Stopping Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage

Mark Brunelli, News Editor writes "Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop. In a three part series, he tells a story about how two guys trying to buy Linux desktops found they were overpriced, and lacked certain tools. He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks. (Part 2, Part 3)"

Comments

Not Forever

[gregbains]

Theres only so much you can push people. Windows XP did not deliver what people thought it would and Vista won't achieve what it set out to do, and updates take too long coming. Many people I know are or will switch to Linux in the near future because it makes more sense in the long run. Keep pushing people and they will try something else, look at Firefox or Opera. All it takes is a little piece of information to hit the public and people will begin to learn more about it, and adopt it.

Re:Not Forever

[Billly Gates]

... but I kid you not there will be folks waiting at midnight at the local compusa for WIndows Vista assuming it will be the os to fix their problems.

MS won and is a monopolist and will do everything to keep people in. Until people leave software developers will only target windows. People dont care about oses and use whatever comes with their computer.

This is how ms won.

Re:Not Forever

[Vancorps]

And where google will win ;)

Web services are the future so this OS importance issue will be less and less of an issue as the technologies mature.

RE: Not Forever

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Keep pushing people and they will try something else, look at Firefox

Firefox's userbase has declined each month since May, while IE has risen.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

Mozilla and Netscape also declined during the same time period. (Opera remains unchanged, just people switching from Opera7 to Opera 8).

Re: Not Forever

[einhverfr]

You can't say that for sure. Since this is just one site, for all we know there are automated hits against it originating from Microsoft-affiliated sites... You might find the ups and downs of Apache on Netcraft to be informative of how Microsoft tries to make the marketing figures fit the message (for a while, IIS went through a big spike as they paid people to migrate to their products. When the insentives wore off, they migrated back).

I know more of *my* customers use Firefox than did in May...

Re: Not Forever

[Ice Station Zebra]

the odd thing is I've noticed that Firefox has started to randomly crash on my Windows XP desktop at work. It worked great up until they started rolling out every freaking Microsoft patch under the sun. Makes you wonder if this isn't DRDOS all over again.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbasses like yourself have said this for years, nothing's changed at all.

Re: Not Forever

[jacksonj04]

This also occurs with my XP box, as of Firefox patch 1.0.7. I strictly control all patches on my network through a WSUS server, and some testing on a 2nd machine makes it look like an issue with 1.0.7 rather than any MS issue.

YMMV

Re:Not Forever

[geomon]

"Web services are the future so this OS importance issue..."

In which case, Microsoft wins by default. With the largest installed userbase, they will still benefit from a full migration to web services. You will still need an OS to get to the internet regardless of whether everything is web-based.

The push for Linux will only come from the education market. When more children grow up in a UNIX-based world, then their preference will drive their purchase. It worked for Apple and Microsoft.

Re:Not Forever

[suitepotato]

The public will NOT adopt it. Linux is a GEEK operating system and ALWAYS WILL BE if the present majority user base has its way. They DO NOT want it to be as easy to use as an AOL CD and given the choice will keep it that way.

They needn't stress or strain. The disparate elements driving Linux are about as sane and competent as the sires of Freddie Krueger and their offspring is about as safe for the unknowing.

Why should people write in to retailers and demand that they cater to an extreme demographic minority? PAYING (that's important) Apple users are a bigger demographic than Linux users and most places outside of Apple stores don't cater to them either.

If I was a retailer and someone demanded that I sell them a machine for less because it had a FREE operating system that nevertheless cost me time to install and was more time consuming at that due to its technological (oh heck, let's say it: insanely illogical) complexity, then I'd ask them what they were smoking. I'm not spending twice as long to set up desktops with an OS I'm not getting to sell for a markup. Do it your own self.

And that is the point of Linux. DOING IT YOURSELF. This runs counter to the profitable (because it is logically in line with human nature) way of doing it for others for money. In fact, if everyone was capable of doing it themselves (which they aren't) and had the free time (which they don't) they probably would to save money. Of course, the same could be said on the subject of paying for oral sex or performing it on yourself.

If everyone could do this, there'd not be a need for support techs. And actually, the same goes for Windows which although it is ten million times easier for the average starfish to deal with than ANY flavor of Unix still manages to flummox the majority enough to need... support techs.

Does the idea of trying to push an even harder OS and finding its lack of adoption sound so strange now? Free is not the driving force. Difficulty and time are.

I could build my own house for less and with twice the floor space because I know how. I have better ways to spend my time and am willing to pay a mortgage and get a smaller house to do so. So are the mainstream pc users with Windows. Linux may be uber-expandable and hacker friendly. It is not user friendly (ancient beardy engineers who used it from the beginning have said so for crying out loud) and never will be.

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

For many, Vista will be the OS that fixes their problems. I've tried several times (without luck) to switch to Linux, but what would typically be a simple task in Windows (i.e. installing video card drivers) becomes an exercise in frustration in Linux.
Now, before you inevitably mod me down as a troll, hear me out...
You know what the #1 thing is that's working against Linux adoption? Its open nature. Yes, it's fantastic that everyone and their mother can potentially modify it to their liking, but how many different distros are there, and how many of those distros can you typically find easy-to-install driver/software packages for?
Go ahead, I know you want to say how easy it is to install drivers/software in certain distros, but therein lies the problem: There's more than one freaking distro. And you know, the full-auto process of installing software can do more harm than good. For instance, installing Opera didn't result in a shortcut appearing for the application on my Desktop in Xandros, so I had to conduct a search to track down the executable for Opera in that mess of directories. At the very least, most Windows installers at least show you the path upfront.
I don't doubt that Microsoft would like to slow the Linux adoption rate. However, claiming that they're responsible for it not taking off amongst the mainstream is complete BS. If Linux users could truly unite and create a single UI that wasn't so unwieldy, I feel that Linux's market share could very well pick up. As is, no, it's completely ridiculous having to sift through so many distros.
And for something that's supposed to be free, I find it quite amusing how many distros' developers end up devising some under-handed method to charge for their work.

Re: Not Forever

[RoboPimp_3000]

Firefox's userbase has declined each month since May, while IE has risen. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

Well the good news is that Linux has gained a whopping 1% market share in 2 and a half years. :)

Re:Not Forever

[westlake]

Theres only so much you can push people. Windows XP did not deliver what people thought it would and Vista won't achieve what it set out to do, and updates take too long coming.

How do you explain numbers like these? OS Platform Stats: XP with a 70% share, up 40% from March 2003. Linux and OSX at 3% each, no change.

Re:Not Forever

[gregbains]

How do you explain numbers like these? OS Platform Stats: XP with a 70% share, up 40% from March 2003. Linux and OSX at 3% each, no change.

More people getting online, more people buying computers, which come with Microsoft on them. More people upgrading from old Windows versions means XP picks up percentages.

Re:Not Forever

[LordoftheLemmings]

God you people are blind. Linux is not that great. I use linux and its not easy for a novice to use. Windows is. Linux is not compatible with a lot of hardware. Windows is. Most software that people use is compatible on windows. Linux had never made any sense for the desktop user. They only argument you off against windows is that linux is free, well free isn't everything. Sure you pay for windows, but I also get alot of benefits for paying for windows. Do you get technical support for getting a free os? I think not. Windows makes sense to use now for the desktop, not linux. Linux is good for a server, or an embedded computer. Until linux is made into a complete desktop (and I mean as well thought out as windows xp or os x, not just a collection of programs), easy to use with an abundance of software that people are using and want to use, no one will switch over to linux.

