Slashdot Mirror
Vista Launch Good for Desktop Linux?
Sensible Clod writes "XYZ Computing has an article hypothesizing that the arrival of Windows Vista may be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on the desktop. Massive feature cutbacks for Vista as well as huge hardware requirements are cited as major factors. From the article: 'As the time gets closer and closer to the public debut of Vista the operating system seems to be constantly losing the luster which was associated with Longhorn...Whether it's the lack of a new file system or the Monad scripting shell, the absence of innovation in this operating system is giving it a black eye'. The article then shows the need for action to be taken to get Linux onto the computers in stores (display models!), and pinpoints a few important improvements Linux distros in general need to make. Very interesting read, and timely."
Vista is not going to decrease the amount of people purchasing new computers with whatever current version of windows is pre-loaded. This is the majority of windows purchases. As for those who are going to be holding onto their current computers and using them most of them will probably not upgrade to the newest (most expensive) operating system available and will probably stick with windows xp or 2000 until they get a new computer that does come with vista.
The same people who bought windows XP at full retail will probably go ahead and buy Vista at full retail while most of us that use linux now will just keep using linux whether or not some new version of windows comes along.
I think the whole impact will be negligible.
Out of all the features meant to be in vista some since 1992, almost all of them have been dropped. Microsoft a large gigantic corporation couldn't get them in their system working.
What's funny is that every one of those features is available today in a Linux distro near you. Yet still nobody listens and switches to linux in droves, but many wait for vista
I think sometimes everyone is a sheep
People don't care about Monad or new file systems - they want nice GUIs with RSS integrated - IE with tabs etc... Vista is everything the average user wants.
As for hardware requirements - most people will get vista with their shiny new hardware from dell or whatever. It will meet the requirements and look great with lots of eye-candy.
Linux doesn't just need to be better than Vista - it needs to be MUCH better to get an average user to switch.
XYZ Computing has an article hypothesizing that the arrival of Windows Vista may be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on the desktop.
.NET hysteria, the C#... Meanwhile, GNU/Linux is already on my desktop and I couldn't really care less what Micro$oft does. I just use it because it is the best tool for my job. Period.
A decade ago it was Windows 95 that was going to be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on the desktop, then it was Windows 98, 2000, XP, the DRM in Media Player, Internet Explorer, the license of MS SQL Server, the flaws in ASP security model, the nonsense of
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
XP offered very little beyond Windows 2000 with a new skinning engine, especially as far as most people were concerned. So long as Longhorn looks a little prettier and the pressure eventually is pushed to corporations/people to upgrade for compatibility, people will move to it.
Linux will find a way to people's desktops eventually, when it's more ready and the market in general is more ready to support it. Linux won't make inroads because of anything Microsoft does, for better or worse.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
how many people earnestly think it is about usability and security that most people choose their software?
i agree, some of the more sophisticated desktop users might be willing to switch, but much more powerful forces for not switching are: a lot of people don't like serious changes. they know windows (though it might suck), not necessarily the OS, but the brand, so they stick with it.
a lot of companies are either bound by contracts or - more importantly - by internal applications that are broken enough only to work with windows (in that case, to be more specific, mostly word, excel and access).
these are, i think, compelling reasons why a large percentage - mark, percentage, not single individuals - will not want to switch to linux because of what the article states.
If you don't learn from history,
then you are an idiot by definition.
--- Vadim Yasinovsky
There's nothing wrong with MS being ambitious in aiming to get new features into Vista, and even if some don't make it - there have been 4 1/2 years since the last release that should improve the usability of the widest deployed desktop OS in the world today.
You can't sledge MS for taking longer than expected to release Vista, then in the next comment complain about the lack of features.
