use. I've used DOS, Windows, various Linux distros, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS, and OS X. I like how I can write a program on one of the unix systems, then compile and run it on another. I don't like that it won't work on Windows, and that Windows is missing so many basic things, but Cygwin goes a

Re:Disappointed

[JamaisVu]

Well put. I am always frustrated and sometimes enraged by people who parrot out these same old arguments about why Linux is 'Bad' or even 'not Good'.

J

Re:Disappointed

[Pedrito]

``The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability.'' (The use of "stability" is confusing. What he means is: you can go to a website, download an application, and expect it to run, i.e. binary compatibility)

This is the Windows Way. Linux has a better alternative: packaging. Applications packaged, tailored, and tested for your distribution. Try Debian. Go through a number of installs, uninstalls, upgrades, and dist-upgrades. Then tell me if you like the Windows Way better.

Sorry, but no, the Linux alternative is NOT better, from a user's point of view. The Linux way, frequently is:

1: Download

2: Decompress

3: de-tar

4: cd source directory

5: ./configure

6: make

7: figure out which packages are missing and go back to step 1 for each of those

8: make install

It seems more often than not, this is the crap I have to go through to install Linux apps. It's a nightmare and if you think mom, pop and grandma Bootsie will be willing to figure this out, you're out of your mind.

And you think packaging is better? First I have to figure out which package is right for my system (FC3). This isn't so much a Linux problem as simply a difference in distros and versions of distros, but in the end, mom, pop, and grandma Bootsie could care less. But frequently the labels on web sites of which package goes with which distro are even hard for me to decipher.

Let's say I manage to find my FC3 RPM. Then I try to install it, but there are required packages missing. I now have to go track those down and install those. Users don't give a shit. They want to download and install, and I count myself among them. I can go through all this crap with Linux, but I don't want to. I have to because that's what Linux gives me.

Sorry, but the Linux alternative sucks and it will never be adopted by the average person if they have to go through this crap every time they want to install some nifty new app they've found.

In Windows, I create an installer for my app. With only minor direction from me, the developer, I can tell it which dependencies are part of every system and which need to be distributed with my install. Then the installer, when run, automatically figures out if the user has the necessary dependencies. If they don't, it installs whatever is missing. And assuming the app was well written and the installer well built, the app just works. 99% of the time, this is the case.

This is the Windows Way and I don't care what you say, it's WAY better.

Re:Disappointed

[delire]

It is clear you haven't used Linux in years. why on earth you are compiling applications I don't know.

My sister, someone who hates computers, hated Windows, and simply hates Linux less, types the keyword of the kind of package she wishes to install in 'kpackage' and then hits the elusively titled 'Install' button to.. you guessed it.

Recently, after 2 years of Linux use she asked "what is the command line?", having heard about it from a friend. When asked how she's going with Linux she replied "i like the way i don't have to go to websites to install programs." That's her experience of Linux, in it's would be blazing, crippled complexity.

Secondly, why are you doing using redhat's experimental, sandbox OS, one even they admit is purely there as a public laboratory for testing developments that may or may not make it into their stable, supported, enterprise software.

Interesting this was also the case for the vacuous author of the original article.

Frankly I couldn't care either way, Linux is fun, free, powerful and flexible. Since when have computers not been about learning something.

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. You don't need to run it next to Windows. You don't need to provide the same applications. You don't even need to provide an equivalent for every app. Nor all the games. OS X doesn't have all this. Is OS X not ready for the desktop?

Oh really? So what you're saying is that Linux doesn't need any of the applications or fucntionality of Windows simply because you don't like Windows?

Do tell the point of an OS that can't do basic everyday tasks...

This is the Windows Way. Linux has a better alternative: packaging. Applications packaged, tailored, and tested for your distribution. Try Debian. Go through a number of installs, uninstalls, upgrades, and dist-upgrades. Then tell me if you like the Windows Way better.

OK you're just stark raving mad here. God forbid I double-click on an executable, the program installs, and it works. Yeah I can see how that's a much worse way than the nightmare that is Linux installs...

The complaint here is that Linux gives you too much choice. Choice is not an antonym of simplicity. Try Ubuntu. Installation requires that you select a drive to install on, create a user account, select your keyboard and timezone, and wait for stuff to install. No hard choices there. Once installed, it has a nice GUI environment with one app for every job. Just because the choices exist, doesn't mean _you_ have to face them. You can have other people make them for you. ...which is missing the point entirely. There are no standards. It all depends on what distro kernel you use, what window manager, etc... how is this "choice" beneficial in helping Linux catch on? If I am running Mandrake and a friend deciudes they would like to try it and they go home and try to install Debian... boy are they in for a shock.

Calling it "choice" instead of a "clusterf*ck" (what it is) is the equivalent of calling a bug a "feature". Spin won't save it, because in the end it *still* sucks regardless of what you paint it as...

AKA, everything needs to be called the same and be in the exact same place as on Windows. Again, see the earlier argument about OS X. As for the new concepts of mounting and unmounting, have you heard of automount? I believe KNOPPIX uses it, complete with icons appearing on the desktop when you insert a drive.

Pssstt... Windows was here and had the market before Linux. So yes, if you want to win them over you had better not be hostile towards them and their migration. You aren't just going to create new Linux users out of thin air you know.

Being different for the sheer sake of Being Different(TM) doesn't cut it. Regardless of what you may believe. There has to be a key reason to switch. And this has basically eluded Linux so far. The "because it's not Windows" argument isn't going to garner many switches at all. I don't knwo why this is so hard for people to grasp.

People don't care. Many in the Linux community want people to switch to this "better" system. To most people, Windows works fine. Why fix what isn't broken? This is also why Firefox users are still outnumbered by MSIE users.

At last, you finally reach the truth, which is unfortunately something a healthy chunk of the Linux community has failed to grasp. Just because YOU want to use Linux and like it doesn't mean anyone else is going to give a rat's a** about it. Why? Mainly because, at its core, Linux has nothing extra, unique, or different to offer the majority of people, save for the novelty of it being different.

If I keep my Windows box secure, it never ever has stability issues even when I do all sorts of horrible things to it, it runs all the programs I want, and I can make it do what I want... what's the point in using anything else?

People are not sufficiently aware. They are not aware of how bad Windows is. They are not aware of how good Linux is.

Ahh but after the brief glimmer of hope, back to the complete and utter biased nonsen

Re:Disappointed

[jamesmrankinjr]

OS X is even better.

Most well designed applications simply let you download and automatically mount a disk image. Many even let you run straight from the disk image, or you can just drag to "Applications" (or wherever you prefer).

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? So what you're saying is that Linux doesn't need any of the applications or fucntionality of Windows simply because you don't like Windows?

Do tell the point of an OS that can't do basic everyday tasks...

I think what the GP is saying is that it isn't a requirement to duplicate every Windows program exactly as those programs operate. We don't need "Windows Calculator App", we've got other calculator apps; we don't need Internet Explorer with ActiveX, we've got Mozilla. And then there are the programs we don't need at all: "Norton Internet Security", "McAfee Antivirus", "pcAnywhere" -- these functions are covered in the OS itself. Similarly, there are dozens of fine programs on Windows that don't exist at all on Mac, yet Mac thrives in its own way.

OK you're just stark raving mad here. God forbid I double-click on an executable, the program installs, and it works. Yeah I can see how that's a much worse way than the nightmare that is Linux installs...

Try installing Visual Studio.NET 2003 . I just did a month ago, it took three hours with multiple screens of questions to get through. (The installer first forced me to install the .NET runtime and a web server, even though I just wanted to make Win32 C console apps and didn't need .NET at all.) Then at the end came product activation, and I hope that the hard drive never fails now because my media is useless without the activation key.

Contrast this with 'apt-get gcc' on Debian.

Pssstt... Windows was here and had the market before Linux.

And Unix, which Linux closely resembles, pre-dates Windows by about 20 years. And like Unix, Linux runs on hardware platforms that Windows can't even touch, from tiny (2MB RAM) to huge (1024 processors).

Being different for the sheer sake of Being Different(TM) doesn't cut it.

Which is why BeOS, ReactOS, Amiga, GeoWorks, Plan9, etc. remain on the sidelines. They're great, people like them, but fundamentally they don't offer much more than Linux, BSD, and even Windows.

[Windows] runs all the programs I want, and I can make it do what I want... what's the point in using anything else?

That's fine for you, keep doing that.

But Windows doesn't run the programs *I* need, most of which are POSIX-compatible and won't compile on Windows. I'm not willing to pay for Windows-equivalent programs, especially closed-source where the programs' futures are dependent on the financial ups-and-downs of their respective vendors.

Windows also doesn't work well on my primary work machine, a Dell laptop whose "trackpad mouse" is flaky. With Linux I can switch between 12 consoles and get my work done with a minimum of fuss using the keyboard for everything; on Windows XP I have to plug in an external mouse to get anything done, and many times I have to stop what I'm doing to click away some popup box or other.

If someone has Windows problems and your solution is to try and push them to Linux without offering much help... you're just being an unhelpful, arrogant dumba**. No wonder you're unpopular. Who are you to tell them what to run? They didn't ask your opinion on that.

Well, at least he's informing them of an alternative that doesn't have the same problems. Suppose your Pontiac mechanic told you that besides fixing your car for $200, there's another car available for trade-in with $5000 cash back that has twice the fuel efficiency, bulletproof windows and armored doors, a Porsche body frame, and 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, but it has the steering wheel on the other side, would you still consider him an ass for mentioning it?

You like Windows, so keep using it. I'm all for computer users being comfortable and productive.

For me, I've been using Linux full-time since 1998, and am now so used to it that Windows feels clunky and almost impossible to work with. I hate having to use the mouse so much, and switching between major

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine for you, keep doing that.

But Windows doesn't run the programs *I* need, most of which are POSIX-compatible and won't compile on Windows. I'm not willing to pay for Windows-equivalent programs, especially closed-source where the programs' futures are dependent on the financial ups-and-downs of their respective vendors.

How is any of this a reason for the rest fo the world to switch to Linux though? It's not. That's the point. Just because some small segment wants to use Linux doesn't mean the rest of the world wants or needs to, or gives a crap. That's what so much of the community seems to not grasp. "Great for you... this affects me how?"...

Windows is here, it's much more widley used, and people *do* like it. The fact that a certain percentage of people don't like that will NOT change that.

Well, at least he's informing them of an alternative that doesn't have the same problems. Suppose your Pontiac mechanic told you that besides fixing your car for $200, there's another car available for trade-in with $5000 cash back that has twice the fuel efficiency, bulletproof windows and armored doors, a Porsche body frame, and 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, but it has the steering wheel on the other side, would you still consider him an ass for mentioning it?

Yes. For one, again I never asked, so I don't need to be evangelized. Secondly, your comparison is highly inaccurate. Again, this idea that Linux is somehow inherently "better" is preposterous -- which again is your insinuation by tacking on all these "features" (comparing safety to security). Besides, your frankenstein car is no good if you promptly drive it into the wall 3 minutes after buying it. So it is with OS's -- an OS is only as good as the user running it and their personal preferences. And it doesn't matter what kind of car you have, a dumb enough driver can still promptly drive it into the wall right off the lot.

Recently I've had to write Win32 C again to support an "embedded" Windows device; I'm flabbergasted that I can't use standard C library functions like time() and opendir(). Every other program I write works on Linux, AIX, and Solaris with almost no porting issues between them. Why does Windows have to be so weird?

It doesn't have to be, and isn't "weird". YOU think it's weird. It's more a product of the other environments standardizing (or at least shoddily attempting to anyways) in order to survive in a market where on their own in their uniqueness they'd be eaten alive. And it's a product of YOU being used to those other systems that most nobody else uses. So you can't assume that the rest of the world agrees with or thinks like you, because that's not the case.