Re:Not Forever

[LiquidCoooled]

XP is up because they stopped "selling" the other Windows operating systems.
Most "sales" of XP come from pre-installed setups.

People go out to buy a computer that can run all the software in the local PC world or game store - at the moment, that is a Microsoft OS.

Times are changing though, and more space is being given to the alternative OS's.
Its kind of like the time when "PC" software was nowhere to be found and all the stores were filled with Amiga/ST stuff.

Windows will not be dominant forever, it will be replaced just like everything else.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't quite agree with you 100% you make some very good points, and I modded you Insightful. I'm a geek, I do Netware/Windows networks for a living, and have for many years. I love Linux, and use it for many things, but as a non-programmer I find some things about Linux insanely difficult. I can re-compile a custon kernel with the best of 'em but sometimes installing a simple app is unreal. From RPM or from source, after the make install then what? Man $newapp sometimes will tell you other times it's a find / -name $newapp and try to figure out a) where it is, and b) how the hell to start it. Then there's stuff that starts from xinetd.d and stuff that doesn't, and stuff that used to, but then "they" changed it. Arrgh. I had a PPTP Vpn , mostly working, was going to have it use AD authentication, then I did an update, changed Kernels, and it's almost impossible to figure out where MPPE support went. I threw in the towel and used a Win2k server App developers need to consider thatnot all Linux users are programmers, and we can't all peek at the source, find the issue, and fix it ourselves.

Re: Not Forever

[Drishmung]

Odd statistics. Mac shows up as 3%, yet Safari does not rate at all in the browsers.

Re: Not Forever

[biojayc]

I had the same issue with firefox 1.0.7. It was then that I started Opera, and found that in many ways I like it better.

Re:Not Forever

[westlake]

More people getting online, more people buying computers, which come with Microsoft on them. More people upgrading from old Windows versions means XP picks up percentages.

Which is another way of saying that people are comfortable where they are. They never migrate in significant numbers to the "alternative OS."

Re: Not Forever

[Hal_Porter]

From the link

September 2005
WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT .NET Linux Mac
69.2% 15.8% 3.20% 0.50% 1.7% 3.30% 3.1%

It's amazing how Win98 still has about 3.2% market share, about the same as MacOS and Linux.

Re:Not Forever

[irablum]

Look putz.

First off, RTFA. the guy in the article is saying that if you like Linux, and you want to buy a new computer with linux pre-installed, you can't do it. And its true. But he's also saying that part of the reason is that users are not walking into stores and asking for a computer loaded with linux.

As for it being hard, its not. Lets say I'm building 10 or 100 or 1000 identically configured computers. How many times do I have to install the OS? that's right, bozo, 1. Only once. why? because I install everything once, then make 'n' hard drive clones where 'n' is the number of machines I'm building. Does it matter if its Windows XP or Windows 2003 or Windows ME or Windows Vista or Suse Linux or Red Hat or Debian or whatever? No. in fact, having installed XP and installed Suse Linux I can say that the Linux was tons easier (and I'd never done it before either).

But, at the same time, its very hard for a retailer to do this if he can't get peripherals which will work with his Linux. But, if someone is willing to plop down $350 for the computer that costs him $200, sure he's willing to make sure that the peripherals will work on the damn computer.

ok. next gem of wisdom from the above:
And that is the point of Linux. DOING IT YOURSELF. This runs counter to the profitable (because it is logically in line with human nature) way of doing it for others for money. In fact, if everyone was capable of doing it themselves (which they aren't) and had the free time (which they don't) they probably would to save money. Of course, the same could be said on the subject of paying for oral sex or performing it on yourself.

100% wrong again. the point of Linux is not to do it yourself, this is not the Timex Sinclair or Apple I of operating systems. The point of Linux is to allow users of the x86 family of computers to use a Unix clone without having to pay tons of money for it. And, if the manufacturers of said computer were willing to spend no more or less time to install Linux as they spend installing Windows, then Linux pre-loaded computers would sit on the shelf right next to Windows pre-loaded computers, and at truly competitive (read lower) prices.

If everyone could do this, there'd not be a need for support techs. And actually, the same goes for Windows which although it is ten million times easier for the average starfish to deal with than ANY flavor of Unix still manages to flummox the majority enough to need... support techs.

again, untrue. in fact, it so untrue, that most people will, instead of buying a copy of Microsoft Vista, will either stay with XP (even if it annoys them) or simply REPLACE THEIR COMPUTER! Some, will buy a copy of Vista, spend 10-12 hours attempting to install it, then try and take it back, find that the company won't accept it, and then buy an new computer with Vista pre-loaded. (of course, the people doing this have more money than sense... but that was obvious)

In fact, the whole jist of what you are saying tells me two things. 1) you've never installed any flavor of Windows on a computer with no operating system. and 2) you've never installed any flavor of Linux on a computer with or without Windows pre-installed. If you've done both (and I have) you will change your tune real fast.

Re:Not Forever

[SoSueMe]

I see you got modded as "Flamebait".
I think that is unfair. I would have modded you as "Uninformed".
Why?
It seems like you expect everything to react like "Windows" and give you everything you don't know you need.
Requiring some knowledge of an OS is totally unique in the computer world.
Appliance computing is "not there yet". By this, I mean that a computer is not a toaster. You should have some knowledge of what an OS actually does, regardless of the "flavour".
Windows, Unix, Linux and even the precious Mac, require some level of competency to be fully taken advantage of.

If your OS is not as easy to use as your toaster, I hope you are not in a position I would rely on for service.

Re: Not Forever

[SoSueMe]

Whew, I thought I was going to need another roll of tinfoil.

Re:Not Forever

[RoLi]

Wrong. Microsoft loses:

• Web developers buy significantly less MSDN subscriptions and MS development tools
• Yes, you do need an OS to get to the intranet (web services usually run on intranets and not on the internet), but you don't need to upgrade as often.
• And of course even though you may use Windows you may also use something else. There is no longer a lock-in.

That's why they kept Internet Explorer rotting for so long: Anything that benefits the net is bad for Microsoft.

Yes, I do know they posted record earnings and revenues, however that's because they are squeezing every penny out of their business customers and because of the weak dollar of course.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

But an installed userbase does you no good if all the applications are run off the web. Microsoft doesn't care about its installed userbase. It cares about the *future* installs. They don't make any more money if you just continue to use windows. You need to upgrade. You need to buy a new version of office and outlook. Separate this functionality from the OS, and there's no reason to upgrade the OS, short of security fixes. And if the OS is irrelevant.. well why not just go with the cheaper one?

Re:Not Forever

[Vancorps]

I fail to see how web services in any way forced people to go with Windows. I just created a web based Auction application that works whether your are on OS X, any distro of Linux, my XBox, and yeah, most any version of Windows too.

My point is that web apps free the user from the OS. The OS is still needed and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. The OS however becomes irrelevent when your cell phone can open a web based app just like a desktop with Windows can.

As for you second statement I believe you are again incorrect. Colleges are where Unix was more or less born. That didn't result in a mass migration. In fact the opposite happened at the same time most probably due to hardware expenses.

Re:Not Forever

[Hal_Porter]

If you add up all the flavours of Windows, they sum to about 90% at the start and 88% at the end. People have moved to XP in large numbers though, probably when they buy a new PC with it preinstalled. Corporate PC's are still stuck on Win2k though, and a few ancient home machines are still running NT and 98.

