Slashdot Mirror
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."
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)
Hey, this is my sig, if you don't like it, STOP READING MY POSTS!
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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
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
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
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.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
,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.
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
(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.
"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.
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.
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.
Time makes more converts than reason
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
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.
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!
The Linux desktop is almost ready. Two major places to keep your eyes over the next two years:
... keep your eyes on:
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
Brazil. They're preping to kick some desktop ass. Linux is definitely going to be a phenomenon as the 3rd world moves up.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
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.
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.
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.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
"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.
if
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.)
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.
"Screw slashdot." -- Linus Torvalds
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.
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
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...
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.
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 . . ..
Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
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.
Hear, hear!
... after a minute or a day ... ... There ya go!
.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.
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
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
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.
To paraphrase a famous "redneck" comedian, you might be a Windows power user if you:
Fun topic! I'm sure others can come up with more...
My $.02
;) ) LInux on the desktop may become a moot issue.
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
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.
Apples and oranges.
.icc file for my monitor).
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'
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
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.