To the majority of the population, Windows *is* the standard. The sooner the Linux community realizes this and that they either a) need to stop trying to evangelize to get converts, or b) make Linux offer something truly compelling that can't be found in Windows... the sooner they'll be on the right track.

Right now though they're polynesians trying to sell ice to Inuits in the Northwest Territories, wondering why nobody's buying...

Re:Disappointed

[Pedrito]

It is clear you haven't used Linux in years. why on earth you are compiling applications I don't know.

I use Linux daily and several of the apps I've recently downloaded were only available in source. I use some fringe apps. But mplayer and mencoder, for example. You can get the RPM for it, but there are constant bug fixes and if you want them, you can sit around and wait a few months or you can get the code and compile. There are features in mencoder right now that only work properly in the latest CVS build (edit lists, for example).

Several of the video editing tools I've found are only available as source.

Secondly, why are you doing using redhat's experimental, sandbox OS...

Well, the last thing I used before this was RedHat 6. What would you suggest I use from RedHat? Don't recommend another distro because I don't want to deal with another distro. FC is the closest to RedHat 6 I could find. And frankly, my problem isn't RedHat or Fedora specific anyway. My problem is that even with RPMs, you can't always just download and install the RPM. Many times you have to track down dependencies and install those first. Again, not a RedHat specific thing.

The points I raised are not RedHat or Fedora specific. They're endemic of all Linux distributions.

Since when have computers not been about learning something.

For you, maybe that's what computers are "about." For most people, however, computers are "about" making their jobs and their lives easier. And frankly, Linux doesn't do that, at least from my point of view.

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you're totally wrong, Linux *can* be like this but it usually isn't unless you want it to be.

In many ways you're describing the *Windows* way.

In Windows
1) Search for an application (geneology) while working your way thru pop up ads and cruft
2) Download the app if you can find one thats free or if not, get out your credit card.
3) If its zipped, run some unzip app
4) Click on the exe to install

Your system is trashed by incompatible DLL's or syware!
SURPRISE!

In Linux
1) Switch to root
2) Type 'apt-get install gramps'
DONE

Which was easier ?

Re:Disappointed

[RAMMS EIN]

Get a clue. Seriously. Others have already written some things that should have enlightened you, but I'll respond to your complaints, just to make it perfectly clear.

``Well, the last thing I used before this was RedHat 6. What would you suggest I use from RedHat? Don't recommend another distro because I don't want to deal with another distro.''

Ok, that's your decission. I personally think the distros RedHat makes are about the worst among the large distros, but if it works for you, it works for you.

``And frankly, my problem isn't RedHat or Fedora specific anyway. My problem is that even with RPMs, you can't always just download and install the RPM. Many times you have to track down dependencies and install those first. Again, not a RedHat specific thing.''

I hope you realize what you are doing here is the Windows Way. You go on the web, find the package that's right for your system, download it, and install it. The Linux Way is that you tell your system (through the command-line or GUI, whichever you prefer) which package to install from among the packages that your distribution has packaged for you. No more figuring out which package is right for your system. No more you having to resolve the dependencies yourself. It's been this way pretty much since whenever Debian introduced apt-get.

``The points I raised are not RedHat or Fedora specific. They're endemic of all Linux distributions.''

Maybe you don't think they are, but people who actually have "wanted to deal with another distro" might have a different opinion. Debian, for one, has a lot more software packaged than RedHat/Fedora had last time I checked. This makes you not have to go out on the web to find software, even if for RedHat/Fedora you would have to. Debian also had automatic dependency resolving long before RedHat got it (working decently, anyway).

Also, re-read what you're basically saying. You're complaining that package management doesn't work on RH/FC, but then you say you don't want to use anything else. That's like saying "It doesn't work, so let's keep using it and refuse to look at alternatives." Come on, I think you're smarter than that.

Re:Disappointed

[mlylecarlin]

What?! Last year I tried to set up mythTV on a fresh FC install. There is a more-or-less standard guide for doing this (http://wilsonet.com/mythtv/fcmyth.php). *There were compile steps*.

Re:Disappointed

[masinick]

I find the most recent releases of both Windows XP and the vast majority of Linux desktop software distributions to be easy to install, easy to use, ready to go, and usable. For the kinds of things I do, Linux desktop software is actually a bit quicker to install in most cases (I can get a typical desktop system installed and working in about twenty minutes; it takes two to three times as long to get XP installed, then I need to install XP Office, then my own utilities and tools that I prefer, and my the time I am done, three hours have passed.

On the system I am using right now, XP runs fine, that's not the issue at all. Most people probably already HAVE XP installed on their systems.

The real question and issue here is whether or not Linux can provide an acceptable alternative to Windows and OS X on the desktop. When I am home, I rarely run anything else, and that has been the case since the winter of 2002. Before that, I used both Windows 98 SE and various Linux distros at home, but I had a lot of mail saved in Outlook Express, so I kept 98 SE running for a long time until one day, my disk wore out. At that time, I made the plunge.

When I am work, obviously I have to use whatever my employer provides. I have been working in a school district, and they not only use Windows, they also control what is installed and don't provide privileged access to the systems, so you really cannot easily hack at them.

In the past, I have worked at technology companies. There, you can find more than one desktop alternative, at least in labs, but even so, on the office desk, you still find mostly Windows software.

I worked in an operating systems group many years ago, and we used our own products on the desktop. Even there, Windows had a presence. Product Managers and group managers often had PCs as their primary workstation instead of UNIX workstations. If a UNIX shop even runs Windows on the desk, that ought to give you a good idea of just how entrenched Windows software has become in business.

I think that those are but a few of the reasons why Linux software is slow to be adopted on the desktop. It simply has many things to overcome. Market share, in my opinion, along with a general resistance to change, are the strongest factors preventing widespread desktop Linux adoption. Standardization and perception are probably a few of the other largest factors standing in the way, but none of these factors can be ignored. They are reality.

Desktop Linux is an alternative right now, but for the foreseeable future, it will remain primarily an alternative, not a primary option. Costs and improving features will whittle away other markets, but very slowly, and not with as much success as we've seen in server markets. That's just what has been happening... wish it were not so, but it is, at least for a while longer.

No MP3s? WTF?

[RAMMS EIN]

``I can't get my PC to play MP3s.''

?!?!?? Red Hat/Fedora user? That's the only distro I've ever heard about that doesn't play MP3s (apart from the ones that don't offer any sound stuff, obviously).

Re:No MP3s? WTF?

[Mycroft_VIII]

I will say I've seen the reverse though. A distro that thought non-mp3 files where mp3, gave half of my .iso files the same mime type it gave my mp3's and refused to do otherwise with them. I tried drop and drag to burn one and got a 'wrong file type' message. On a lark i tried 'playing' these strange mp3's to get 'file corrupt' type message.
The real kick is there was NO way to change this that could be discovered in over an hour of digging around and it had trashed my primary hd's boot sector so I couldn't even go back to something else to dig on the web for answers, depite my having told it to install on the secondary hard-drive.
Needless to say I do NOT currently recomend Ubuntu (at least for 64bit amd users) after that fiasco.

Mycroft

Re:No MP3s? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that.

Installed Ubuntu yesterday; it trashed the hard drive's entire boot sector, annihilating drive letters and file tables.

After several hours, I managed to reconstruct the boot sectors enough to get into Ubuntu (simply by virtue of reinstalling until it worked, but not yet Windows. It's doable, but I don't have the time right now, and I'm pissed.

I know the data's there, but Windows implodes when you boot into it. And yeah, no sound in Ubuntu. I spent a couple of hours last night, while taking a break from fixing Windows, trying to get sound in Ubuntu. Nada. Zip. Not only that, but now I've littered my install with all kinds of crap I don't really understand, since the entire point of switching over to Ubuntu was that I don't know Linux!

P.S. As another Unbuntu bitten poster commented earlier, it really, really does feel cramped in Gnome at 1024x768.

Re:No MP3s? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. As another Unbuntu bitten poster commented earlier, it really, really does feel cramped in Gnome at 1024x768.

You need this command:

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg

For more help your best bet is searching the forums.

Re:No MP3s? WTF?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Or he could boot from his winxp cd, choose the recovery console and fixmbr and perhaps fixboot, IIRC.

Mycroft

Not ready for my users desktops. :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to hear of your (and your girlfriend's) successful Linux experiences! I am frequently impressed at the progress Linux is making toward becoming a truly capable desktop OS. However, for many organizations, I don't believe that it is ready for prime-time yet, or that it will be in the near future. Flame away, but let me explain myself first.

I work as an IT manager / network administrator for a university library. At present, we are a predominantly Windows environment. We have some Linux and BSD boxes serving production roles as servers (jobs which they do extremely well), but nearly all of our desktop machines run Windows XP. I would sincerely like to change this fact, but the amount of work it would require would, at present, be nothing short of a herculean task.

The reason for this has nothing to do with the usual explanations for lack of wide-spread Linux adoption. Our IT staff are not opposed to the "*NIX learning curve"... we run BSD for God's sake. Nor is hardware compatibility a big stumbling block as it would be a trivial matter to spec new machines with hardware that is natively supported. Additionally, while fancy "do it for me" migration tools would be ok, the people who would actually perform the migration are IT professionals who could pull such tools (in script form) out of their asses if they needed them. The reason that we cannot yet think seriously about moving to Linux is quite simply that it does not meet the needs of our user population.

As I imagine is the case for many organizations, the needs of our user population are not incredibly complex. About half of their time is spent in basic desktop applications such as Firefox/IE, Word, and Outlook. As far as these applications are concerned, I am confident that we could migrate to Linux tomorrow and be as well off as we are now. Hell, in some ways (such as useful lifetime of hardware) we would be better off. There would admittedly be some training issues involved, not all of which would be trivial, but training is simply a reality of IT and there are enough quality applications available for Linux that could serve as adequate replacements for these general-purpose Windows apps that migration would be feasible, if they were all we needed.

However, Linux is not a realistic option for us simply because we require a fair number of applications, specific to our niche, that are not available for Linux and for which there do not exist solid, well developed replacement options. While we are not an insignificant niche, the vendors that provide solutions for the types of needs we face do so primarily through specifically tailored Windows software, and considering the lack of existing Linux desktops performing in the roles of our niche, it makes sense for them to do exactly that. Why spend the extra time developing a second, Linux-based application to satisfy a tiny percentage of users when those development hours could instead go toward improving an existing product that is actually used?

I also do some occasional consulting for small-medium sized companies and have noticed that this condition exists at just about every one of them. Most of the computer-based work done at these companies happens within general purpose applications (for which suitable Linux replacements exist) but every one of them has at least one or two niche-specific applications that are absolutely essential to their business operations. Replacing them with Linux applications would result in mismatched solutions that meet some, but not all of their needs and which would result in decreased productivity.

The improvements suggested in the linked-to blog posting would be great to see and, I agree, would make migration to Linux a simpler task. But I think the issue that I am describing is substantially more significant than any of them and will need to be addressed before Linux can hope to become widely adopted as a desktop OS.

Re: lol, laptops?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Linux will start figuring out laptops after it figures out the switch from mainframes to desktops, mmmkay?

Six Words:

[crhylove]

Grand. Theft. Auto. San. An. Dreas.

Thank you.

Good list to keep in mind

[lnxpilot]

I completely agree with the list and I've been trying to address them in my 3D application, EQUINOX-3D

- migration: accept controls most commonly used in other similar software, such as camera control (the first thing a "migrating" 3D artist will want to do is move the camera), support common/standard file formats etc.

- "stability" (the author might want to call this self-sufficient/self-contained software): I include as much as possible and not depend on external APIs to avoid the infamous "library dependency hell" that he was describing

- simplicity: strive for a simple, "discoverable" user interface, no obscure/unnecessary settings, unless you specifically open the "advanced drawers"

- comfort: see under migration

People often say that EQUINOX-3D has the best user interface among free (or even commerical) modelers and I'm convinced it's because of keeping in mind the points he summarized so well.