About 1% of people have moved to Linux, and about 1% have moved to MacOS.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, XP did deliver a lot in terms of stability, intelligent design, functionality, etc. It brought Windows much closer to the "Unixes" out there. There is plenty of stuff I still don't like about Windows, but I wouldn't be eager to upgrade every machine I have to use at work with XP from 98 if it wasn't a big improvement. The truth is that even though some structural problems with Windows still exist, most of the objective criticism of Windows is mostly nit picking. It's Linux and all the other Unix-like OS's that need to play catch-up. And that requires agreeing on changes and coding, not zealotry.

Re:Not Forever

[Taladar]

Do you get technical support for getting a free os? I think not.

I got approx. infinity times more support from the Linux community than I got from Windows and that is mainly because Microsoft does not support Windows in any way.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft wins by default anyway because they pay computer manufacturers to only sell their hardware with Microsoft Windows. The same goes for a lot of other hardware, where the included CD only provides software that will run on Microsoft systems. If they try to support other operating systems, they lose their Windows "bonus".

Yes, its wrong. Yes, something should be done about it because, quite frankly its disgusting. Imagine if this happened in any other industry. You go to the supermarket to buy some cereal, but there is only 1 brand. Its an OK brand, but you don't really like it. So you go to another supermarket - only to find they too only sell this 1 brand. You eventually find a corner shop that sells a cereal you like, but its 25 miles away. Then the supermarket buys out the corner shop.

Its all just so wrong on so many levels. Poor quality software, illegal business activities, its all like some mob out of film. They need to be knocked firmly into shape. Play nice, play fair, or get out of the ball park.

Re: Not Forever

[ncc74656]

Odd statistics. Mac shows up as 3%, yet Safari does not rate at all in the browsers.

They could be running Firefox. It was one of the first things I installed on my Mac mini, mainly so I'd have the same browser (and the same essential add-ons, such as Adblock and NoScript) on Mac OS X as on Windows and Linux.

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

I'm not expecting Linux to be identical to Windows; I'm expecting its interface to make as much sense as Windows' interface. I'm not saying that Linux doesn't do some things well. In fact, I think that automating the installation process is a nice step towards user-friendliness. However, if you're gonna streamline software installations, why not go all the way and remain up-to-date on driver installations?
I mean, why can't I easily download and install ATI's Catalyst drivers the way that I can browse for various software in Xandros Network (or whatever it's called)? Is that too much to ask? I mean, you could include two measly driver packages (one for ATI and one for NVIDIA) and make a lot of people happy.
And I realize that you can search for the installation information on forums, but most users (me included) will likely be scared off by some of the drawn-out instructions.
I tried switching to Linux over the course of almost a month. I spent that month experimenting with various Linux distros (including Gentoo - ouch), and I honestly can't say that I absorbed much of anything from my experience.
One more thing to consider: Think of just how many different Linux distros/builds/whatever are in circulation, compare that to the number of different Windows versions, then consider the market share of each. Isn't it just more than a little disturbing how many more Linux distros there are? If there was one (or even two) unified Linux distro (with all Linux software being developed with that distro in mind), I guarantee that Linux could easily snatch a larger market share by at least a few percent.

Re:Not Forever

[rtb61]

No, windows for workgroups will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows 95 will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows 98 will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows NT 3.5 will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows NT 4 will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows 98 second edition will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No windows ME will be the OS that fixes their problems (I gagged when I typed that ;-)).

No, windows 2000 will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows XP will be the OS that fixes their problems.

No, windows Vista etc., willie GFY.

What I can't understand is why you would think that going back to the same manufacturer that has created the problems for years and years, spending even more money with them will some how this time work. I mean really, rewarding a dishonest obviuosly incompetant manufacturer with even more of your money makes absolutely no sence at all.

If you have not figured it out yet "Windows what ever" has always been the problem and Linux is the solution.

Re:Not Forever

[Master of Transhuman]

I don't know where to begin - virtually everything you said is total bullshit.

"what would typically be a simple task in Windows (i.e. installing video card drivers) becomes an exercise in frustration in Linux."

Wrong - installation of Linux is easier than Windows PROVIDED the hardware is supported - which is the point of the article. If the manufacturers refuse to support Linux because they are being bribed by Microsoft (and incredibly charged by Microsoft for developing drivers, why they put up with that is insane), Linux has a problem, sure. The Chinese will solve that one in due time and put the US hardware manufacturers out of business in the process, as the article states. US IT hardware manufacturers (ARE there any who don't buy components from Asia?) are doomed. Resellers like Dell will go down as well.

Meanwhile, the only REAL hardware problems with Linux relate to stuff that is extremely new or stuff that is incredibly old. People who want to use Linux shouldn't buy a video or wireless card that came out last week, it's that simple.

Another thing that needs to be done is that the big corps who DO support Linux - like IBM - need to start leaning on the peripheral manufacturers. Here, again, I expect IBM's deep connection with the Chinese will produce results.

"how many different distros are there, and how many of those distros can you typically find easy-to-install driver/software packages for?"

Utterly irrelevant. Nine-nine percent of the existing distros are used by people (read: geeks) who happen to like installing new distros. Any NORMAL consumer will end up with Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, SUSE, Sun JDS, or possibly Debian (and maybe Linspire) - for all of which there are easy-to-install software package management systems and available software.

The average consumer has never HEARD of any other Linux distro and never will. In fact, the main issue with the uptake in Linux is simply the fact that ninety-nine percent of the computer buying public has STILL never heard of Linux at all.

"And for something that's supposed to be free, I find it quite amusing how many distros' developers end up devising some under-handed method to charge for their work."

Clueless. Linux is supposed to be free-as-in-freedom. It does not have to be "free-as-in-beer" - but ninety percent of the time it is if you have the bandwidth to download a few CD ISOs or you can afford twenty bucks to buy CDs on eBay. Virtually all the big distros make their money on various methods of support. Why is that underhanded? Nobody said they have to work for free even if the software is free. Is it better that Microsoft charges a minimum of $100 for their OS (and we're talking the obsolete Windows 98 here) and THEN charges a couple hundred for support?

"Insightful", my ass. There should be a mod for "clueless and arrogant" - or maybe "Windows shill."

Re:Not Forever

[Master of Transhuman]

Bullshit.

People don't migrate because they have NEVER HEARD OF Linux.

Ask the average sod on the street if he's ever heard of Linux. No way, Jose. People don't read IT magazines, and don't read technical articles in ordinary magazines unless they are in the business.

Put Linux as the cover article for Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, TV Guide, Cosmopolitan, etc. and point that in each article that it works like Windows but is FREE - and see what you get. Add Linux ads on "Desperate Housewives" and MTV and see what you get.

Until then, it's bullshit to say that everybody is "comfortable" - the stats on spyware and people throwing their computers in the trash and corporations reporting spyware and security the number one problem in their business say otherwise.

Re:Not Forever

[westlake]

When more children grow up in a UNIX-based world, then their preference will drive their purchase. It worked for Apple and Microsoft.

My niece began with XP at age four. Windows is in her home and in her hand every day. Something she can touch.

Re:Not Forever

[Master of Transhuman]

And before you bring up Apple, which people HAVE heard of, note that they've also heard that Apple is expensive (and they've never heard of the Mac Mini, either.)

So much for Apple.

Re:Not Forever

[burnin1965]

With the largest installed userbase, they will still benefit from a full migration to web services. You will still need an OS to get to the internet regardless of whether everything is web-based.