__Funny videos, pics, flash & flesh
There is no absence of innovation or new features. Avalon, the new graphics subsystem, and the developer tools that will allow you to develop for it, have leapfrogged everything I have ever seen. While Linux will still be using the 2D capabilities of a graphics card (sucks!) Microsoft Vista will be using all that tremendous 3D technology already present in our machines to render your desktop. 3rd party apps will be using it too. Yes, at first it feels like it will need ebtter equipment, but when you finally get that equipment and your pathetic X-Window or other Linux windowing system looks ridiculously passé when compared to Windows Vista, you'll realize Microsoft is no longer trying to catch up to OS X, which is already a much more polished OS than any Linux flavor.
Desktop linux will break out next year!
Just like the year before that and the year before that, hang on.. i'm noticing a trend.. next year is always the year of desktop linux..
Am I the only one that thinks that article doesn't make too much sense?
I fail to see how vista, even if it weren't very convincing, will help linux getting on the desktop. All a bad windows release will lead to in the short tearm is not many people buying Vist, but staying with their curren OS, which is some kind of Windows in most cases.
And people who really care about monad not being included are people who would consider running linux anyway, but they only make a small percentage of the market.
Further, I'm convinced that Linux will not make large inroads into the private desktop in the near future, not because Linux isn't good enough, but simply because Windows is much to entrenched in this market.
Corporate and gouvernment desktops are an other story though and we'll see a lot of things happening there in the future, I'm sure.
"Year of the Linux desktop" or whatever. Isn't that a dupe and troll in itself? It's been repeated over and over again, and yet never happened.
Honestly, I don't think Linux (as it is now anyway) is ready for the desktop. Why? Sure, you got aptitude and lot of neat stuff. Gnome may be bloated as hell, but it looks good, and that's what most consumers want.
You got lots of good stuff, but when your average linux-distro starts to break down, when stuff doesn't work automagicly, when hardware detetction fails and so on... Most users (and by most users I also mean powerusers) will have a really hard time fixing stuff, if they even manage to fix it at all. Not all of us are geeks who grew up with a keyboard.
Plus, I don't really care if linux hits the mainstream or not. I use what works for me, I'll let others use what works for them. To me, open standards are a lot more important than whatever OS people are running to get their work done.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Quite a few people see the OS as ineluctably linked with the hardware.
I think using a seemingly less polished, cheaper (or free) operating system will take much of the enjoyment out of a new computer purchase - after all, most copies of Windows are bundled with the latest hardware, and the high specifications required for Vista aren't going to bother the majority of users who will overhaul their whole system when confronted by the marketing blitz.
But isn't XP already ahead of the Linux desktop options anyway? You have to surpass the previous iteration of MS offerings before you snatch an "opportunity" with their successor.
And since when did more than 0.5% of the PC-using population ever really pay much attention to the left-out features (filesystem changes, etc).
People who were considering Vista for their current underpowered machine would go with XP or 2000 before trying Linux, I suspect.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
My company didn't use Windows 98 (or ME) at all. They stuck with 95 until the obvious benefits of Windows 2000 (and now XP) were mainstream. I haven't read about one feature in Vista that would compell them to upgrade a thousand or more PCs. They won't do it to give us more eye candy, or to raise the minimum system requirements.
Linux advocates - "No DRM in Linux!"
:(
Legally downloaded audio/video file disclaimer - "Needs DRM compatible PC"
Windows Vista box sticker - "Fully DRM compatible!"
To an average non-technical user who just wants their music and video files to play, isn't this going to make the DRM look like an additional feature that Windows has and Linux lacks? Sadly lacking DRM might end up turning people away from Linux rather than towards it
Your skepticism is misplaced.
What "starter" version of Linux are you talking about? I've been a RedHat and now Fedora user and have only paid for maybe two boxes... I wanted to get the stickers and stuff. I have only made ONE support call (mostly to see what it was like) only to be told they only support one NIC installation on a machine. Disappointing to say the least... it was years ago so maybe support has gotten better since then, I don't know, but I see almost no advantage to buying a support agreement. You're simply better off having a support PERSON on site or available on short notice and that goes for Linux or Windows or any OS.