Some thoughts

[doc_pez]

asbestos suit on

As a user of Microsoft products since pre-DOS days, and as a Linux user since Slackware 0.99pl11A, I have many times heard rationales for switching to Linux from Windows. Mostly, I have heard the same arguments over and over again. I will address a couple of these, and hopefully some can understand my question of "Why?" has still not changed.

Linux is secure/Windows is not.

This is really an unfair comparison for M$. How so? Well, first consider how many years has XP been out? Now consider how many installs of XP there are. Also consider how many people have tried in many ways to break XP. The point is, do this. Take a distro that came out the same time as XP. Now, consider that you are still running that same exact distro to this day. The multiply that by the order of XP uses versus the user base of afore mentioned distribution. Again, multiply that by the order of people trying to break that distro versus XP. Now compare numbers for security holes. That is a more fair assessement of security holes. If someone would kindly run those numbers...... Which leads me to the next point.

Drivers.

*Blank* distro supported all my hardware out of the box. XP did not. Again, use the point above. Consider that same question above. Here is a more fair question. "Did RedHat 7.2 have the same driver support as Win XP?" Answer - not even close. They were released within 3 days of each other. XP, in a sense was fixed (as in a fixed state, not as in fixed - now working) at that time. And in a sense, has been since. To say that a Linux distro today has more drivers than something released almost 4 years is meaningless. If Longhorn were released today, it's driver support would be greater than any Linux distro released about the same time. Furthermore, the hardware made since then, again, for drivers, Windows blows Linux out of the water.

Ok, was that a couple? Ok, one more.

From a certain point of view (to quote Obi Wan) IT is only as valuable as worth provided to the organization it helps to support. For example, if a an insurance company determined that it could run the company just as efficiently without computers, then the IT staff becomes useless. While this is rarely the case, it is none the less true. An IT guy in a law firm is not even to close as valuable as the Lawyers themselves. Same goes for Doctors, engineers, etc. IT is only made useful by enabling those people to do their tasks more effectively.

With that in mind, why should Bob the Lawyer give a flying rats ass about whether or not he can get something to run under Wine? He shouldn't. In fact, he can't. As a result, why not just stick with what he uses now, if it gets the job done? The main reasons is that from their point of view, don't fix what isn't broken. I have been in many professional offices where the secretaries have learned how to download updates, even fix the web pages (with data sources). To change to Linux has absolutely no benefit. In fact, it is a step backwards. With XP on a PC, it allows them to do what they need, hence fulfilling the usefulness that the computer offers. Changing to Linux, in effect, for these people, diminishes the promises that computing offers.

I have more, but that alone is food for thought. While I have been pro-Linux for at least 10 years, for most people, it just doesn't make sense.

I can remember back downloading all the little Slackware sets, stealing all the floppies I could find, and installing it. I think it was back in 94, maybe. It was different back then. Linux has come a long way, and I have many memories of Linux doing something better than Linux, then talking shit for a few weeks each time. Now, older, with 25 years in IT, I would NEVER consider or recommend Linux as anything but a server in an office. Oddly enough, the most interest I have had in Linux on the desktop has been in garages, by the mechanics themselves. To me, thats weird.

Now go ahead and label me a troll, and send my post to the barrel of doom for making some sense.

Asbestos off, funny hat and leisure suit back on

Re:"find" dependancy? No Way, must be bundled!

[IamTheRealMike]

Autopackage supports bundling of single libraries, entire packages and even if the dependency is not bundled you can put the package in the same directory as the one you are installing and it will look there.

We also provide tools that make Apple-style "weak linking" very easy (that is what relaytool does) and also a dep solver.

In other words, we provide every means of handling dependencies: the Linux way (depsolve), the Windows way (bundle), the Apple way (weak link). Exactly which a package uses is up to the authors: we're still trying to figure out some guidelines on what is best to use.

Pont 4!

[6wl]

I've been banging on about this with Linux (KDE especially) for years now.

KDE and the QT toolkit just seems to waste space - buttons have massive empty areas, scroll bars are way thinker than needed (and I've never found an easy way to scale them down).

The first thing I do when I boot up an XP machine from a fresh install is move the top window size down to 20 and scrol bars to 12. Yet in KDE you seem stuck with massive obtrusive buttons. Windows has a nice 2 pixel seperator, KDE will have about 12 pixels. Total waste of desktop real estate.

Use what you like not what you want to like

[gilesjuk]

I don't care if people find the Linux experience good or bad, but you should use what you are comfortable with.

Why use Linux and then complain that it should be more like Windows? go use Windows then and pay for the priviledge. As far as I'm aware the developers of KDE, Gnome etc don't have the billions available for research, design, development and testing that Microsoft have.

I keep reading articles about how its not ready, how it should be simpler etc. why? having one desktop is simpler, having support for one screen is simpler, having one mouse button is simpler etc. simpler doesn't always equal powerful and that's the balance.

Those with a good technical ability like lots of features and settings.

To make something powerful yet provide a simple interface, you require a complex layer underneath and when something goes wrong you can't do much about it (see registry for details, it's very hard to trace a problem due to its ludicrous size). I would sooner have more complexity and full control.

Here we go again..

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux IS ready for the desktop, it's just some users aren't ready for linux..

my take

[sewagemaster]

first of all, i'm a debian user.

i havent had much of hardware problems when installing my OS, and these days the hardware autodetection's pretty nice - but a lot of posters here cant seem to get basic things like wifi card and graphics to work properly.

a lot of you would say it's because it's because manufacturers don't release specs, etc.

but EVEN let's say they all do. it still wouldn't justify why it's required to compile in the features into the kernel to get things to work. there are things that are already available like sleep mode on the laptop. the specs are there, the code is there, but it's still too troublesome having to recompile the kernel to get it to work.

it's not as simple as hardware specs. everyone, even fanboys agree that a lot of the problem is with the GUI. wouldn't it be great if there's a module in kcontrol that allows users to click and add in mirrors for upgrading their packages, no matter you're using fedora, mandrake or debian?

if you take a look at the desktop releases, a lot of the "improvements" are in terms of eye candy, but not so much on configuration frontends... right now distros like mandrake and fedora are doing pretty good jobs on these, but wouldnt it be nice to have a unified config setting gui program?

i personally don't have a problem with this, having gotten used to editing everything via the shell, but...

then there's the speed of the gui apps which I can get into for hours...

This guy is talking out his ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is different from windows, it is not meant to be like it. Fucking idiots, people like him wanting linux to be like windows, same goes for those KDE fags.

OpenCD -- Yes! Linux? hmmmm.

[smchris]

I think the OpenCD project is a great idea. If people don't have to abandon Windows, that only leaves the remaining suspicion that something free can't be worth anything. MAYBE they will take a chance and install Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GIMP, etc. People are already installing spyware right and left -- why not give _one_ open source program a try? Firefox isn't a large commitment. It would be a plus if they would then try a _second_ OSS program.

But, man, am I primed for a topic on the future of the linux desktop right about now. I had everything with Red Hat 9 and a 2.4 kernel: accelerated video, Win4lin kernel for some legacy programs, scanner, camera, Palm, pocket pc, Zip drives, Jumpdrives, joystick, CD+RW, DVD+RW. The more elaborate OSS games and sims like Torcs, Flightgear and Cube. More importantly, I had the feeling that linux was making sure and steady progress as a solid and full-featured desktop.

But desktop progress marches on, right? If you want bluefish 1.0, for example, you better have a recent KDE or Gnome for the current graphics toolkit. And in that vein it seems like everything has gone to crap for me in experimenting with a couple recent distributions. I've lost accelerated video in three machines, either upgrades or fresh installs and I've spent hours on the net scratching my head on those. I've had to compile my first kernel to keep Win4lin working. Looks like I'll have to go back to that and see if my video cards have been deprecated in the kernel because it sure seems like I've tried everything else.

But the thing that has really thrown me into a crisis with linux is the 2.6 kernel's udev and my absolute inability to create legacy devices.

1. Is it just assumed that if all your removable media aren't USB you shouldn't be using a current 2.6 kernel? When did that memo go out? Even if I wasn't on the distribution list, what sort of way is that to run an OS?

2. The devices.txt formats out to about a nifty 50 page OpenOffice document with another 10 or so on mknod and what I could find on the net. Sure, it's a fascinating roster of detail in an area of linux architecture that I've sorely neglected, but:

a. Will grandma love wading through the device creation process in start up config files to get that legacy Zip drive working?

b. If only it _would_ work. As far as I can see, if you put mknod's in rc.local (which is about all I'm finding on Google), they just get removed before the boot is completed. And, in another case, another legacy device is saucily allocated a "g" device automatically instead of the appropriate "b" device by this marvelous udev creation. (In truth, what is the percentage breakdown of /.ers who know the difference between a "g" and "b" in the context of devices?)

It is an utter mess. Experimenting on the wife's machine first (I'm no fool), she has a couple program upgrades she really loves -- and no working Zip drive, palm, camera and more. I may have to blow everything away and move to a distribution that still allows a late 2.4 option like Debian Sarge and includes some of these improvements she's been exposed to. But there is the question: is that just delaying the inevitable along a path that has taken a very wrong direction? How many more years will I want a 2.4 kernel? Must I junk several computers I'm otherwise perfectly happy with if I want a current 2.6/udev linux?

Genuine existential OS crisis. By all tests and experience I'm not unintelligent. I was running a unix clone at home in '91 when I was UUCPing Coherent updates via dial-up to a VGA desktop. OS2 from '95-2001, but I've run linux as my and my wife's sole desktop boot (with Win4lin legacy cheating) since August 2001. I may not have a CS degree with 4 years in the linux lab but I'm really not in the mood to hear RTFM or "newbie" BS. And if one is over 12, please refrain from "what do you expect for free?" Ditto on "You fool. Obviously your search missed pimpleboy.dyndns.info/hindi/ where all your

OT Grousing

[quarkscat]

As someone who is part of the Mozilla team, perhaps the article submitter could make working
up-to-date source code readily available for download.

The Mozilla Project has seen fit to abandon mozilla at version 1.7.8, but with source code only at 1.7.5. It would seem to me that someone on the project would be interested in seeing mozilla live on somewhere, if only as a fork.

The project management needs to come to grips with several other issues that have become mainstream since abandoning mozilla, such as:

(1) why firefox/thunderbird (et.al) cannot make use of a single rendering engine loaded into memory, when running concurrently (unlike mozilla),

and

(2) why mozilla has not yet adopted a binary patch management system, allowing for much smaller downloads, instead of a complete re-installation.

Just my $00.02 worth ...

Re:less stupid users

[Hal_Porter]

Is windows easy to use? Really? Is that why so many people get trojans, viruses, backdoors, malware, etc?

The people that designed Windows didn't really have the right ideas about security, it's true. The NT based OS's are better, but they still listen on too many damn IP ports for my taste. IE has too many insecure features to be securable.

On the other hand, if you turn on the built in Windows firewall and auto updates, get a free antivirus package and switch to Firefox (you can lock down IE, but it's not exactly easy), you're pretty much locked down.

The effort to do that is much less than switching to a new OS. And sooner or later, Microsoft will make Windows work like this out of the box, so there won't be any effort needed at all.

I think if you want Linux to succeed, you need to start making positive arguments, not harping on about security.

I've come all the way around...

[Hosiah]

I now agree, Linux is too hard. You people are unable to cope with it, so don't use it. That's right! Run, *run*, RUN away from the scary, scary, command line prompt! Leave Linux cheap and plentiful for me! Bwah-hah-ha!

