Slashdot Mirror
Desktop Linux Mass Migration
Rob writes "With many Linux vendors attempting to push the open source operating system as a
desktop alternative to Windows, Computer Business
Review reports on Novell's migration to Linux on the desktop. From the article: 'Changing any mission-critical technology is a daunting task, and despite the growing maturity of Linux as a desktop operating system, it is little wonder that the vast majority of businesses are sticking with Windows.'"
That, and the hundreds/thousands of Access/Excel/Word apps/macros/templates that a lot of businesses rely on. Yes, they can be recreated in other platforms, but it will take a significant amount of work to do so.
With the BSD ports collection, the slick Apple interface, many great OSS options being multi-platform anyway, and virtualizing XP for the few XP apps I can't let go of... Why not just go MacTel when I buy my next PC in '06 or '07?
IMO, MacTel could be a Linux killer, or at least help keep it a niche OS instead of a major mainstream competitor.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
One thing that I think would help a lot is a unified clipboard. And I'm not talking about the X clipboard eithor. There needs to be a clipboard that unifies qt and gtk based programs AS WELL AS commandline. As more people switch there will be better apps, however the unified clipboard needs to be worked out as soon as possible...
You install an in-development package from the experimental Sid distribution - and when it fails say Linux is not ready for the Desktop?
By that argument, Windows XP is not ready for the desktop either, because Longhorn build nr. 1823 b0rked some computer somewhere.
The biggest problem facing Linux is the complete lack of integration between the different components. It's no single flaw, it's a collection of small problems, some which would require massive shifts in thinking to fix.
The biggest problems I see facing Linux are:
1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.
X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos. The Linux console rules, even as a desktop operating system. While bootsplash vaguely attempts to hide startup messages from the user, they can still press Esc. But it's still there. And the SysV init procedure still asks questions of me - for example harddrake2 runs each time the machine starts. If it detects new hardware, woohoo, Console!
Then we have configuration. Configuration is handled almost always using plain text files on the filesystem. Every application handles its configuration differently, with most choosing a semi-structured format. XML may go some way towards solving this, but it's no registry. People also resist XML - it's easy to read, easy to tweak, but not as easy to manage by hand as semi-structured files are. However on the flip side, it's much easier to parse and edit.
Neither Mac OS X or Windows handles startup or configuration in the way Linux does. It would be an almost impossible task to write a GUI to manage all the disparate Linux components as elegantly as Mac OS X or Windows does.
Linux needs some integration, some elegance. Hardware detection should happen in the background, configuration should happen within a GUI. More of a Windows approach would be nice.
A device management framework is needed, to detect devices, manage hotplug events, store details of present hardware, and to fetch and store hardware configuration options. This should include graphics card options.
It should be trivial for a user on any Linux distribution to manage hardware.
Look to Mac OS X. Perhaps by adopting Launchd, and implementing a "Registry like" configuration system, may help. Here's a thought - make the configuration system have a "storage API" for storing/retrieving configuration data. Users can then select where the configuration data gets stored. XML Files. Database. You name it.
2. Developing on the Desktop
At present, there are simply too many widget toolkits and desktop environments present. Motif, GTK, QT, KDE, Gnome.. and none of these are strong enough for there to be a clear winner. They are all tied to X, and perhaps that in itself is a problem.
A single, unified, high quality toolkit is needed, that makes development on Linux as attractive as it is on Windows or Mac OS X. While choice is good, sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps a solution such as Y Windows (http://www.y-windows.org/) may help.
To emphasise the problems facing developers.. GTK looks terrible. QT is nice, but it's a fully blown development environment. Most OSS QT apps are KDE apps, which places a dependency on KDE, which is also undesirable. Developing GUI apps on Linux is far from ideal.
The Linux platform is excellent when developing non-gui based programs. It's an excellent server based platform. But as a desktop solution, it's weak. I use Linux every day, and I can tell you, I fully understand why people hesitate to adopt it - despite the fact it's free.
Good point, accountability is important. Let us keep in mind, however:
1. Proprietary software vendors (including Microsoft) limit their liability to a considerable extent. The EULA basically stipulates that they are not responsible, and that, for instance, the software should not be used in life-and-death applications, etc. This limited liability can be modified by buying increased support and coverage from some company (which is often the company selling the proprietary software). Thus, you can pay Microsoft and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this will create a chain of accountability.
2. If you download a linux distro and install it on your computer, you do so at your own risk. The license clearly states that the software is free, and provided as-is, with no guarantees. However, you can purchase additional support and coverage from companies. For instance, you can pay Red Hat to give you a linux distro that they support, and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this creates a chain of accountability.
So I don't think the situation is any different in Windows vs. Linux when it comes to accountability. In both cases, if accountability and liability are important for your application, then you will pay some company (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Red Hat, etc.) to provide you with guarantees. The company will analyze your mission-critical application, make recommendations, and state whether or not their support and suggested software can run your application properly. You have to pay for the support, for insurance, and for their guarantee of functionality. This is the same for proprietary and F/LOSS solutions.