Mozilla incorporating has nothing to do with making a version to be paid for. This is ALL open-source. The moment someone even thinks they will take it closed-source for profit, a fork will happen and someone else will drive the project as open source. There are many examples of this to cite... do I really need to?
"Good busines woman" or not, you don't know what you're talking about -- you're just unaccustomed to the way things work in the OS world. Salesmen are out to make money and I don't blame you for being suspicious of their intentions. But the OS community as a whole are more likely to do it for free just for the fun and challenge involved.
Open Source has too long a history to be a gimmick or a bait-n-switch. I still can't decide if you're a troll or not. If not, then I wonder what an experienced business woman would be doing here on Slashdot in the first place.
And finally, you need to re-think what computing does for your business. It's a tool, not a religion. Determine what tools you need to run your business and I heartily recommend you start with the applications you need to run and base your choice of OS secondarily. To make the choice of OS first would be a decision not on the OS as a tool, but for other reasons such as a bas experience with a BSA audit, or some reason that involves emotional drive of some sort. Think business tools and test a lot of stuff before settling on something. And if you select something that runs well under Linux, then consider your support options. (1) learn how to do it yourself (2) find someone who knows this stuff. I don't think it's any different under Windows really -- I have rarely had a support experience with Windows that was helpful.
P.S. Closed-minds and Open-source do not work well together.
The other thing Desktop Linux needs is good fonts. I am yet to find a desktop Linux installation that is beautiful out of the box. Often times, one has to download M$ fonts or could use the script found here: http://vigna.dsi.unimi.it/webFonts4Linux/webFonts. sh to get good fonts for the web.
Next thing is multimedia and multimedia applications. Totem in the GNOME world and Amarok in the KDE world will not play mp3s out of the box, yet there are no licensing restrictions on these formats! These are so many other examples in the multimedia field.
There is a bug/feature I found in Linux that needs attention in relation to how devices are mounted. Remember that we in the Linux world are aiming at domination. So we should attract as many users as we can. The bug is here: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111173. I was surprised that there was a wontfix mentioned. So how are we to attract users if there will always be confusion in how devices are mounted?
Last but not least, we need publicity - good publicity. Right now, Linux is being touted as very good or good enough for the average user. What happens is that folks then have to understand that Linux is just a KERNEL and that there are many implementations associated with this kernel. To many, understanding this is a challenge. So one says "I use Linux at home, it's freely available on the net...try it out..." (and they leave it at that)! What follows is confusion as newbies find tons of distros and incompatible packages. Folks what do you think?
It's posted more often than that. Every single time Microsoft does something even slightly stupid (even if it's not related to Windows itself), some idiot will come along and be like OH BOY TIHS IS LINIXS BIG CHANCE GUYS I CAN SEE IT NOW
... But Microsoft has done something stupid every day for the past decade (at least), and Linux still isn't popular on the desk-top.
If you like Linux and want it to succeed, that's awesome. Me too. But stop kidding yourself, you look like idiots. Don't pat yourself on the back every time Microsoft screws up, because it's going to take a GIGANTIC screw-up to ever put Linux anywhere near being a popular desk-top OS. In fact, chances are that it'll never happen, unless somebody really smart does with Linux what Apple did with BSD.
Which from a technical stand is a cheap hack (afaik - not tied to the kernel/filesystem), and isn't packaged by Microsoft, but a third party.
Linux will get absolutely nowhere as a desktop operating system until Joe Sixpack can plug in his camera, scanner, PDA, iPod, or what have you and have it just work. If you think any "average user" is going to even consider Linux over Windows while they'll still have to be messing around with the command line to get full functionality even with the most dumbed-down distros, you are sadly mistaken.
(And this is off topic, but what the hell is up with the login system? I can't get it to e-mail me my password because apparently my account doesn't exist, but I can't recreate my account because apparently it does exist. WTF?)