We've been trying to dumb it down until this year, we have actually succeeded in producing a few distros which are ten times the bumbling moron that Windows is, and people still scream that it's too hard for them. Good! What a relief! Run away back to your little Freecell toys and AOL!METOOA/S/L???AOL!! and your Pogo.com and your MP3 hoards and your spam 'n' meatloaf w/ side of killer virus... and we'll quit trying to market Linux to the mainstream and just keep it Runic and Arcane for us geeks, which is just how we liked it anyway!

My thanks goes out to the Debian and Ubuntu team, for giving Linux a bad name just in time to stop it from being ruined by becoming too popular! That would have sucked, having to switch to BSD...

Re:less stupid users

[MisaDaBinksX4evah]

Your argument doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I was talking about. Did you intend to respond to me?

Re:less stupid users

[Mant]

Most users don't particularly enjoy computers for their own sake and certainly don't want to tinker with them in their spare time. They don't want to spend any more time learning how to use them than the minimum.

Learning information is a waste of time if it is stuff you are uninterested in and don't need. A good OS and applications should minimise what you need to learn, so that people who don't want to spend time on it don't need to.

It may enable them to make better choices in regards to computers, but if they don't really care it still isn't a worth while investment of time. Particularly as you can buy a PC that will run windows + IE pretty cheaply.

impressive

[antikristian]

you managed to write this in one minute.

It sure couldn't be something you had lying around the desktop, I mean; how often does this topic emerge anyways, like never right?

Darn submit button.

[cuteintern]

Grr. Stupid Submit button was supposed to be the Preview button. Feedback to this uid.

Simplicity is overrated - see MS Word

[RoLi]

Regarding your 4 points: 1) Migration: I agree fully on that 2) Stability: Also full agreement 3) Simplicity: Here I disagree. You take Notepad as an example, but Notepad is not used by a lot of people. Those people who really *use* an editor use another one. Let's take an application that is really used by a lot of people: Microsoft Word. Does MS Word has few settings? No. Did MS Word drop any features with releases? None that I am aware of. Does MS Word include a setting for every little detail, most of which are irrelevant for most users? YES IT DOES. The fact is different people use different features and while most features are used by a small minority, you can't drop them because every feature may be used by a small minority, but these small minorites add up to a lot of people. Actually I think Firefox is successful because of marketing (Mozilla was never marketed in any way like that) and as you said migration tools. But as I see my father complain about Firefox just saving stuff without asking where, I think Firefox is over-simplified. As long as you have good default settings, you can include as many settings as you want because novice users will go with the defaults anyway and advanced users will be happy to have those settings. And your last point: 4) Comfort: When you say "Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users." it's really just point 1) repeated.

Re:less stupid users

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed the trolls.

Have a look in tomstdenis's posting history, he's just a big troll with no grasp of reality.

naming

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing my mother said recently after using KDE on my computer was, "why do all the application names have to start with 'K'? it makes it harder to find what you want in the list."

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

Spoken like someone who "just doesn't get it".

The OSS movement was pioneered by RMS largely to prevent vendor lock-in. If 5 GPU providers all provide their own free drivers how are you locked in?

nvidia supports the GLX extensions [i.e. GL] properly so does it matter if their drivers are closed?

It'll be different when 5 GPU providers all have their own API and don't interoperate. But you won't see that. There is a vested interest in sharing an API. You can steal customers quickly.

e.g.

Little timmy goes to store and buys Vendor X's GPU and Doom4000. Timmy gets home and sees he only gets 5 FPS. He then goes to the store and buys Vendor Y's GPU. He now gets 35 FPS...

If vendor Y didn't follow the same API as vendor X the game wouldn't [likely] work for it. Timmy wouldn't buy Y's card in that case...

Just like processors actually. The AMD processors like Intel run their own "behind the scenes RISC" instruction set. There is no technical reason why the AMD64 is a x86 compatible processor other than they want to steal customers.

Tom

Linux should become a second Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can summarize this article in 1 sentence:
"Linux must become a second Windows".
And this is simply not an option. Users learned Windows (yes, really. You don't know how to use it from birth), so they have to learn Linux too.
The real problem is that people will begin with Windows in 99% of all cases. Children and teenagers love playing (commercial) computer games, so they will of course run Windows and become dependent on it.
Computer games (or more to the point: Direct X) are one of the most important areas for Microsoft. If the developers don't use Direct X that much anymore, so games will become easily portable, MS loses that great advantage.

The switch to Linux is tougher the more used to Windows you are. (is that sentence correct?)
People who never used Windows much have few problems adopting to some of the major, "simple" distributions. Only people who are used to Windows will start complaining about many things, and would love to have a second Windows. People are lazy.
Does Linux really have to sacrifice most of the Unix concepts just to support people in their learning laziness? Does it really have to fight for every user?
If someone doesn't want to switch because of some ridiculous arguments, then for god's sake let him continue to use Windows, but don't cripple Linux just so that user doesn't have to learn a bit.

And by the way, most of those "regular users"(tm) can't even use Windows well, for example my mother, grandmother, neighbors etc. They need help with everything. So Windows is not that easy either. Yes, it's easier than Linux because of more consistency and centralisation of configuration etc., but it's clearly NOT the nonplusultra in usability, and I don't see why Linux should become more like it then. Instead, users should change their mentality a bit. They should know the real advantages of Linux, know the differences to Windows, and know that they have to learn the basics. Just like you have to when learning to drive.

Linux for the desktop is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a visitor a couple of weeks ago and they wanted to check their email. This person had never heard of linux before (they thought a computer and windows were the same thing). Upon sitting down in front of the keyboard my visitor said "gee, this looks different" (gentoo & KDE). Anyhow, they were able to check their mail, surf the web and chat on MSN fine without any instruction whatsoever. The moral of the story is that even though you may be used to driving a 4cyl vehicle and may never have driven a v8 (or even know what one is), doesn't mean you need to "retrain" in order to be able to drive that vehicle.

Re:less stupid users

[jimmypw]

I aggree windows is relitively easy to use securily to the extent of you have a firewall. However it is rarely applications that you have installed on the machine (these can be controlled by user permissions quite precisley anyway) but the behind the scenes process' that run unrestrictedly with the local system account.

It truly is a great idea to have your internet browser linked to unrestricted system service like the RPC *saracsm*. It is this that is the problem with windows. Whereas linux has a superuser that spawns processes in to seperate user areas, windows simply runs the process as the super user 9 times in 10.

I guess you have a point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Linux folks and companies should unite in a "Spread Linux" marketing campaign... you know, ads with 10 thousand names and the like...

Dood...

[poptones]

Then don't buy their shit.

Seriously. I use ubuntu. Linux is my ONLY computing system and has been for years now.

Just don't buy their shit. it is not your "right" to use their hardware, nor is it your "right" to force them to sell or support something for a market they choose to ignore.

Support manufacturers who are reasonably friendly to linux. Vote with your feet.

Re:Dood...

[Randseed]

Then don't buy their shit.

No, we're in total agreement. What I was complaining about was integrated hardware that comes from OEMs. For example, these cheap-ass BroadCOM WiFi cards in HP laptops. Sure, I could go buy a decent WiFi card and hang it out of a slot, but I shouldn't have to.

As I stated, I really don't care too much if they produce an actual driver. But they need to release the specs so that I can make a driver myself for the community if I'm so inclined.

Lets not make a new MS Windows.

[miffo.swe]

I feel like the ones complaining the most is thoose who just want a free Windows. GNU/Linux aint MS Windows, period. If you want Windows then by all means stick with what MS is offering. I hate how Windows behaives and i really LIKE how linux works.

I dont feel that world domination is the key goal with GNU/Linux. The risk is that in the strife for userbase Linux looses its soul and just becomes another MS Windows. The key to a bigger userbase is the OEM's like Dell and alike, not Joe User who dont ever install and OS, Windows or whatever it may be.

One point is good in TFA, the one about stable API's. It is coming up to the point where the API's should be a bit more stable.

Does statically compiled binaries solve this issue? If so its just a case of packaging in a neat way.

Me on why Windows isn't ready for the desktop

[Qbertino]

Prime Reasons, no specific order:

--> crappiest default mailer ever concieved by living entities (Outlook) with potential to spoil email for ever by allowing spambots to grap 3rd party mailadresses and introducing extremely bad mailing habbits by default (thread breaking and fullquoting)

--> insecure by design, crappy intsable OS, still needs a lot of basic work before its ready for the desktop

--> letting everyday users to this windows is a security threat to the entire internet; not only is windows not ready for the desktop, it should be prohibited by law to use it with internet connection unless you've got a special licence in windows-patching

--> held and developed by a single company only, large potential for vendor lock-in, supplier has a proven track record of hating cooperation, disliking open source and pulling ilegal tricks
Ergo: Absolutely no go for business scenarios.

--> proven, extremly bad and instable server performance; not viable as a server system either.

--> windows remote operation and remote system integration is two decades behind ... it's really no server system

--> Kernel and GUI are to closely tied to make up for a usable desktop enviroment. Factually zero end user choice limit it's desktop capabilies further.

Bottom Line:
Windows is usable only for the most non-critical tasks. It has a reputation as a gaming operating system (where stability and security aren't that critical) and may be a choice in stand-alone scenarious were certain windows-only applications are needed for data migration. But for real production or mission critical enviroments Windows is not qualified.

Simplicity is overrated: see MS Word

[RoLi]

Regarding your 4 points:

1) Migration: I agree fully on that
2) Stability: Also full agreement
3) Simplicity: Here I disagree. You take Notepad as an example, but Notepad is not used by a lot of people. Those people who really *use* an editor use another one. Let's take an application that is really used by a lot of people:

Microsoft Word.

Does MS Word has few settings? No.
Did MS Word drop any features with releases? None that I am aware of.
Does MS Word include a setting for every little detail, most of which are irrelevant for most users? YES IT DOES.

The fact is different people use different features and while most features are used by a small minority, you can't drop them because every feature may be used by a small minority, but these small minorites add up to a lot of people.

Actually I think Firefox is successful because of marketing (Mozilla was never marketed in any way like that) and as you said migration tools. But as I see my father complain about Firefox just saving stuff without asking where, I think Firefox is over-simplified.

As long as you have good default settings, you can include as many settings as you want because novice users will go with the defaults anyway and advanced users will be happy to have those settings.

And your last point:

4) Comfort: When you say "Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users." it's really just point 1) repeated.

Linux becoming popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact is that Linux is very rapidly taking over the desktop market. My entire company has switched to Linux lately and almost all of my friends are using Linux now. When it comes to computers I am still a novice but it took me less than a couple days to become familiar with Linux and get used to it. Both, my grandmother and my eight year old niece got used to Linux within days and love it. Anyone who wants to have an opinion about Linux should try it out first and he'll be amazed how much better it is compared to Windows and what a great desktop it makes.

Please dont switch to linux!

[evanfrey]

Personally, I don't want people that are not tech savvy to switch (at this time) for a few reasons.

1. It will mean more time explaining to people how to do this or that in Linux such as "How do I play a CD, do I use the Helix player, CD player or Music player?" Stick with Windows so I can tell you "I have no idea, I don't use Windows I use Linux"
2. Droves of so-called "experts" popping up to "fix" home users computers. Its a pandemic problem with Windows. X person uses Windows at home, he installs a printer, scanner and a new hard drive all by there self and all of a sudden, they have flyers everywhere to "fix" computers. (You've tried all the rest, now try the best!!!). Then at work, they are explaining to the boss why X thing will "certainly" work in Linux while I have to argue why this thing will NOT work, why the "expert" is NOT an expert just an idiot who thinks they are.
3. Flooding the market with useless Linux "experts" (redundant, maybe but for a reason). All of a sudden more and more "schools" start popping up offering to help you get your LCNE and your LHDJAKS certifications, which are absolutely useless other then to impress some idiot executive to get a job. If the MCSE craze showed us anything, its that too many bad cooks with useless certifications spoil it for everyone. They drive prices and demand way down.
4. Spy-ware companies tend to target the largest OS group (which currently is Windows) and I would HATE for them to start mass targeting Linux.