There is the possibility of delivering the OS in the same way you deliver the web-based applications.

Obviously streaming an entire Linux or Windows desktop OS across dial up is not going to work, however, a highly targeted OS that only delivers code that is needed by the client could be small enough that existing broadband speeds would be acceptable.

Other techniques could be used to speed up the process as well, i.e. caching the OS in flash memory and updating on the fly and adding features as needed.

So there is potential still to break the monopoly, but I do agree that in all likelihood the web clients of tomorrow will be the same thick clients that are used today.

burnin

Re:Not Forever

[lpcustom]

You make some good points. You have to keep in mind though that you are used to using Windows. There are so many distros out there purely for the fact that Linux is about freedom of choice. The points you make are about Linux "replacing" Windows. It's an alternative, pure and simple. If you want to use it fine, learn it. I know it's not what you are used to, and that's most people's valid point. Remember though that you always have the freedom of choice in the matter. You mentioned you tried Gentoo, which is what I'm on now. Just because I'm able to use it or prefer to use it doesn't mean you have to. It doesn't mean I'm "smarter" or more l337 or whatever. It means I came to the point where I wanted to learn Linux and I took the time and did just that. If you want to mold the OS in the way that you described become a part of it. If not don't worry about it. I've seen a lot of Windows users straight our flaming Linux on sites like Slashdot and Digg lately. I truly don't understand why. Linux users can be discussing Linux and some random Windows user will shoot off how much they love Windows and hate Linux. That's fine if they feel that way. It's their freedom of choice. But if Linux and Freebsd and the like didn't exist we'd all ( every damn one of us ) be in a forum somewhere talking about how much Windows sucks. You post is one of the few I've seen that weren't just blatant flames toward Linux and it's users. Thanks for that. If you ever want to give it again sometime I'd be glad to help. Once you are used to one thing though it's hard to adjust to something else. A lot of people forget that and expect it to work their way from the beginning. It 'd be like taking an algebra class and demanding that it work my way or I'll just stick with elementary math. Some things are worth learning. I find Linux is one of those things. I see some things that could be worked on. That's the cool part about Open Source though. I have the freedom to learn, use, and fix whatever I see fit. The development of it is so fast though someone will have probably already fixed it by the time I start. If not though, I can give back to the community that has provided me with a very nice OS.

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

So, Linux - the OS that is playing catchup - is the solution? I realize that most companies don't provide Linux drivers, but claiming that a disorganized throw-together such a Linux is any sort of solution is just crazy. If anyone offers a solution, it'll likely be Google.

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

The problem lies in the fact that the included video card drivers in most Linux distributions (as with a base Windows installation) lack proper OpenGL support. Finding and installing Windows drivers for most video cards is quite simply, however, as it merely involves going to the proper Web site or simply putting the included CD-ROM into your computer and having the setup start automatically.
In Linux, however, you're forced to enter some command line commands that no newbie could possibly know about. Or you could track down the proper driver build for your distro, which isn't always necessarily available.
People who want to use Linux shouldn't buy a video or wireless card that came out last week, it's that simple.
And why not? I mean, Linux is über-1337, is it not? I mean, you're trying to say that a superior operating system such as Linux doesn't support the newest hardware out there? Hmm
As for making distros free, I'll tell you what I mean by "under-handed". I consider "under-handed" to be how Red Hat's servers used to have a very small number of simultaneous connections. Or how about Xandros completely copping out and offering a torrent that is long dead? Or Mandriva's Web site's inability to offer an obvious way of acquiring a disc image?
I realize that paying $20 for a disc isn't bad, but when you're testing approximately 10 different distros to see which one you like best, it's normally nice to have an obvious way of acquiring them at no cost.
Do you really think that developers who use the aforementioned "under-handed" tactics really give a rat's ass about Linux's true purpose? No, they want to sell their thrown-together distros in one way or another to put some money in their pockets. And the saddest part about it is that they're merely repackaging what people like you made for the benefit of the community and selling it off to anyone gullible enough to pay for it.

Re:Not Forever

[geomon]

Microsoft doesn't care about its installed userbase.

I disagree. They hold every development up to the "Windows" to see how it fits in the desktop monopoly. That is how they have had to play catch up at least three different times (the internet, Netscape, Google).

It cares about the *future* installs.

Which is why they are dumping a ton of money into MSN. Do you think they like pissing away funds on the MSN console thingy they keep recycling? The MSN console thingy can control internet access.

Re:Not Forever

[geomon]

There is the possibility of delivering the OS in the same way you deliver the web-based applications.

We've been hearing this from Sun for years now.

Not likely to happen in the US with the lack of universal broadband. You are at least a decade out for this to happen here.

Re:Not Forever

[geomon]

I fail to see how web services in any way forced people to go with Windows.

I never said that. I said that Microsoft will win the OS war if all applications are completely web-based. There is no compelling reason to explore alternatives to Windows if all you need is a dumb terminal (fed by WinCE) to access the internet.

What compelling need is there for someone to relearn how to use a computer (ala Linux) if they already know how to navigate the web with their Windows-enabled box?

Re:Not Forever

[geomon]

My niece began with XP at age four. Windows is in her home and in her hand every day. Something she can touch.

Get her a copy of Knoppix and by age seven she will be knocking out bash scripts.

Linux is what my daughters started with and what they prefer to use. One is sixteen and the other is eleven.

Re: Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and vendors are dropping Win98 support from their software rapidly.

Re:Not Forever

[Master of Transhuman]

In Linux, the problem with video drivers is simply lack of manufacturer support. If the manufacturers would spend a week porting their drivers (this isn't rocket science), there would be a very easy way to install them. I don't understand why IBM doesn't do what Microsoft does - offer financial incentives to make a driver by picking up part of the development cost (which, again, can't be that huge.)

No, Linux is not "uber-1337". There is no reason UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS of lack of vendor support that it should be expected to be able to run anything. Given vendor support, the issue goes away. So what's your point? The article was about WHY it is this way, and has nothing to do with the underlying quality of the OS.

So Mandriva doesn't make it easy to find the free download page - big deal. This is hardly "under-handed", it's just lame. Compared to Microsoft's business tactics, this doesn't even show up in an electron microscope. I'm not even sure it's deliberate - it could well be simple "geek moron" behavior, as I've mentioned before. Begging you to join their Club before letting you follow the links to the download page is just that - begging.

As for $20, that's on eBay. There are plenty of places you can get entire distros for $2.50 a CD. And testing ten different distros to see which is "best" is both a waste of time and only suitable for geeks. I occasionally download a live CD to see if something is interesting, but I have no particular desire to replace my Mandriva 2005 LE until Mandriva 2006 shows up on the public mirrors in a few weeks. Ninety percent of Linux is identical between distros - the remaining ten percent has to do with configuration utilities and package management utilities, plus whatever additional packages the distro wants to include as the default. Basically of no interest, unless you want a distro optimized for some subset of interest, such as multimedia or security. And since you can install anything on anything given ability to install from source (and that difficulty is heavily overblown), it's mostly irrelevant - especially since, as I said, the average consumer has never heard of these distros and wouldn't know what to do with them if they did.

And again, since ninety percent of distros are unknown to anybody but professional Linux-installation geeks, it's irrelevant how they charge for it. You're basically paying for the hobby of installing Linux, not the software, anyway.