Interesting to see that it requires a DEDICATED graphics card.
That will cut out almost all "office" type PCs currently deployed with their Intel integrated graphics as well as a vast majority of the lower end of the PC market where integrated graphics sharing main system RAM are the norm for price reasons.
Dell may ship Vista with all their systems but unless you pay a real price rather than a £299 special offer box you'll see nothing different in Vista.
You'll be playing that before you'll see the type of linux destop your talking about here.
Cario is coming pretty soon, gnome 2.12 will include it even though it will just be to up 2D quality the first time around. Hardware accelleration isn't, ready yet.
XGL and luminocity is just testbeds, also they wont be done anytime soon (which was why one of the two main developers recently dropped out of the project, he felt it was too far from release). I saym, 3-4 years. We'll be where OSX is today, OSX (and windows) will ofcource have evolved then.
This stuff is prettycomplex, and like all type of complex development the OS model seem to have a hardtime competing against the commercial offerings(simply because they have more qualified people working full time that, for example XGL has it. Currently ONE guy does the bulk of the development. one!).
Breathe out, and realize if you want the "latest and greatest" desktop you shouldn't run linux.
OK, I've used Linux on Alphas, x86, x86-64, ia64, and mips processors.
I've used Linux from 1997 to 2004 as my primary desktop environment.
I see nothing special about Linux' desktop environment over what is available for FreeBSD, Solaris, etc, simply because they are all the same.
So how am I being a troll to say that the next version of Windows, that at worst will be no different than the current version of Windows will drive people to Linux which has no compelling end-user features over Windows?
100% DRM compatible as a reason to buy?
People will whore themselves out and sell off basic freedoms for the craziest shit. Your happy gas cylinder needs a recharge, time for another visit to the RIAA station.
The vast majority of computer users live in poor countries where software is either downloaded or acquired from friends. People buy PCs specifically because it is easier to get games for it than with a console - piracy is the norm rather than the exception. :)
Piracy is the killer app that made the PC king, and brought broadband to the masses.
So, if piracy is ever made impossible under windows, millions of people will flock to Linux in order to continue to enjoy software free of charge, with the additional advantage that it will also give them freedom. Watch, then, as some of those millions take an interest in the people who kindly provide them with free, legal software, and become active open source contributors.
It's happening already. The other day some rich bastard was accusing me of being an evil pirate when I told him I never pay for software. I started looking at my software and lo - its practically all open source, even under windows. Gaim, OO.o, Gimp, Firefox, Thunderbird, The Ur-Quan Masters, heck, even my mp3s are mostly legal, indie stuff. I wish I could have seen the look on his face
Contrary to what the clueless and ill-informed think (j/k no offense ;) ), Windows Vista is a MAJOR upgrade. It should be similar to going from Win3.11 to Win 95 or, on the server side, from Windows NT to Windows 2000. The 3D-accelerated GUI alone will push the operating system into a new era.
A lot of you complaining about feature cut-backs don't realize that MS was aiming for the moon. Even after the cut-backs, it'll have more new DESKTOP features than what Linux has gained in the last 5 years.
I personally don't see linux overtaking Windows on the desktop side until the operating system market matures and MS stops innovating or releasing any new major versions (maybe 15 to 20 years from now). Linux has potential on the server (its market share growth over the last 5 years shows that) but the desktop side will be tough for Linux. As a desktop, linux just doesn't have enough applications, and isn't easy to use--two key features desktop users care about.
Even the server side will become more tough for Linux. For regular server use (eg. file server, web server, etc for a small to mid-sized company) Windows 2003 is pretty solid. Its market share growth (along with its first incarnation, Windows NT) from almost none to something large is worth nothing. Linux will faced a big challenge on the server side from the next version of Windows server. Linux's server market share has mostly been increasing due to it taking over Unix servers. But when it goes head to head against the next version of Windows server, it will be a tough battle...