SOOOO.... being a Linux user PLEASE, home users, STAY AWAY. Linux is, at this point, not a very friendly place for people not willing to RTFM. There is a little thinking (and reading) at times to be able to do things and get things to work right. If your someone who would like to check out Linux, try a livecd (google Linux livecd) and be prepared to do a little reading and work to get your system to do what you want at times.

On a final note, its not that I don't want to have regular users on Linux at all...I've switched my wife to it (it took a year), its just that, in agreement with the article, its not totally a point and click environment and I like it that way. If it evolves into a more "Windows like" environment where the OS anticipates your every move (sometimes incorrectly) then great. Come on over. I wont be there. I use Linux not only because I don't mind the extra work involved, but because I like it.

Business Reasons only

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think GNU/Linux is ready for the corporate desktop. It can be also with home business desktop which is slightly different. Laptops that managers/salesmen take etc.

Look at Apple, does that not run a Unix variation?
Of course does not have to deal with cheap, closed and sometimes terrible hardware. When it doesn't work in windows its the manufacturers fault. When it doesn't work on Linux its Linux's fault.

Maybe a company (like IBM or Dell) being big enough to produce a Linux version of the Mac. A corporate take on KDE and hardware and drivers. And a corporate equivalent of rpm/apt. Some companies do this already.

Anyway I think it is just business reasons that is preventing the desktop from being a reality.

Synaptic

[1336]

"Two months ago, I installed Kubuntu onto my laptop. [...] First issue: Installing software. This blew ass."

I've been using ubuntu for about half a year now and I have to say that once you learn how to use Synaptic (it doesn't take that long), installing software is really easy; as a GUI for the apt-get and repository stuff you struggled with, its pretty nice. In fact, I've come to actually prefer the Synaptic method to generic Windows installers... O:)

It's the work, stupid.

[Colin Smith]

Look.

Installing firefox is simple. The only thing you're changing is your browser. Installing and using Linux requires a significantly larger investment in time and effort (Call it work, as in Work = Force * displacement * cos(Ø)) because everything is changing; document formats, applications, menus.

In order to justify the work invested in switching to Linux there must be a benefit larger than that investment. The fact that there is a trend towards linux at all actually proves that the benefit to the end user is real, the fact that it's relatively slow says that the work required to do it is significant.

Things like KDE, Open Office reduce the distance required to travel but the rate of people converting to linux is always going to be relatively low until a Linux CD can be popped into a Windows machine and "upgraded" automatically exactly as if going from Fedora Core 3 -> Fedora Core 4. Preinstallation would also help.

Flawed reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Some good points about conversion and migrating data. But as for comfort....if Mom and Dad are soooooo comfortable using Windows, why do they call me whenever they have problems double-clicking an application? They seem to be incapable of hitting "Reply" to an email since anything I get from them is a new message with the same Subject: "Hello" which means I have to go back to my Sent folder to see what they are alluding to in this new message. Sorry, but those "regular" folks are going to have issues with ANY desktop.

Linspire

[Anonymous Coward]

Linspire is "Grandma Ready" I'd give any Linux newbie Linspire 5.0 and would feel certain that they couldn't crash the thing and would be able to install application with no problems. Watch video and even move trailers without a hitch.

Reality, that's all I ask

[dakkon1024]

Windows, Apple, and Linux are all in competition with in the desktop market. This is exactly the same way Ferrari, Porches, and Honda are all in the passenger vehicle market. We can discuss which one is better at this and that, but to try and tell me one doesn't qualify for a market it is already being used in is ridiculous. "Linux Not Ready for the Desktop" says exactly this and therefore the title can be dismissed. So what we are really doing here, is comparing the Enzo to the Civic and trying to make a story out of it. Thank you captain, I've seen this show before and no matter how big that civics turbo is it's not gonna win, but it is a few hundred thousand cheaper. I'm also pretty sure it will get me to the mall just as fast. Windows will never be more Linux then Apple. Nor will Apple be less Windows then OS/2. They will just continue to have different pros and cons. I'm sure the number of Ferrari drivers somewhat compares to the number of Linux users. People are also ready for Linux, so lets not get started on that either. It's just doesn't appeal to as many people as windows. That's all, it's really very simple.

Linux's strength is the people who use it

[00_NOP]

I think Linux will win through on the desktop, though it is taking a lot longer than I expected when I made the switch in 2001.

The reason is the people, not the software. Basically, the people who know about how stuff works are or have already switched. They will drive the move-over in the future.

A personal example will illustrate. I have a website that recently featured, very briefly, on a networked TV show.

The site was hit pretty hard within about 60 seconds of being mentioned, though the full url was not given on the show. A quick browse through the server logs showed it was Linux (and BSD) users who got there first. They then posted the links for other people to use.

If the people who know how stuff works use Linux then Linux is their OS of choice and, like me, they'll slowly get it on to the servers and agitate for it on the desktop.

It's true there were a few Windows users in the first round, but they were all using Firefox and I do think FF will be a route into Linux use because it shows open source delivers the goods.

Black screen of death

[DogDude]

I've seen it. Last time I tried to use Ubuntu, I got a black screen with some white text that ended with one line that just said something along the lines of:

>

Worst error message ever. Had to re-install W2K

"user base"

[mnemonic_]

That's the problem with you linux guys, you talk about "user bases." If anything's too hard to use or install, you just lay the blame on the user for trying to breach his assigned "user base."

Take a look at Mac OS X. A power user can calibrate his color, run an Apache webserver and encrypt his files completely from a friendly GUI. For security he can enable a firewall and manage access ports by clicking check boxes. There's no "user base" bullshit saying "those things are too advanced, you must use a command line."

The first step in improving linux is tearing down the notion of exclusive user bases. Software can be easy to use and powerful, not just one or the other.

Re:"user base"

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and oranges.

OSX power user can choose from profiles shipped with OSX or adjust one by changing color temperature. He cannot make completely custom profile or use vendor-provided one (I still didn't figure out how to use vendors' .icc file for my monitor).

OSX power user can run apache in its default configuration, if he wants to use mod_php or mod_fcgi (RoR is all the rage now, isn't it?), its back to command line, just like in linux.

OSX power user can "manage" firewall by clicking - this port is open and this port is not open. He cannot use anything more complicated - for example open ports for computers in lan and close for all others. Or make firewall play nicely with passive ftp transfers (as in server role).

Because honestly, if you understand what are you doing when configuring these things, command line is least of your problems.

-- OSX user since 10.0

Re:"user base"

[coolGuyZak]

That's the problem with you linux guys, you talk about "user bases." If anything's too hard to use or install, you just lay the blame on the user for trying to breach his assigned "user base."

You are half-correct with this statement. People who are not wise in the ways of arguing Linux will commonly fall back on the userbase argument. However, that does not make the argument fundamentally invalid.

Something that non-linux users fail to comprehend is the choice that Linux gives you. Comparing your standard OSX or Windows installation against Linux is (strictly in the area of their userbase) inheirently fallacious. Windows and OSX cater to the greatest common denominator. They limit what is possible.

Meanwhile, Linux is about choice. Linux is about users finding their own level of comfort. Typically, this level of comfort is on the command-line side. That situation is changing. However, in order for such changes to occur, expert users need to be able to guide others into linux. We need ways of considering who the users are, and what their needs are. As most of us are pragmatic, we consider userbases.

For instance, I have been using Linux for the past 4 years. Most of my experience is with Debian and Gentoo, both highly-CLI oriented distros. I know very little about red hat, SuSE, etc. So, my first reaction to a problem is to fire up a console. I literally cannot use their config utilities, because I fall outside of the userbase they cater to.

So, userbases are used (by those-in-the-know) to categorize users, and then associate them with the distro that they will find comfortable with. I wouldn't drop grandma into Gentoo. She seems more like a Mandriva user. My personal experience with Mandriva, though, is that it removes too much of the experience I want. As you can see, it's a wholly different philosophy, as compared to other systems.

The first step in improving linux is tearing down the notion of exclusive user bases. Software can be easy to use and powerful, not just one or the other.

Another misconception is that userbases are exclusive. They arn't, though. One can move between them. If you want to learn about your system, make upgrading easier, not care anymore, whatever. There's always choice. My personal path was Mandrake->Debian->Red Hat->Gentoo. However, many people are comfortable with Mandrake. Why force them to switch? For those that don't like what mandriva offers, why force them to stay?

Re:"user base"

[HogGeek]

OSX cater to the greatest common denominator

You have obviously not used OS X, if you believe that is caters to the GCD.

I've been in the field for 20+ years, used or am using VMS, MVS, Gaurdian (Tandem), DOS, WIndows, Novell and more "flavors" of UNIX than I care to rememeber (Currently manage Linux (Gentoo, CentOS, RHEL, Debian), AIX, Solaris, OpenBSD, and OSX.

OS X, in my opinion, is the best all-around operating system I have ever used, and while it may not be "perfect", if such a thing exists, it has yet to let me down.

Games, Applications (MS Office no less), and CLI are all readily available.

(I'll note, that I'm not a gamer, so they may be somewhat lacking, but the games I have played were better than what I found available on Linux).

If you haven't used it, I recommend you give it a "run"...

Re:"user base"

[coolGuyZak]

OSX caters to the greatest common denominator, in that it has a static & eye-candy-licious interface, a (basically) static amount of programs, etc. E.g. It caters to the GCD by making choices for it's users.

And, that's not busting on Mac. (I mean, I didn't even mention the *** ****** *****). It's just stating a fact. Apple and MS put out products that are one-size-fits-all, while Linux (generally) takes the make-your-own-shoe approach.

This is a NO BRAINER FOLKS

[Timtimes]

Firefox will run on Windoz and Linux will not. How difficult is that to understand? Enjoy.

All that "needs to be done"

[SCHecklerX]

Is have it default installed on systems, and let those buying know that the systems are designed for basic internet use (web, mail, office apps), so that they aren't expecting to play windows games on it.

People use windows because that is what is installed on their systems. Easier to use? No. Just already there.

How clueless...

[Danuvius]

I think you got your example wrong. Vendors like intel cooperate just the same with windows as they do with Linux, they release compiled drivers. Why someone who runs linux feels they should get more than that confounds me.

Really, its as long as open source zealots are not willing to coexist with closed source(even though most closed source is willing to go the other way) many Linux distributions will have a steeper learning curve.

Having different aims and higher standards is not "unwillingness to co-exist". You are either clueless beyond hope, or just not that bright.

And Open Source and Free software does not *need* vendor cooperation. It would be nice to have. It would be helpful. However we're getting by alright without it know and will continue to do so.

If companies choose not to cater to highly technically proficient users, those users will, over time, make said companies irrelevant. The process, of course, is already well underway.

So please stop posting FUDish blather designed to offend. If you have nothing worthwhile to say, why waste bandwidth at all?

Re:How clueless...

[gordo3000]

wow, a linux fanatic. Yes your aims are different but your standards are not higher at all. This standards are also just different. My standard is an up to date computer that runs seemlessly. The day you get linux to run without any hardware support, I commend you(and suggest a patent). Until the day you figure out how to build that computer(and not have it be 10 years out of date), the rest of us will happily admit vendor support is a prerequisite. If a linux machine wants a top of the line graphics card, guess what it needs? if it wants to run any hardware at all, it needs some support from the vendors.

Every linux junkie(some of my very close friends) I know has always told me the biggest problem they have with getting linux up and running on a random machine is driver support. When my buddy spent a week of all his free time trying to get his wireless card working(in the end he couldn't get it to work in certain flavors of linux), he cursed not having vendor support. So it seems not everyone can conjure up drivers by just looking at their wireless card and not everyone can afford to find the wireless card that works for all flavors of linux. Now that sucks and the vendor is partially at fault here, but when the vendor takes the time to write a working driver, it would be nice for the flavors of Linux to include it.