None of this is relevant to why Linux isn't being used by the average consumer. Far and away, the main reason is a combination of ignorance of the existence of Linux and inertia by those who really don't particularly care what OS they run - as long as it's working for the present and for the minimal tasks for which they use the computer.

The only reason corporate America hasn't switched is less ignorance of the existence of Linux than it is ignorance of the benefits of open source over the long run, versus the inertia of sticking with the crap their people already know and to which they're wedded by bad IT decisions in the past concerning infrastructure design. That, and the lack of enterprise apps, which take time and organization to produce, so Linux doesn't have that many - yet. The latter problem will go away within ten years as OSS Java infrastructures make developing enterprise apps easier. We're already seeing that to some degree in a couple of enterprise areas such as CRM.

The only real usability problem Linux has is the same one Windows has - a lot of software is produced by what I call "geek morons": brilliant guys at writing software to do something cool, but completely incompetent at either producing a useful GUI or producing documentation or both.

I had to learn both Linux and Windows over the last three years, and as I've said numerous times before, there isn't a penny's worth of difference in usability or learnability between them. It's only hard to learn one or the other if you've already learned one.

I still use Windows most of the

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

"I got approx. infinity times more support"
Gosh, that's a lot of support! Does that mean you have an approx. infinity lifespan, too?

Whoops, I missed the tense: You said "got" - does that mean you've lived approx. infinity long?

You're a fucking moron, as are those that modded you up.

Of course, there's one possibility: Zero times approx. infinity would still be zero. But, you didn't mean that, right?

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

There is!! Let's say that all the installed windows users keep their windows as it is. But it would be only upto the life cycle of their hardware. Once, they have to buy a new PC, they would prefer the cheapest one, if they know everything would work as before, as the OS does not matter. So, everything is web-based, it would become the price which is determine things.

Though it is still difficult to buy installed linux PCs, I am guessing that we are going to see some major players Dell, HP etc, would start selling installed linux PCs, which is visible easily from the site, not hidden behind some obscure web pages. I would guess that at most a year, they will not be able to stall anymore.

Re:Not Forever

[quanticle]

I (and all of my friends) used Mac OS 8, 9, and 10 in school. In college, we use Fedora Core, Solaris, and Debian. Yet what have we run on our personal systems for the past 6 years? Windows. Why? Windows allows us to play games in addition to doing everything that Linux and Mac can.

When major development houses like Valve and Blizzard start releasing games simultaneously for Linux and Windows, then I'll consider Linux to be "mainstream". Until then I'll consider Linux on the server, but would be doubtful about using it on the desktop side of things.

And to all of the people who say, "PCs are for serious work, consoles are for games...", bugger off. If most people thought that way, the PC game market wouldn't nearly be as large as it is today.

Re:Not Forever

[Burz]

Sometimes I think that's what the XBox is all about: "Get them while they're young."

Just as important is what Linux can "see and touch". So I will put this very un-subtley: HCL! HCL! HCL! HCL! Live by your distro's Hardware Compatability List and demand Linux compatability before you buy. That kind of pressure is the only way we'll get hardware mfgs to back-off from their MS "special relationships", their Vista-Gfx cards, their WinCableModem cards, etc.

Someone recently asked me if Linux was compatible with the Internet... with a straight face. It was not a joke and I was mortified.

Here is one HCL site for starters. It's not great, but its a start anyway. XandrOS also has a decent list. People, this is just as important for gaining acceptance as the LSB; We can't pretend that Linux is just like Windows, that we can just buy the prettiest hardware on sale and wrestle it with Linux when we get home (or worse, in the office). Check compatability first!

Re:Not Forever

[dbrutus]

If Linux was just an alternative, what happens to it in the retail channel simply wouldn't matter. The article is premised on the idea of Linux replacing Windows.

Re:Not Forever

[chgros]

For instance, installing Opera didn't result in a shortcut appearing for the application on my Desktop in Xandros, so I had to conduct a search to track down the executable for Opera in that mess of directories
Funny, for me one of the advantages of linux is that every executable is in /usr/bin (or /usr/local/bin), so when I want to run something I just type the command name. On Windows, you usually have to give the full path, also a lot of programs need to be in the path (e.g. Visual Studio.Net wants at least 3 of its directories in the path, all of which start with C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio.Net 2003), and of course (at least on Win2k) the size of an environment variable is limited...

Re:Not Forever

[arminw]

....even the precious Mac, require some level of competency.....

Why does there have to be a special program or other fancy procedure to install an ordinary program on a computer. On a 'precious Mac' most programs just get dragged fron the source CD disk or disk image to wherever the user likes to have the program and then the program runs. That simplicity has not yet dawned on Linux programmers. Even MS office for the Mac is a simple drag and drop operation from the original CD disk. For the installation of hardware support there may be need for a special installer program, since the hardware drivers have to be located in special places where the system can find and access them. I just recently got a new laser printer. The whole installation thereof was just a single mouse click and the entering of a system admin password. Until ALL flavors of Linux are uniformly simple like this, the whole article this thread is based on is just a huge pile of sour grapes. The Linux camp has to agree on ONE SINGLE version that all hardware makers can support and that is SIMPLE to use for ordinary users. Until that day comes, Linux will remain a wonderful OS for nerds only.

Re:Not Forever

[Bogtha]

httpd logs are inaccurate to the point of being nonsense. You might as well guess. The problems are both technical (httpd logs simply can't give data that is accurate or any way of determining how inaccurate it is) and non-technical (the demographics of a web developer site are not representative of the average user).

This is true when it shows something popular (e.g. rise in Firefox use) and something unpopular (no rise in Linux use). Ignore the people crowing about httpd logs, they don't know what they are talking about. The only way to determine that kind of information is with a proper survey.

Re:Not Forever

[1u3hr]

never said that. I said that Microsoft will win the OS war if all applications are completely web-based. There is no compelling reason to explore alternatives to Windows if all you need is a dumb terminal (fed by WinCE) to access the internet.

If all you need is a web appliance, there will be lots of cheaper alternatives to MS. Saving $50 will be a compelling reason for many if you're buying a web terminal in WalMart for your kitchen.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Dad is that you?

How many times do I have to ask you not to post on slashdot. You'll embarass me again!

Re:Not Forever

[sumdumass]

Sure they would still stall. It would be leverage to get better pricing form MS.

The problem is that there are no "acurate" number on plain users using linux as a desktop. Most server applications require specific software wich have thier own dependencies and issues. Unless Dell or HP (IBM doesn't count) starts selling server solutions like a linux webserver or application server or Setupfor your apps requirments systems, it won't change much. Dell has the resources to basicaly come out with thier own distro and customize it to use Dell fee based webservices but they won't because MS would take discounts away and they would have to buy OEM software at regular OEM prices Just like they won't support AMD processors and lose thier intel dicounted prices.

Another problem is that the (most) linux based PCs being sold are all low end low cost machine unless specificaly spec'd out for some purpose. Walmart sold cheap linux computer who for some were thier first computers and even if windows was installed, the user would have had a bad experience. Try upgrading a $300 Emachine and you get the idea. Mayeb If some manufactuer just used quality parts, any distro could install with the greatest of ease and it wouldn't be a problem. As it is now, it doesn't look like they will target decent computers with decent parts for linux, just low cost machines. Maybe it is the low end results making them not want to commit but i think it would be mor eto the discounts they get form other vendors liek MS

Re:Not Forever

[sumdumass]

Most webservices like what you are describing run form inside a network and usualy not across the internet. While it is possible, i doubt it would be sustanable in the near future.