Overall, I expect Windows Vista to grow at double digits on the desktop side for the next 5 years, while Linux likely won't exceed 5 percent for the desktop side.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
She knows already, it's been pointed out before. Like all trolls, she's probably doing it for the attention.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
This is the EU, and we slept our chance away while the "anti-circumvention" directive was passed. You might note that the same happened in the US. To make America live up to the noblest connotation of the name takes active citizens. (The same goes for the EU and the respective nation states except that "EU" has much fewer positive connotations to live up to.)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
The vast majority of computer users live in poor countries
No, I think you'll find that the vast majority of computer users live in rich countries. The vast majority of *people* live in poor countries, but very very few of them have computers.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Maybe the problem here is that you're not actually looking for anything innovative in the first place. Nothing you say here seems to have much to do with the OS so much as the interface. (Is it Ubuntu you're interested in for innovation---or KDE/Gnome?)
KDE and Gnome run on the same model as Windows and OS X---WIMP. But they're only Desktop Environments---and you have many more choices for DE and WM in a GNU/Linux or *BSD system than in the proprietary systems you mention. The reason I use GNU/Linux on my (admittedly old) iBook is that OS X runs dog slow on it, I prefer Free Software, and, really, my idea of a good interface differs a lot from the Apple designers.
For example, the new Enlightenment desktop shell has some interesting elements, as does the Plan9 interface model (i.e. rio, which is modeled for X users in 9wm).
My own preference, and what I take to be a stroke of genius as far as UI, is Window Manager Improved---which attempts to do away with the WIMP model altogether. Light, fast, configurable (using the Plan9 ``everything is a filesystem" model), & keyboard based.
Of course, I don't have lickable widgets telling me what the weather is or a ``desktop" I can clutter with downloads, but some of us don't think that is a particularly good way to interface with a computer. (If it works for you, that's great; for me, these things waste my time and get in the way.)
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
You can't use OpenOffice in a business environment where you have to send and receive correctly formatted documents. OpenOffice always retains the text, but usually mangles some little details here and there. In a large document, with pictures and other embedded objects, you can't afford to hunt for such defects each time you get a file. Even worse, you can't ask your customers to do the same when they open your files. $500 paid for his MS Office was a good business decision.
I guess the point is - will it matter? Who is going out there an en-masse getting wma files? I know I only ever download MP3s because they work in anything. I'm guessing most of the iPodders use either iTMS, or they are getting MP3s...
I have never seen a pirate distribute WMAs. So, for those who are into pirating stuff, they will just get the MP3 version I would guess.
Unless Vista plans on disabling bittorrent, HTTP downloads, FTP, and scores of other P2P methods + not allowing you to install say WinAmp to play MP3s while making WMP not play MP3s...
I'd guess there would be some notice from even the mass media if you can't play MP3s on Vista...
I'd also expect there to be some outcry if Opera and FF (two browsers that can support bittorrent in the browser) won't run also.
I mean, to prevent media piracy, MS would have to prevent you from installing software...
And if in either case you had to buy all new software that is MS approved, I'm guessing that could drive business use away. Or, they will come up with a coporate version, that will be out like XP was for all the pirates...
I get how via Trusted Computing they could prevent you from pirating software, what I don't see is how that would work for media - some pirates will just run 2K or XP or Linux and release MP3 or Divx or XviD files that don't have any software identifiable copyright info, so Vista won't know that they are a DVDRip or whatever...
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
How are you going to convince satisfied people to run Linux? It doesn't really offer them anything that they don't already have or need.
I think that a Windows virus that completely trashed every Windows box on the planet every 24 hours might do the trick. Virus writers are way too wussy.