Many companies have long since chosen not to cater to power users and have been doing just fine. I'm not sure what this process is you are referring to. All those companies seem to be only getting stronger(as are the comapnies that do cater to power users). Just because Joe Nerd can use the command line in his sleep doesn't mean Joe Sixpack has any desire at all for a machine where he has to do that.

Nothing I said was designed to offend but obviously you are trying to do just that. All I said was as long as certain flavors of linux will not even include closed source drivers to make their product more usable(out of the box), those brands will have a steeper learning curve. Redhat was a breeze for me to get up and running. Mandrake almost worked. It was downhill from there.

Just read what I wrote again and turn off your "everyone who isn't an open source zealot is obviously in bed with bill gates" alarm for just 2 seconds. Maybe you'll get my point.

why is it harder than windows for eg. granny, etc.

[WiZard82]

I don`t Understand why ppl think this: If someone isn`t that tech sawy (eg granny, mom, etc) Windows is "better" "easier" for them. ????? What a nonsense. If you doesn`t know anything eg. you are new to computers it ISN`T matter. And Granny will just figure out about the same speed how for example evolution (mail client+) or OE. Obviusly if someone is already familiar with let say a windows app such as OE he/she will most likely will continue using it until for some reason he/she feels he/she need something different for some reason.

Economics: Is Windows XP worth 150$

[walterbyrd]

> Is Windows XP worth 150$ when you can get something that performs 95% of the tasks you would need performed for free?

First of all XP raises the price of new computer about $100, and that's once ever five years. Grand total of $20 year.

For a business, if that makes users 1% more efficient, or decress admin costs by 1%, then it's well worth every penny.

If you have just one "must have" windows program, then linux isn't worth it. A lot college students and home users think that if they can surf the web and have basic office apps, that's all anybody will ever need. Problem is: there is whole big wide world of specialized business software.

For that matter, even one "must have" windows game makes linux not worth it.

Also, that 5% figure can be argueed.

The ideal linux distro

[mnemonic_]

Let's face it; grandmas use linux only if their geek grandsons force it upon them. The vast majority of potential linux users are Windows XP power users. They want to update their system by clicking through graphical dialogs and don't need 4 different text editors. They want to install the OS using a GUI, but also want an OS that lets them use any cool open source software without troublesome install. And of course, they want something stable and fast.

How about a distro like this:

• Lycoris's installer and simplified partition manager
• Gentoo's portage, with Porthole graphical frontend
• 2.6 Kernel only
• GNOME only, with the stupid games removed
• Mac OS X's launchd (yes, it's GPL)
• Slackware's CD1 contents
• Knoppix's hardware detection and configuration
• i686 packages on one install DVD

The user partitions in the installer by adjusting a graphic with "Windows" and "Linux" bars, with the swap partition automatically sized based on the amount of RAM. ReiserFS is automatically chosen. He clicks "Install," and with the automatic hardware detection the installer configures a 2.6 kernel and compiles. It also sets reasonable CFLAGS for portage having detected the CPU make/model. GNOME, X.org, etc. are installed through i686 packages from the DVD. While all of this goes on, the user sees a single progress bar on the screen, without silly bullet points of progress. An hour or so later, everything just works.

After he starts using it, he wants to try new software. A built-in Firefox extension shows a small "install" bottom in the bottom right corner whenever the user is browsing a site for an open source software. Let's say he's looking at www.python.org, or bittorrent.sf.net. Clicking the Install button brings up Porthole and prompts him to install Python. He clicks "Install" to confirm, and Porthole fetches the port and compiles. launchd agents or daemons are automatically created as needed for software requiring startup runtime.

Every few weeks or so, portage checks for updated ports. It then prompts the user to install the updated ports, explaining possible conflicts and estimating install duration.

In the meantime, this linux distro boots up faster than 95% of comparable distros courtesy of Apple's launchd. It's got the efficiency of uniquely-compiled software using portage. Sound, video acceleration and networking all "just work" having Knoppix's autodetection and configuration. GNOME's (in the future, complete) system control center lets him adjust anything he needs. And the user finally has a linux system that's powerful and user friendly.

Real it in, the fish are dead...

[ShoobieRat]

1. Linux will continue to move slowly, because Linux is still far too foreign to the average computer user.

2. When I'm out poking through BestBuy (or whatever) and I see a new game, the last thing I want to have to deal with is "will this work on my Linux machine?"

3. Most people using Windows have been doing so since Windows came out (or whatever version was out when they came of keyboard-age). Asking people to drop all those years of familiarity and pick up something totally new, is rather like telling someone they can't speak English anymore (assuming they speak English natively, of course).

4. Hanging out with Linux users is like driving a nail into your forehead...over and over and over again. It's just "Windows sucks, blah blah blah" all freaking day long.

5. If the 'Linux daily experience' was half as good as Linux users touted it to be, Linux would not need to continually need to use slander to prove its point.

6. You don't teach old dogs new tricks. It is a LOT harder to convert habitual Windows users, than it is to convert those who have not spent years using Windows. Why doesn't Linux focus more on getting Linux in classrooms and in front of youngsters? It seems wiser to me to convert them while they're young.

7. 90-percent of the people I've known (from forums or in person) who have switched to Linux, did so because they had a MINOR Windows problem that they believed to be a major Windows problem because it was blown out of proportion by the Linux community.

8. If you told my mother (and most of the rest of the world) that to solve their problem they needed to "patch their kernel and possibly check their driver dependencies" they'd go "huh?" and walk away.

9. "Upgrade Windows, Mom."
"How do I do that?"
"It does it automatically."
"Okay."

10. Mention that you're having a problem in Windows, and you'll get a ton of Linux users spouting anti-Windows propaganda...and little else. (Mention a Linux problem, and the penguin KGB supresses it.)

11. Penguins belong behind windows.

Re:Real it in, the fish are dead...

[ShoobieRat]

See, Penguin KGB. I lay down some facts, mostly unfavorable to Linux, and get down-modded. LOL. The Linux Nazi Regime.

BTW, AS IF THIS -WHOLE TOPIC- WASN'T FLAME BAIT TO BEGIN WITH PAL!

Linux not ready for desktop again ad naudium

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. How many times can we hear this? About once every 2-3 months we get an article about how linux isn't ready for the desktop. We get hard ot install, hardware not supported, blah blah blah almost none of which is true anymore.

My girlfriend has, if I had to guess, 3 brain cells that have any knowledge of computers. She uses ubuntu. You know how hard it was to install? I stuck in the disk. You know how hard it was to get it to run all her hardware? Again . . . I stuck in the disk.

It's got a fully functional desktop that comes with software that would cost you in excess of a grad using windows for comprable programs (and in many cases inferior programs depending on your POV). Done and done. easy to install, use, and update.

The naysayers get their panties in a nbunch for one reason: linux isn't windows. They can't "click the start button" or "open the My Documents" folder (notunless they create one, which is takes a right click). They can't open a doc file in word, they have to use openoffice. Which has a strange layout and a mysterious interface. they forget the time they spent learning windows in thje first place and assume that they were somehow hardwired with this knowledge from birth.

Bottom line, if you like windows and you don't mind spending a few thousand dollars for software to make your system behave like linux does out of the box then fine, run with it. I care not. But to say that it's not ready for the desktop just because you're not ready to use it is dumb. it's an outmoted idea whose time has come.

Yeah, but who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't care if Windows users stay Windows lusers. Linux isn't going away and I will continue to use it to my hearts content. It's way better than Windows and MS users of course will stand in line to bitch about how hard it is to use linux and display a high level of group think in this regard so as to feel better about themselves. And Linux users will use a different sort of group think to justify some the hurdles they jump to stay linux users. Who cares? Use what you want and STFU!

Linux is ready for the masses

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the writer never heard about Linspire. Linspire is much easier to install and use than any MS OS. In his tirade, he totally ignores the problems people have with worms, viruses, crashes... Windows is sick, so it is time to get a healthy OS

Re:YHBT [n/t]

[Anonymous Coward]

[w/e]

Windows is not ready either

[bhalo05]

There are a thousand reasons why Windows is not ready for the desktop of mom, dad and grandma Bootsie. The fact it is already used there, though it is not really ready. Geeks, friends and online forums make it possible for them.

One thing these articles miss.

[Suppafly]

One thing these "linux is not ready for the desktop" type articles miss is that computers in general aren't really ready for the "regular user" AKA mom, dad and grandma Bootsie."

If you can't get your mom and dad to use windows or a mac, how are you going to get them to use linux?

Yeah, it's an analogy. So sue me.

[Petersko]

The problem is not linux, it is manufacturer support.

Sure you can buy ice cream. Just remember that this ice cream doesn't work with a lot of cups, cones, bowls or spoons. And even if it claims to work, it may only allow you to take bites in 1/2 teaspoon sizes or less. But if you wait long enough, it's sure to improve.

But it's totally worth it because you're no longer giving your hard-earned money to those bastards at Baskin-Robbins.

why linux isn't ready for the desktop

[t35t0r]

..because the developers (who are working in their spare time) don't care about the desktop. Linux is created for power users and it fits the bill (usually). Everything else is unimportant.

Now there are some distributions like Ubuntu which are trying to make it easy to use and interoperate with linux on the desktop. I don't exactly understand their business model but they have money to pay developers to do boring tasks like make the UI easy to use and to make it easy to interoperate with osx and windows.

Re:why linux isn't ready for the desktop

[ShoobieRat]

If it's not easy to use, I don't want to use it. Why should I put up with a lowsy interface and tedious processes just because some lazy two-bit programmer didn't think it was needed to make his components easy to use?

Cars now have power steering. The car will drive fine without power steering, but power steering makes my life easier, and I want it. If some dealership tried to tell me their cars don't have power steering because it's not important, I'd say "see ya later, no sale."

Re:why linux isn't ready for the desktop

[t35t0r]

you miss the point. Most developers working on *custom applications* in linux do it for their own needs. Not for end users. After all this entire thread is about the various user interfaces available for X which run on top of linux. In any case it's not just linux which is affected but all other *nixes and BSD's which are capable of running X.

Ubuntu not as easy as you say

[miletus]

I recently switched from Mandrake 10.1 to Kubuntu. It's not as simple as you say. First, Ubuntu failed to get the graphics or network running on my laptop (Mandrake could do the grahics but not the networking). I knows it's a supported networking chip because earlier versions of Mandrake worked.

On my desktop, synaptic/apt-get gave me mysterious errors trying to install Gimp. It turns out the default us.* Ubuntu servers in the /etc/apt config file are flaky; so I had to waste time trying to see if it was because of a missing library, get on a mailing list, etc.

Sound? Sort of works, until I try and play an MP3, which causes the players to crash. Tried to upgrade to the latest kernel, but that means no graphics, because the Nvidia driver only seems to work on the older kernel. Downloaded the kernel source, but the driver still won't install. When I have half a day to spare, maybe I'll figure it out.

It's getting to the point that even otherwise slick distributions like Ubunto or Mandrake can become huge timewasters if stuff doesn't work out of the box. I'll probably go the OS X route pretty soon.

Drivers are the biggest problem!

[markdj]

Go to WalMart and buy some hardware for your PC. Unless it uses a standard already built into the OS, more often than not it doesn't have a driver for Linux bundled with it. If the hardware is newer than the Linux distro you have, the driver won't be in the OS either. That means downloading a driver from some obscure website with some God-awful install mechanism. Ordinary users want drivers bundled with the hardware or the OS that install with a minimum of effort.

This problem is especially prevalent with printers whose product lifetime is 9 months or less. Printer manufacturers don't have to follow any standards because the driver will handle it. It is rare to see Linux drivers bundled with the printer even though OS X drivers often are!