As for speeding up the conection or webservice, They could preship alot of the data ona small hardrive and use a boot rom to triger the loading of it. This couls also work simular to java were the applet runs localy but can access data reletivly fast form other points. Games would be a stumbling block though. Unless you could create some virtual enviroment were a game could play from a CD simular to how it does on a console. Maybe with ROM packages that would act liek a light operating system outside the webserver thinclient.

Re:Not Forever

[richlv]

you should differentiate between corporate desktops and home desktops in that case.

statement "not ready for desktop" is somewhat too broad. unless you are game developer, there is no need (from employers viewpoint ;) ) to run games on your workstation, right ?

additionally, there are people who don't play other games than lines/patience/shisensho. so, for them desktop is covered, too.

gamers - now that is a different cathegory. why do we hear that much about this ? because people who tend to play games a lot are more active, they are louder. i would say most people who are satisfied with a couple of simple games have no idea what slashdot is, so they are not expressing their opinion here.

and, i would choose somewhat different wording. there are games that have been released for linux.
"linux is ready for gaming desktop, but is not accepted yet".
will it come ? i think, yes.
when ? not soon.

Re:Not Forever

[Elminst]

On Windows, you usually have to give the full path, also a lot of programs need to be in the path (e.g. Visual Studio.Net wants at least 3 of its directories in the path, all of which start with C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio.Net 2003), and of course (at least on Win2k) the size of an environment variable is limited...

No...
On Windows you click Start, click Programs, then click your application. And it runs.
You don't have to do anything with paths, directories, or environment variables, no typing.
You click a couple times, it runs.
Until you can do this on Linux with 99.999% of programs like you can on Windows, you lose this argument.

Re:Not Forever

[sumdumass]

Actualy linuux can and does replace window sin alot of situations. It isn't the people who know windows that it works best for ti is the people who just don't know computers.

When someone buy a dell or hp they don't have to install anything. They turn it on and a setup screen apears, after figuring out a few clicks, wallah a computer works. Magicaly, these users don't know much about computers. They can easily use a linux desktop just like a windows. Installing stuff doesn't matter to them because thay don't. They have other install it for them or call techsupport and have them walk thru on the phone. Most internet conectiosn are DHCP wich elim inates alot of hass in both windows and linux. Email is set up about the same in both.

Are we seeing a trend here? Most people just want thier computrers to work and do what they ask of it. With preinstalled OSes and the normal service chanels this would allow windows to be replaced by linux. You would have the gamers who wouldn't be happy with it. The Windows tech who click enough buttons untill it eventualy works right wouldn't be happy with it. The person who insist on running spyware to get Bargains sent directly to your desktop wouldn't be happy with it. the majority of other people who are pissed about spyware and virus would be just fine on it. Going from windows to linux is about as easy as going from win98 to XP to the majority of users. They don't do all tht installing software or uopdating drivers regularly. They don't buy new hardware and if they did, they pay the store to install it. They pay for this because after the tech convinced them it was thier fault the printer didn't install corectly and screwed somethgin up to the point the restore disk was pulled out the last time they tried something, it is easier to pay someone upfront.

Re:Not Forever

[pAnkRat]

Don't go about raving about paying for a so called "free" OS.
Parent is right, it's free as in speech, not beer.

But,
ubuntu linux ships a cd for Free (as in beer) to anywhere you like.
https://shipit.ubuntu.com/
It has a nice cardboard sleeve, and contains 2 cd's.
One is a live cd, to test it.
The other is the Install cd.
It furthers explains why ubuntu is free, and what free means.

Ubuntu is my favorite distro for a desktoplinux for "beginners".

I use stock Debian-SARGE myself.

Re:Not Forever

[q.kontinuum]

What compelling need is there for someone to relearn how to use a computer (ala Linux) if they already know how to navigate the web with their Windows-enabled box?

1. There is nothing to learn about Linux when you run it as a terminal only. The Admin (on a company intranet) has to configure it once for all desktops, and the Items will look like in windows. (Or the Computer will directly start the web browser on boot.) For Home-PCs it is also simple to build a Knoppix-like CD (with automatic installer) that will start the Browser on boot time. This argument is mood.

2. 40+Dollars per workplace might be a compelling reason. Kind regards q.kontinuum

Re:Not Forever

[hdparm]

Over last few months I have yumed or manually installed insane amount of apps on FC4. Guess what - if app is GUI based, shortcut is placed in both (KDE and Gnome) menus in 99.9999999999% of the cases. Which is beside the point - every bloody application that has large user base in a Windows world would have at least one and often two more than capable alternatives for the LInux desktop. 100% of them install flawlessly and 100% of them have easy to find shortcuts.

J. Terpstra has identified the problem properly - it's not apps that stop addoption, it's corrupted hardware manufacturers and retailers.

Re:Not Forever

[waferhead]

Not really on-topic, but Mandriva 2006 ftp install worked great.

MythTv from THACs works great as well, BUT you need the kernel from 2005LE (std or 2.6.8-11mm) if you are using IVTV. Patching it for Kat is required if you want to play with it (inotify support)

Aside from that, I feel the articles were a little to "tin foil hat" ish, but very likely on target.
(aside from the silly fellow who didn't borrow his buddies install discs for 10, at least to try them)

A Knoppix CD is a WONDERFUL tool to go shopping with for Linux compatible hardware...

And IIRC ALL the major distros have a HCL, SUSE, RH, Mandriva etc. It's really not hard.

Re:Not Forever

[sbryant]

chgros wrote:

Funny, for me one of the advantages of linux is that every executable is in /usr/bin (or /usr/local/bin), so when I want to run something I just type the command name.

Elminst wrote:

On Windows you click Start, click Programs, then click your application. [...] Until you can do this on Linux with 99.999% of programs like you can on Windows, you lose this argument.

Firstly, programs under Unix-style operating systems are not limited to the two directories you mentioned. There are, of course, /bin and /usr/X11R6/bin, but a number of larger packages are likely to get installed under /opt. This is distribution dependent, and the /opt/foo/bin directories may or may not be included in $PATH automatically - SuSE adds them (KDE and GNOME at least), which means that those that like to type in program names are happy... but not everyone likes to.

The second point is quite valid, and now that both KDE and GNOME use a common .desktop format, there's no reason why applications should not appear under the programs menu. Not only that, but you don't even need to know which desktop software is installed or in use - you just drop the .desktop file into a common directory; on SuSE, this is /usr/share/applications, but this sort of thing is documented on freedesktop.org.

-- Steve

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Common, regardless of the origins of Unix, you are failing to recognise that Unix was born in IT departments/schools etc, these people are the mass of *nix users!

We need *nix OS usage in other disciplines and even secondary school.

Re:Not Forever

[sbryant]

On a 'precious Mac' most programs just get dragged fron the source CD disk or disk image to wherever the user likes to have the program and then the program runs. That simplicity has not yet dawned on Linux programmers.

So, you haven't heard of Klik yet, then? It does exactly that - whole application in a single file; run it from whereever (zero installation?), uninstall by deleting the file. This one file can then be used on multiple distributions, and has no dependencies!