Too late to get modded up, but what the hell. No, Vista will not be the spark that ignites Linux. Win98 was pretty unstable. Did Linux take over then? No. Win ME sucked ass. Did Linux take over then? No. Win2k was pretty nice but wasn't shipped on much consumer hardware. Did Linux take over then? No. WinXP is annoying as fuck, what with balloons popping up everywhere (Take a tour! This is the start menu! Wireless is here! Wireless is gone! Hey, wireless is back! No, wait, gone again!) and all the activation BS, not to mention spyware, viruses, self-spreading bad stuff, etc. Did Linux take over? No. Vista? Well, technically I can't see into the future, but I'm a pretty good guesser.
"Whether it's the lack of a new file system or the Monad scripting shell, the absence of innovation in this operating system is giving it a black eye." One second--you think customers care one fucking bit about innovation in an OS? What planet is this guy on that he thinks people care about a fucking FILESYSTEM or SHELL?!?!?* I'm gonna say this once really loud for the cheap seats: WINDOWS IS POPULAR BECAUSE IT'S THE OS ON THE CHEAPEST COMPUTERS OUT THERE!!!!!!!111oneoneone. The 5% of customers that do care about innovation already have a home: they're at the Apple store.
* note: Windows does ship with a shell. But no one needs it. (Because Windows also ships with a GUI, natch.) Before writing another article like this, do this simple test: walk up to 50 people and ask them about the shell in Windows.
- 46 will go "huh?"
- 2 will say "cmd.exe but I have no use for it." (You just stumbled across two people who work in IT or a computer store.)
- 1 will say "cmd.exe and I use it once in a while because I've been using PCs for 20 years and I still do things there 'cause I'm used to it."
- And exactly one will say "cmd.exe but I don't use it 'cause it's teh sux0rz! When I get a new comp the first thing I do is use IE to download Firefox and then I use Firefox to download Cygwin!" (Read that page, it's really funny. I love that story.)
Monad is very cool but even if MS would have shipped it in Vista, did you really think you were going to spend next thanksgiving teaching your mom how to use it? "Look, mom, here--I just pipe this through that, and what makes Monad even cooler than bash is that it isn't just text coming out, these are actual objects, so I can take these results and..." Uh-huh. Right.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Ok, I'll bite. If I buy anything online, be it music, videos or whatever, I buy it, it's mine. Mine as in mine to do whatever damned I please with it. As in making low-bitrate AACs out of high-bitrate WMAs for fitting more of them on my cellphone.
See, this is legal. Noone nowhere has any business telling me "you can't do that". That's equivalent to saying "So... we wont be seeing you purchasing our products ever again?"
Now, if I tried to pass these files on to others, now that would be copyright infringement, and thus illegal.
I don't want my computer, restricting me from doing stuff with my data because some executives somewhere are afraid I might violate their copyright. No way. No way in hell.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Here's a hint for you operating system obsessives*, you choose the operating system which runs your applications and hardware, ***NOT*** the other way round. I repeat: you use the OS which runs your software and hardware. If Linux doesn't support your software, you don't use it. If it doesn't support your hardware, you don't use it, no matter how stable it is, no matter how many ways you can configure transparency in KDE, no matter how easily you can reprogram is, all that is irrelevent.
The primary and only use of computers is to run applications, that's what they're there for. An operating system is a means to an end, nothing else.
If Open Office doesn't meet someone's needs, and they need MS Office, then preaching Linux all day is a waste of everyone's time. You can spend all day talking about how well Open Office opens Ms Office files, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't make it a better product. There's a reason people pay thousands of pounds for professional software: because it fits their needs in a way that free software doesn't. Do you think people who pay for Photoshop wouldn't rather use something that's free?
You don't pick your food depending on what cutlery you need to eat it, you pick your cutlery depending on what you're eating. If you're eating soup you don't use a fork, no matter how much you like forks and hate spoons.
* Of all the things to be religious about, a computer operating system seems the most insignificant and irrelevent. But then I think the same thing about car enthusiasts, they're just a means to an end for 99%, but the 1% can't understand that.