Many hardware manufacturers, especially small ones, have made a business decision that they can't afford to support driver development for multiple OS's, especially for those whose market share is small. OS X has the advantage that Apple will help many companies with driver development since Apple controls the hardware.

So you install a Linux distro and find after a year or two that all the available drivers that work with your kernel version are for hardware that is obsolete and possibly only available on ebay. Your graphics card fails and you cannot even find another card to replace it.

Unlike Linux the problem is pretty simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Hardware support is a problem, we all know this. This is not a problem that is inherent with Linux itself but a problem with hardware manufacturers not supplying drivers for Linux. However, even this is understandable as Linux can be vastly different distro to distro and even kernel to kernel? I mean, if you're a hardware manufacturer and you_want_to provide Linux drivers, you have to decide which distros/kernels you will write them for? There are so many and so many variations you'd probably just give up and say, "Why did I even think about producing drivers for Linux?".
Ok, so you decided you're not going to produce the Linux drivers after all. The best way to get your hardware supported on Linux would be to release the source for your other drivers. Personally, I don't see the problem there. However, perhaps hardware manufacturers have some kind of incentive _not_ to release the source code of their drivers. I'm not positive what these might be but there are a few possible guesses.A) they don't want people to see how bad their code is? B) other os's *ahem* provide incentive for you to not release the source. this can include money itself, provide product placement (on their search engine, in press releases, through their contacts in the community - writers, reviewers, etc.) - or C) by intimidation.

2. Users. FUD.
There is a certain computer here shared by myself and two others. NONE of us are experienced Linux users. On this computer is OpenOffice.org, as well as Mozilla. One user has plenty of MS Office experience but their is no MS Office on the computer. It took them about 3 days to get used to OpenOffice and are now very productive with it, yet the user still says they'd rather have MS Office. Why? I have no idea. Fear of change I guess. Fear of change goes for the third user as well. I was sitting nearby when they were frustrated by the pop-ups on a certain site (using IE). I told them, use Mozilla then! They used it for that session and that session only. Next time I witnessed one of their sessions, they were back using IE. I have no idea why. It's a browser and even though Mozilla's is (to me) better, it's not like the interface is vastly different.

I am a Linux novice. I have used a few Live CD's (SLAX & Knoppix). Done a couple of HD-installs of them. I decided to make the leap on a secondary computer around here. I installed Ubuntu on an old laptop that is used by two out of the three users. There were two problems with the install. The screen res. was stuck at 640x480 and the Winmodem didn't work. Wow, big deal. It was easy enough to fix. I edited the xorg.conf file and did something wrong which prevented the xserver from starting the next time I booted. A dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg was all it took to fix. I didn't even have to search the web for this command, it was in a FAQ I had read before I installed it. As for the winmodem thing, well, let's just say I'm glad I had an old full-hardware external modem sitting in a drawer upstairs because I'm not quite comfortable with recompiling yet. heh.

All that aside, the other user who utilizes the laptop does fine with it. This is the same one who on the Windows box will not use Mozilla instead of IE. Granted, they only use the Ubuntu computer when they absolutely have to (and to play Mahjongg, of course ;) but they get by. They can listen to their mp3's, surf, send email. That's basically all this person does on the computer anyway. So, what seems to be the overriding factor? A plethora of FUD. Plain and simple.

For me it's slightly different. When I get a new computer (No $, what can I say) I am going to switch everything I have over to Ubuntu aside from the new computer and that's only for games. Even with games, I could probably use WINE and/or Cedega for gaming on Linux but I'd keep Windows around just to keep sharp, a bunch of people want me to be their personal techs even though I only have an A+ (Computer Kindergarten diploma?) w/limited experience.

As to what Linux can do to better

I suppose Firefox made itself popular :rolleyes:

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, Firefox isn't winning novice users at that rate on technical superiority, either. It's winning them because Microsoft has abandoned them in the cesspool that is Internet Explorer 6. If Microsoft stopped patching Windows and let it sit for a year or two, I'm sure you'd start to see a desktop migration of the same magnitude.

Linux and Firefox share technical superiority over their so-called adversaries, and that wins adoption among geeks and corporate users, which takes longer to filter down into the population but eventually does. Other "non-literate" users will wait until it's painfully uncomfortable not to change (ie, a spyware ridden system that never works).

Linux vs Windows

[thriemus]

It's amazing the amount of "computer literate" people that cannot perform the most basic of functions in scripts. Also categorically I can tell you that I have 100 times the power in bash scripts than windows batch files and thats perhaps the reason that windows users cant get to grips with the command line. Almost anything can be configured from Linux command line but the same cannot be said for windows/dos. That level of functionality was never there for windows users they hit a minefield when faced with all the command options inherent to linux users. Try explaining what sed, awk or grep does to a windows user and it's very hard. Also they think in simple terms of 1 command per line and cannot get their heads round && or piping and redirection. Sometimes a wimp environment is not necessarily the most productive for a range of tasks however, nearly all of these functions can be performed in X.

Another thing that I have noticed with windows to linux users is that when you explain that if you want to know about a command then use the man command and that's where the problem arises IMHO. The majority of windows users don't want to have to read up on another operating system because they already know one. In my business I have deployed linux desktops to use RDP to connect to Win2K terminal services and have had amazing results and increased productivity due to lack of spyware/virus problems on the end users machine. Also with automatic YOU updates in SUSE I am not worried about the linux boxes posing too much of a security risk. This saves money on end user antivirus/spyware/firewall programs and because they only have access to a terminal server I don't have to worry about users saving important data on local hard drives that don't get backed up. So with a linux server running the usual snort, squid etc etc you only have a few points of entry to secure and protect from the ocean of headaches that arise from web browsing these days. Of course this is for a business model and home users are a completely different kettle of fish.

Where linux is lacking these days for a home user operating system is media and games. Ask a windows user these days what he is doing with his home pc and 95% of them will tell you the following:

1) Browsing the internet (Linux has Firefox so no problem here)
2) Downloading music (Linux has music players so no problem here)
3) Downloading Movies (This is a problem IMO)
4) 3D Games (This is linux's biggest shortfall for the home user desktop market)

Games cannot be played either can downloaded movies and thats ruling linux out of the end user market.

The problems of old such as installation, drivers (especially sound!!) have all been addressed. The problems above need looking at IMHO.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Linux vs Windows

[ShoobieRat]

Alright, I'll concede with you for the most part *sees his 2 cents*.

The only thing I want to say in comment is that Windows' original objected was to get people -away- from the command line. To get them away from the hammer line and allow the users to graphically manipulate their system through icons and GUIs, and it was one of their greatest successes. Once users stopped having to deal with the command line and could instead deal with pictures and forms, things became so much more easier for the average joe to use a computer.

My mother, she just turns the computer on, hits the Outlook email icon, hits 'NEW', types email, clicks 'SEND' and it's over. She's never even SEEN the command line. The only paths she ever has to think about are website addresses. It's perfect.

OS X = Linux killer?

[phlurg]

So, after Windows automatic update trashed my video drivers for like the 4th time (requiring driver re-installs each time and some other annoying steps in the process), I got fed up and made the switch...

...to Apple. I love my new iMac. It took 5 minutes to setup and everything has worked without issue. The interface is beautiful. But one of the first things I did was open bash and mess around at the command line. From my vantage point, OS X offers the best of both worlds: a.) a gorgeous front end and b.) a Unix based system and the ability to do most of the geeky Unix stuff I might want... ie, a gorgeous back end. ;)

So I guess my question is, for those like myself moderately into unix style systems (comfortable with the command line, X11, emacs/vi, etc... but not neccessarily kernel hackers), what is the appeal of Linux be as a home system?

Re:OS X = Linux killer?

[ameerirshad]

I haven't tried OS X but from my view point as a Ubuntu user, I must say, some Linux distro's have improved majorly but still updating software can be a menace! If I don't work my way around the auto-install tool (which is very hard to do for a non-techie) I'm using outdated openoffice, an outdated firefox and so on.... There lies a challenge for Linux..

Re:less stupid users

[Ahnteis]

Comments like this are why linux will never become a dominant force in the desktop market.

(Never being as long as this continues to be the prevailing attitude among linux developers.)

Ah then, my apologies...

[SuperKendall]

Autopackage sounds pretty good then, I apologize for not taking the time to see what it really did before I spoke up!

I appreciate your gracious response given my overly whiny post. I just care very deeply about good app packaging. :-)

Terminal lockouts.

[Grendel Drago]

I do phone tech support for a major hospital. They recently decided to go all HIPAA-compliant, and lock the workstations after fifteen minutes of inactivity. There then followed two weeks---weeks!---of vitriol from the users hurled at me and at my coworkers, from furious users.

The nurses aren't very well trained; we're supposed to use only chart numbers or account numbers, not names or anything personally identifying outside the hospital system. But the callers will frequently start off with, "I can't get Josh Greenberg's chart to cross over into the Mental Health system!". Sheesh. Not to mention "I can't log into Windows; my password is monkeybutter01".

These are the people who make spam profitable, I'm certain of it.

--grendel drago

Being the "awesome usability experts" they are...

[coolGuyZak]

This is silly. It's been raised on the Ubuntu lists time and time again. Nonetheless, they refuse to enable it, because Canonical can't guarantee security updates for it

Why not enable Universe by default, and when a user tries to download a package, alert them that it is not fully supported. Ooo! Ooo! or make an easy way to enable the Universe repo, and when then user enables that tell them that universe is not fully supported.

Re:less stupid users

[Luke-Jr]

The "OSS movement" is not the goal, nor pioneeded by RMS. RMS is responsible for the Free Software Movement, which is all about making sure people aren't denied their rights to share and modify information.

Your 5 GPU provider thing is nonsense, since (AFAIAA) not a single GPU provider has free drivers-- the best we have are 3rd party free drivers for certain Radeons.

nVidia does not support GLX properly, they "support" it with immoral software and a stupid library hack.

None of the video card interfaces are standardised more than VESA, so really all this stuff about them being just like CPUs is nonsense. If they were standardised, there would be no need for specialised drivers. You don't need special drivers to run 32-bit code on a x86_64 system...

Packages better?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I would like to point out about packages... yes, they can be beautifully easy to install. You choose the package, click update, and all the dependencies are resolved and off you go.

IF the package is on your distribution's list.
When you want to install a program that isn't packaged for your distro, it can be a nightmare. Sometimes even when a suitable package exists, it can be difficult to find, if say your apt source list doesn't include the right repository.

Another problem with packages though, is that it is extremely hard to use if you don't have broadband. At school I have broadband, and apt-get is wonderful. When I come home for the summer, its back to dial-up. With windows applications, I can have a friend (who has broadband) download the program for me, or set up an all night download on my computer. With packages... I spend hours downloading the application, only to find that I need x number more packages to work properly. At times having a single setup file with everything included can be nice.

Re:Packages better?

[RAMMS EIN]

``IF the package is on your distribution's list.''

Of course. But then, if you use Debian, it probably is. Even if it isn't, somebody may have made a package available outside of the distribution (MPlayer, for example). Failing that, if it's a larger application (the sort of thing you'd install on Windows; browsers, instant-messaging programs, office suites...), they probably distribute some kind of binary download that you can install on any distro. Or you can fetch the source and create a package yourself. Of course, that isn't very much what you would expect a desktop user to do. But with projects like GNU source installer, it may be a realistic option, or become one very soon.

``With windows applications, I can have a friend (who has broadband) download the program for me, or set up an all night download on my computer. With packages... I spend hours downloading the application, only to find that I need x number more packages to work properly.''

If you run apt-get -s install foo, it will tell you all the packages that are going to be downloaded to install foo. Then you just ask your friend to download these packages for you, copy them to your computer, install them, and all should be fine.

Don't under-estimate the needs for apps

[almound]

OK, I'll admit it. I've done alot of work with computers (over the course of about 15 years). I hide in my house; people want me to work on their machines so much. Jeesh, I used to be a traveling computer consultant, for gods' sakes (another reason to hide in my house).