-- Steve

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

I completely understand that Linux's poor support for new hardware has everything to do with manufacturers' lack of Linux support. However, that certainly doesn't change the OS itself, and no Linux distro operates anywhere near as smoothly and intuitively as Windows. The thing that makes Windows extremely inviting is the fact that you don't need to touch a command prompt to get the functionality that you're looking for.
By the way, don't think for a second that I don't use open-source software. I use plenty of it on my Windows installation, namely 7-Zip, FileZilla, Firefox, The GIMP, and OpenOffice. However, the main problem with open-source software still remains; it simply isn't as user-friendly as most commercial software (or even some freeware). Sure, that has plenty to do with the fact that people are too used to one thing to even want to think of using something else. In my case, I only use The GIMP for its superior compression when using PNG files. Otherwise, I use Photoshop 7, because it's much more intelligently-designed from a UI perspective.
And the point of the article is to accuse the evil Bill Gates of attempting to destroy Linux's growth. Personally, I don't feel that he even needs to consider Linux a threat at the moment; the only true competition is Mac OS X, which actually has a pretty decent market share. Linux is more for people who don't want to purchase/pirate a Windows installation and who will likely never tailor their computer's software to their liking (unless they actually want to learn to do so).

Re: Not Forever

[ajs318]

Tried Opera once. Wanted to patch it. Didn't have the source. Went back to Konqueror. Happy with Konqueror. Ting! Next, please.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

(My nick is mahounoai, but I forgot the password :p)

I'm a high school senior, so this year I'm looking for a versatile OS for what college is going to demand. I battled with PC-BSD, Suse, Red Hat, Fedora, and *my favorite* Ubuntu, but in all cases, there were compatibility conerns and difficulties (such as the infrequent inaccessibility to the backports servers for the ubuntu repositories) I am involved in Java programming; I intend to major in computer science or software engineering.

Can anyone suggest to me a linux that will replace my windows? Right now my best plan is a dual-boot. Please email me at mahounoai@gmail.com if you have suggestions. Thanks!

Re: Not Forever

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, exactly. I still test Win32 stuff on an old Win98 laptop and work around any brokenness, but for proper commercial development 3.2% doesn't even justify an extra machine in the test lab and the time taken to run the tests.

Which is very bad for Linux and MacOS, since supporting them requires that plus a portable class library for the UI, plus finding programmers who can use that library rather than MFC. And even then the applications look a bit rough when you run them on XP.

Re:Not Forever

[lucas teh geek]

linux is not the solution, it is mearly one of many; none of which involve windows of course :)

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is mood.
its moot damnit

Re:Not Forever

[AlexMax2742]

Wrong - installation of Linux is easier than Windows PROVIDED the hardware is supported - which is the point of the article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't support for most common pieces of hardware made easy because the drivers for 99% of the stuff people use built into the kernel? Or, at the very least, loaded in a module that is in most stock systems loaded by default. I ask this because getting sound to work in Linux for me was as easy as apt-get install alsa. Which is awesome, as long as it's supported already and opensource.

However, what about something that doesn't have built-in support or isn't already included with distros?

This is how I installed the drivers for my nVidia card in Windows XP.
1. I put in the CD -OR- I downloaded the latest drivers from the nvidia website and double clicked the installer.
2. I hit next a few times.
3. Reboot, and it's done!

This is how you are supposed to install your linux drivers. Now, it's been a while since I did it the hard way, as I now do things the Debian way, which is equally as unintuitive and required it's own HOWTO, but here goes...
1. I downloaded the latest drivers from the nvidia website.
2a. As root, run the shell script.
2b. Unless I built my own kernel, you're probably missing your kernel header files. I then go build my own custom kernel or figure out how to obtain the headers for my pre-built kernel, THEN run the shell script.
3. As root, manually edit my xorg.conf file to load the required modules (glx and something else) and not load dri, plus change the little driver thingy from "vesa" to "nvidia" 4. Kill and restart X with Ctrl-Alt-Backspace.

WHAT THE FUCK!? This isn't anywhere NEAR intuitive. Of course, you could also do things the debian way and use module assistant and dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg and make sure your current user is added to the video group. Big deal, I didn't even know that module assistant existed or what it was for before trying to install my nvidia drivers.

Now, which set of directions do you think an end user would rather go through?

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux camp has to agree on ONE SINGLE version that all hardware makers can support and that is SIMPLE to use for ordinary users. Until that day comes, Linux will remain a wonderful OS for nerds only.

Yeah right, take away my freedom of choice.

This "one size fits all" paradigm of the Windows world is one of its main disadvantages. I decide which distro best fits my needs, which window manager or desktop environment I use, which kernel version is installed and so on, and not somebody who wants to create a new "Standard Linux".

Most of the time it would be sufficient support from hardware vendors if they would just publish complete specifications of their hardware and its programming interface.

Re:Not Forever

[Jesus_666]

indows smooth an intuitive? Not for me. Note that "intuitive" just means "works like I expect it to". If you have learned to use computers with Windows, you find the Windows interface intuitive, because that's what you expect a computer to be like. I have learned to use computers with MS-DOS, where (from a gamer's perspective) Windows was a largely unnecessary graphical shell that just wasted precious memory. I find that using text mode to interact with the filesystem is more intuitive and inviting than using some graphical representation that only allows a few operations. Someone who has grown up without a command line would think that it's weird to do anything system-related with the keyboard.
Another example: I appreciate the way Linux handles settings - global settings reside in text files in /etc while local settings reside in text files in ~/.appname. That makes settings easily portable and easy to maintain. Windows, OTOH, has settings thrown all over the place with most apps storing their stuff somewhere in the registry where it's hard to locate. It was confusing when I migrated from MS-DOS to Win95 and it's still irritating. But someone who has grown up tweaking HKCU and HKLM will probably be confused by the fact that Linux apps don't store their settings in one common place.

The only operating system that really does work intuitively (for someone who's used to work with other OSes) is OS X. Every other OS has it's own little weirdnesses that ultimetely make it hard to use until you have properly learned it. (Note: OS X has those too, but most of the time the interface easily beats everything else without even trying.)
Linux has a relatively clean design and a powerful text shell that allows someone with a text-mode background to work with the file system much more effectively than an icon wrangler could. The downside is that someone who isn't used to do work without the mouse will be confused. Also, it's extremely tweakable, which can be both an upside and a downside.
Windows is the most common OS, so most people are somewhat familiar with it. But it tends to develop strange behavior after a while and tweaking it is horribly complicated and clunky. Also, installing software is much more complicated than doing so on OS X or a modern Linux distro.
OS X has the best interface out of the three - it looks extremely good, is easy to learn and almost always does exactly what you expect it to. Also, installing software is literally as easy as double-clicking a file and dragging an icon. However, it's not as tweakable as Linux.

Every OS has it's own design philosophy and every OS was designed to be intuitive - just for differend people. Linux was designed to be intuitive for people who don't necessarily need a graphical shell. Windows was designed to be intuitive for people who don't want to care about how their system works. OS X was designed to be intuitive for both text mode geeks and graphical mode users (it inherited geek intuitivity when it became a Unix). But most importantly, every OS is designed to be intuitive for it's users. When someone who has used an OS for a long time looks a another one it's bound to be unintuitive, especially if the second OS is based on a different philosophy than "yours" and you have never seen any OS besides "yours" before.

Re:Not Forever

[acariquara]

Finding and installing Windows drivers for most video cards is quite simply, however, as it merely involves going to the proper Web site or simply putting the included CD-ROM into your computer and having the setup start automatically.

And if you lose/scratch/damage the CD, your snazzy video card is a glorified paperweight.