You pay for accountability in both cases, with professional Engineers signing off on everything... but in one case you can save money on the cost of the raw licenses (and associated administrative hassles). Plus, linux is at least 10 times better.
First off let me say that the desktop situation is abysmal on _every_ OS. Their are fundamental decisions stemming from the earliest GUI's that slow the speed of the interfaces and allow for entirely unneeded errors.
All this is _provable_. Speed of an interface can be modeled using the GOMS framework. If you are new to GOMS do not argue its accuracy here, there are several newbie mistakes that have been explained and would only serve to cloud the debate. Ever get annoyed at how fast the terminal is to use, and GUI's only seem to get in the way? GOMS explains it, typing is much much faster than the _multiple steps_ involved in using a mouse. Not to say that GUIs or mice are bad, but poorly implimented. GOMs can show when to use mice, when to use typing, and how to structure the size and conceptual model of an interface to be as speedy as possible.
But GOMs in and of itself is only a tool. Not a guide on how to create an interface. Liken this to racetracks. Once can sure build a fast car when their motive and only measure is speed, but can be more expensive, unsafe, unreliable, etc, etc, etc.
So where can one reliably make an interface that works well with humans? Most use "intuition." But this "intuition" is genrally nothing more than familiarity. And familiarty does not fix the current, demostratable problems.
So where does one turn? To the science of how humans think, their limitations, and the subset focusing on human computer interaction. Cognitives cience
Using this one can construct an interface based on what humans can do. It has exposed our limits and abilities. What mental models we handle better. Folders and Files? A model based on our desks, not a model based on how our brains handle information and computer interactions.
Using these tools we can end up with an interface faster than the terminal, easier to use, and less error prone than either GUI or terminal based programs. Don't believe me? Try Archy. It is a nearly total departure from standard interfaces. Thus for anyone familiar with comptuers have to retrain their muscle memory. One will constantly reach for the mouse in a vein effort to select text. It will piss you off. If you habituate it's use you will find how much harder and more complex the other text editing interfaces are.
Interfaces are a thing we can fix that Windows and OS X can't without major losses. We have upserped Windows in security and stability. Things Windows _cannot_ fix without breaking everything. OS X has poor performance. In fact horrific proformance thanks to the MACH core. The interface is one of the last major thing in OSS software that MS and Apple are beating us at.
BUT ITS FREE!! Which is a lie. Yes, it is not their higher costs of administration, vendor support, and retraining. It is also the worst selling point. Ask any professional sales person. The only people that hooks are people you don't want to deal with. Just reimagine that mangager that was a cheapskate manager who pinched every penny and lost dollars in lost productivity. The old pinch pennies, trip over dollars.
We have to beat them where they are sore, and believe me, their interface sucks. I use OS X. It is only less annoying than windows or UNIX.
Okay, I really have to go, this thing needs to be edited in half, correct the spelling, etc. but I have dinner calling me. Agree, disagree but interested? Email me, we can bitch over the finer points : ) aal357 REPLACETHIS sent dot com
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
This article (and reality) are about converting enterprise desktops from Windows to Linux. In a 5000+ seat environment, "simple to install" and AOL compatibility are just not issues at all!
Linux at home is not going to be at all common for a long time yet. But in big business, Linux on the desktop would be very interesting. The lack of viruses and needing to keep track of licenses could save a lot of admin headaches. Of course, the current love affair with Exchange and MS Office, the lack of native support for big enterprise software, and reliance on VBScript-filled apps in Access and Excel are the real reasons for difficulty in migrating a big company to Linux on the desktop.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install
The average American doesn't install Windows. They buy the computer with Windows preinstalled, and when their copy of Windows gets to the condition that it needs to be reinstalled, they throw out the computer and get another one.
It's ok, you can get one of the nice Mac PPC machines, dump the crappy OS that comes with it and install Linux, and you'll be all set. Future-proof! :)
"My FC4 has two clipboards, one is the auto-copy-when-highlighted, paste with a middle click; the other is the ctrl-c to copy, ctrl-x to cut, ctrl-v to paste. They can hold different things at the same time."
And this is a bad thing because...?
The average user won't use the middle-click-paste anyway, so I really don't see why the concept of having two clipboards for two different kinds of copy-pastings is so wrong.
The thing is you're confusing Windows already set up for your hardware with Linux being installed on your computer. It's a common mistake for newbies.
We don't really blame you... you're used to having systems set up for you by HP or Compaq or Dell, and it all just works. Have you ever tried installing Windows just by itself, though? OEM copy, without all your hardware specific drivers? It takes a long time to google all the drivers, half the companies have since gone out of business or don't offer drivers online, all kinds of fun trying to figure out how to get things working.
My point is that you (and some sympathetic, clueless mods) have gotten your ill-informed comment modded up. Or perhaps it's well-informed, and you're just trolling...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.