I don't play computer games. Period. (I know how to remove all of them from even the new Windows OS's.) Neither do I maintain a database server at home, like I did at work, nor have I built a digital non-linear video editing station. I don't IM, do digital photography, or surf just for the sake of surfing. I don't pipe TV into my graphics card, and the last thing I want to do on a computer is install (and especially re-install) the OS.

I don't get intrinsic joy out of the OS (unlike those who responded above, apparently). If I'm going to reinstall the OS I want to be paid for it. (***Every*** OS gets finicky if played with long and hard enough.) That said, I'm quite familiar with UNIX, MAC, WIN and OS/400 programming and hardware platforms. I've handled in-house or remote maintenance and installations on all of them.

All in all, until about five years ago I was an average, boring techie type of guy that fixed computers but did nothing constructive with them. This went on for a good ten years.

Then, I found my killer app. I'm into electronic music creation using music notation software and sound samples. I can write music on the screen using word processor-type functions and then have the results played and recorded in CD-quality sound. Wooohoooaa!

Of course, it has been a ***royal*** pain in the butt to use and figure out. (My opinion of contemporary computing is that it is about on par with Charles Babbage's analytical steam engine, so one can't fault the state of the art too much. Quantum computing is fast approaching and will make discussions like the one here moot.)

Yes, features of the electronic music creation software don't work like they are supposed to (surprise!), special equipment must be bought, the sound samples need editing before being used, and any feasible editor looks like the cockpit of an airplane. What's more, few in the computer world write in detailed, articulate English ... and even less so concerning my particular interest. Of those that do, generally they won't share their knowledge because that is what gives them a professional edge in the arena where most who use this software compete ... i.e. scoring big-budget films).

There are a lot of downsides to my hobby. But heavens! ... now that I have come through most of the hoops by assiduous practice and experiment I now can boast of an entire orchestra, as large as I need or want, at my command ... and without having to suck up to the conductor of the New York Philharmonic! (He wouldn't be able to conduct my works the way I want anyway). I'm a happy man.

Oh yes ... I forgot the catch. On top of all that time and effort ... above and beyond the minor details of learning music theory, how to play the piano, coming up with decent music of my own, earning a living, getting my be-lated college degree ... the software side of my hobby alone has set me back five grand. Yes, those sound samples are expensive. (Garritan Strings, Dan Dean woodwinds and brass, Carlysle timpani, as well as all the other trash that I tried just to find that reasonable combination, etc.)

Now at least two of that five grand, though, is the electronic music creation software itself (and it's accoutrements). If Linux could boast of an app to rival Sibelius or Finale then I would use Linux. If I could save several hundred dollars by using a Linux app I would use Linux.

But I can't use a Linux app to do what I do, for any price.

That is why I don't use Linux at home. As you read the following, remember, I've had to master Windows in order to accomplish my hobby. (I run four computers at home just so that at

Desktops suck.

[MikeFM]

The biggest problem is that the desktop concept is broken. It's not a workable concept for many apps (such as games) or when using a lot of open windows. Like a real desk things quickly become to cluttered and trying to fix that problem creates complexity. Complexity is bad for users. Simple as that. The GUI concept is good but I'm unconvinced that desktops are the way to go. We need to analyze what users are really trying to do and make those things easier for them. Linux does not want to be OS X or Windows. Unix was a giant leap forward because it looked at what people were trying to do and made those things easier. It's time to do that with the GUI.

Does Linux want to bring in users today by being another desktop that looks like Windows or Mac OS? Wouldn't it be better to keep innovating and try to leapfrog and grab the future? Most of Asa's points are just as valid for that future direction.

Migration of settings, documents, etc is important. Linux really needs to work on this. It should have been a priority for distros years ago.

Simplicity is important too (one reason desktops are bad). For my users I greatly simplify the desktop and menus which helps a lot but does nothing for apps. This is a computing problem in general. Feature bloat at the expense of keeping things usable. This doesn't mean that features and settings can't exist but they should not be forced on users. Features should be added as extensions and settings available under an advanced menu. Gnome and Firefox IMO do this wrong in hiding settings so that it takes special interfaces to find them. Progression from newbie to advanced should be smooth and everything well documented.

I've not experienced a problem finding the right libs for an app in years. Packages and things like Red Carpet, yum, apt-get, etc take care of such things way better than Windows does.

As far as comfort goes I agree that being different for the sake of being different is bad. OS X annoys me with this. On the other hand conforming for the sake of conforming is just as bad. Gnome and KDE annoy me with this. In each situation evaluate user needs and figure out the best solution. If you have a better way then do it - otherwise do what people are familiar with.

Pretty simple really.

Re:less stupid users

[badboy_tw2002]

Awesome! You're writing libraries. Cool. What about end user applications? Written in a native format? Your code may be running on an Xbox but I guarantee the guy running it was using a Windows system.

Bottom line: if you're writing an end-user application you need to be working in the native platform you're developing for. (And if you're developing for multiple platforms you need to have all those platforms available).

Someone else was tasked with testing your code, and I'm guessing it wasn't too performance intensive given the fact that it wasn't tuned for any native hardware/OS.

No code is truly portable, any responsible developer will always work on all available platforms. "Build anywhere" How about, "Debug everywhere."

Oh, and sorry I've moved beyond the command line stage. I use an IDE. Am I suddenly a "luser" in your view? Yep, guess I'm just a neophyte fresh out of "Learn C++ in 21 days" with my head up my ass. Yep, that's me ;)

I think I've got the gist of it.

[shadowfax]

As I read most of the comments, the impression I get is that

Users can be too computer literate to use Linux if they've learned a lot about using Windows or its supported apps.

Users can be too computer illiterate to use Linux if they don't know how computers work, how to compile drivers, how to use the command line, how to write scripts, etc.

Power users aren't really power users unless they understand the architecture of the operating system and why things work the way they do. They are actually just "users" who have learned a lot about their chosen application or OS.

People don't use Linux because manufacturers don't support it and the best way to get manufacturers to support Linux is to get people to use it.

People who don't use Linux are not using Linux because they are used to using inferior applications which do things differently than the superior applications available on Linux. Therefore they choose the inferior product because they know how to use it, not because it is the best tool for the job.

Sounds to me like Linux has become a victim of its own superiority. No one who chooses not to use it is intelligent enough to use it and the evidence that they are complete idiots is that they choose not to use Linux.

There's a lot of wisdom in the phrase, "the customer is always right." If someone tells you they want to paint a portrait and you give them a camera, who is the idiot? The person who knows what they want or the person who gives them what they think they need?

Windows is extremely good at giving a lot of people what they want. Linux needs to learn a little humility and give the customer what he asks for.

Re:I think I've got the gist of it.

[Jarda_P]

What form me, Windows gave me a permanent nervosity when using it: "Did I save my data before launching another app or just switching to one already running? What if this thing crashes again and I can start over again?" It took me long to get rid of it and getting used to the simple fact that my Linux box does never crash and the apps quite rarely while in the Windows world abything can crash any time, even an app bringing down the rest with it. Recently I had to use Windows again when the caps on my mobo blown up and again I started to be nervous. Finaly this Windows thing stopped working for no apparent reason. It just won't boot except for the Safe mode. I'm staring at blinking cursor and don't know what's up: no single message giving a hint! But my Linux box runs again even if it has an Abit mobo instead the old MSI. Do Windows give me what I want? No, thanks, no more. I can't take one more reinstallation in the neverending serie. I prefere to fancy a typewriter. They used to be so reliable despite the lack of userfriendlines.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

you say they don't support it. I say doom3 and ut2k4 BOTH play fine in linux.

I went through a GL class in school and all my labs worked fine. granted I didn't use advanced features...I say you're full of shit.

As for why there are "special drivers" is [from what I've been told] they do the work of the instruction set decoder in software. So they take GL commands and turn them into nvidia commands.

Don't get me wrong, it would be better if it were truly open but in the long run it doesn't really matter. It works, works well and the drivers are free.

Tom

Re:less stupid users

[Luke-Jr]

I say they don't support it the standard way. Requiring a user to replace their standard GL libraries is no more than a dirty hack. Everything they need should be quite possible via the standard DRI kernel interfaces without touching the libraries.

The drivers are not free. You are not free to modify or share them. (gratis != free)

Re:less stupid users

[Luke-Jr]

Also, note that while you're on the topic of using immoral drivers, ATi's immoral drivers work just as good as nVidia's.

Re:Well, here's my take...a... corporate workhorse

[icemann476]

The parent makes an outstanding point and I think most of us see it coming (the corporate regulating of our choices, whether it be MS, Apple, Google or whoever) but we (general MS users, myself included) choose to ignore it. The problem with ignoring it is that it doesn't just go away, it requires action on our part (making the switch. Although most of /. appears to be left-wing geeks (meant as a compliment) I'm sure no one prefers to have their rights taken away regardless of political views! That's what we are choosing though when we blindly click accept on an EULA. For those of us that RTFA, you may agree that the article wasn't meant to be a punch in the face to Windows or Linux nor do I think he was trying to say one is better than the other. They both have obvious pros and cons. Linux seems to dominate when it comes to security and Windows appears to dominate in compatibility (at no fault of Linux). The article simply pointed out how Linux could improve its market share. Isn't that Linux's goal? So this doesn't mean it has to be "dumbed-down" but perhaps putting restrictions on some of the options (restrictions which could easy be remove with the proper key strokes by a "power-user") would make Linux a more attractive option. Migration is also a viable concern as no one wants to lose all their pictures of little Timmy. As soon as Linux becomes an attractive option it will increase its market share exponentially as it has one think MS can't offer, it's free! Once its market share increases, developers will be forced to work with Linux (drivers etc.) if they want to stay in business. Hopefully this doesn't sound like a rant as it is my first post.

Device driver is service, not product

[Anonymous Coward]

After you buy a hardware,e.g. video card, you can claim that your property. But you can't claim the device driver yours, and anyone else other than manufacturers who writes open source driver is providing alternative service to you.
Has CPU manufacturer any responsibility to guarantee the CPU working under GNU/linux or FreeBSD? No.
So why should video card or nic manufacturers provide driver in linux?

Re:less stupid users

[MisaDaBinksX4evah]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I do prefer using Linux for most things. But I don't have a problem using Windows for the reasons I stated in my original post.

The real question about mozilla

[NaCh0]

Why can't they ship a version that is compatible with the libstdc++ shipped in Fedora?

You try to pain Linux as if it were DOS-like..

[Eric Damron]

Using Linux does NOT mean using a command line.

Have you used Linux lately? KDE and Gnome are as easy to use as Windows and most distros are EASIER to install than Windows.

Once installed (Which usually means booting from the install disk and accepting all defaults.) applications are started by pointing to icons with the mouse and clicking. Not rocket science.

Re:less stupid users

[tomstdenis]

I never said they were totally free. But what they offer me as a GPU customer is much better than ATI. First off, nvidia laptops work in linux. I own an ATI laptop [well laptop with ATI hardware] and while I can use gfx mode I lose all of the 3d capabilities in hardware.

Nvidia also has 2.4, 2.6 kernel modules for x86_32 AND x86_64.

Maybe ATI is catching up but for the longest while it was a no brainer to go with nvidia.

And yes, as I've said a dozen times before, it would be better if nvidia made the drivers public...

But what you do get uses the GL api [who cares what it is underneath? as long as stimulus + response == standard] which means you're not locked into using nvidia.

Tom

Sulli I'm trying to get your attention (off topic)

[jfmiller]

This is compleatly off topic

Sulli,

I read you journals for a while now and thought you whould be interested in this Summery Article in the CS Monitor I whated to post it to a journal, but you've restricted replies to them.

I hope you will add it to you collection of links in your journal.

JFMILLER

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.htm l