It happened to me more than once. Some weird hardware eg a webcam that lights up six leds when it's dark - does not list any URL in the box or manuals, so no, I cannot download drivers from the Internet. Software came in a CD-ROM, and failed to install properly on Windows - LEDs only would work in "auto" mode, the radio-list with On/Off/Auto is enabled but does no difference, LEDs still turn on when ambient light fades.

I have to face the camera to a wall to work at night. Or put up with six ultrabright whiteLEDs burning my retina, even when I'm not using the damn camera.

Re:Not Forever

[gnu-generation-one]

People who want to use Linux shouldn't buy a video or wireless card that came out last week, it's that simple.

Didn't Toms Hardware refuse to review too-new graphics cards a while ago, on the basis that the Windows drivers for them were buggy and unstable until several months after release?

Re:Not Forever

[Ambassador Kosh]

Windows is usually easy to install video drivers for but sometimes it suck beyond the ability to describe. I have Windows 2000 on a box that has an X850 and a radeon 9200 in it. In order to update a video driver you have to uninstall the old one first. However for some reason even when I tell both cards to use the vga driver before I reboot it won't come up. The display just won't initialize. I have then tried using the safe mode system to enable vga mode that way and it also won't work. In order for the system to bring one of the video devices back up I have to physically remove one of the video cards from the system and then I can get a gui and update the video driver. Then I can put the other card back in and the system will work.

I have to do the same process when installing windows on the box. I can have only one video card in the box or I can't get a gui to come up. Under linux the whole thing just worked transparently. I run a quad head setup and I did have to setup an x.org config file, well actually it detected just about everything but I had to change the arrangement of the heads. However I can update the driver by just updating x.org and I don't have to screw with removing a card physically from the box to get things to work again.

Sure windows can normally work fairly well but if you want to see some truly screwed up problems try putting it in a strange hardware config. Try putting a whole bunch of video cards in a box, multiple sound cards etc.

For my hardware setufp and what I do for work linux is vastly easier for me to get working and keep working.

Also before you blame ATI for the problem remember the problem only occurs when there is NO ATI software installed, once I get their software installed it all works. I have also run into the same issues with nvidia, matrox etc. It is a windows problem.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you think for a second that maybe this guy isnt providing services and instead is trying to do something as simple as install video card drivers? Of course you Linux users are doing to do great getting more people to use your OS by insulting them. Keep it up.

Re:Not Forever

[manno]

I know this is a late reply, but if I had mod points I'd send one your way just for using "mortified" in a post. I know of only one other person that uses that word, and it reminded me of them. Kudos.

-manno

Re:Not Forever

[arkanes]

I'm expecting its interface to make as much sense as Windows' interface.

All else aside, this is where you went wrong. The Windows interface *doesn't* make sense, unless you already know it. You're confused and distracted by something unfamiliar when you want it to work like Windows - except you don't, because you don't *have* a Xandros Network on Windows.

People hold "the Linux desktop" to a far higher standard than they do Windows. I used Ubuntu at home and Windows at work, and I am *constantly* frustrated by crap Windows does stupidly. Printing to my network printer locks the desktop until its done spooling. I have to reboot every 3 days because of patches corporate IT pushes to me. I had to reboot twice after installing Visio - even when I explicitly didn't install any of the shared components, so I shouldn't have worried about other Office apps being open. Accessing shared drives locks the desktop when theres a network hiccup.

Installing the nvidia drivers on Linux is only very slightly more difficult than installing them on Windows, assuming that your distro doesn't package them for you - on Ubuntu, it's far easier.

The fact is, the Linux desktop experience is generally equal to the Windows one - Windows is better in some ways (it's easier to get SMB file sharing working), Linux better in others (SMB performance is far superior once it's up). The Linux desktop experience is certainly *much* better than many previous versions of Windows - better than Win95 in essentially every way, for example. And you can't reasonably argue that Win95 'wasn't ready for the desktop'.

Re:Not Forever

[manno]

I doubt you'll read this, it's a late post I know, but if you do I'd appreciate a reply.

You're misinterpreting
"Poor driver support is preventing Linux uptake."

as
"Linux sucks because it has poor driver support."

I admit it's usualy not stated this clearly, but when the topic is Linux uptake and someone says
"the problem with Linux is poor XXX support"

it's understood that "Linux" means "Linux adoption"

I see it a lot here, and I hope you realize that what he's saying is absolutely correct. I love the ideals behind open source, and I use a ton of Open Source software OO.o, Gostscript & PDFCreator, OpenVPN, UltraVNC, ect. And because of my admittedly stellar experiences with each and every one of those programs I've tried to switch to an Open Source OS. I've installed, and uninstalled Linux at least 20 times, and getting the system to a state I'm comfortable with is nie impossible. I understand that it's not Linux's fault that Ati, and nVidia wont open source their drivers. I realize that Broadcom is a bunch of a-holes, and won't release Linux drivers so I will forever have to use NDIS wrapper to get my wireless card to work on my m6805. Myself and a good number of people here on /. understand that yes it's not a problem with Linux, when drivers don't work/aren't available.

You have to concede that regardless of who's fault it is, the fact that I as a user, can't grab a wireless card, video card, ect. off the shelf from my local CompUSA slap it in my PC, stick plop in the install disk, and just in sit back and wait a few minutes for the install to complete, as I would on any Windows box, is a hindrance to Linux UPTAKE, though not an indication of a problem with Linux itself.

To summarize, when we're talking about Linux adoption, and a poster says.
"the problem with Linux is poor XXX support"

Doesn't mean they don't realize that it's really a problem with vendors themselves, and that Linux as an OS is a success. It means that.
"the problem with Linux adoption is poor XXX support"

This is slashdot, one of the nice things about this community is that for the most part it can be assumed that the person you're replying to is intelligent. Pretending they're not, and telling them something they're already aware of is a waste of time and frustrating. I like it when I get replies to posts, it's frustrating however when the reply is intelligent well thought out, and is of no interest to me because I have to nit-pick semantics. You're not at a help-desk here, assume intelligence.

-manno

Re:Not Forever

[arminw]

.....whole application in a single file.....

Great beginning! I have never heard of that being done with Linux, but it is obviously possible. So why are not most if not all Linux apps packaged this way? At the top of the linked site is the phrase; "There are currently 3 distributions". That is the biggest trouble with Linux. If a user happens to have one of the other than those 3, who knows how many distributions he/she is out of luck right then and there. A non-geek Linux user might not even know which particular flavor and version he's got. With both Mac and Windows there is ONE system respectively and all a user has to read on the software box is that the program will work on his OS. Until Linux gets that way also, so that Linux is Linux is Linux everywhere exactly the SAME on all x86 computers no matter who makes the box, Linux will always be a wonderful, flexible, powerful, reliable, reasonbly secure OS for geeks only. Joe or Jane user want to walk out of Circuit City or wherever and have a WORKING computer and be able to simply install the software and joystick they bought along with it for their kids. That's what they get EVERY time with a Mac and usually also with Windows.

Re:Not Forever

[quanticle]

you should differentiate between corporate desktops and home desktops in that case.

True enough. I was talking about the consumer market. As the adoption rate among servers shows, Linux is already well accepted among corporate buyers.

there are games that have been released for linux.

That's why I said simultaneous releases. While games have been ported to Linux, there aren't very many games released simultaneously for Windows and Linux.

gamers - now that is a different cathegory. why do we hear that much about this ? because people who tend to play games a lot are more active, they are louder.

That's true. And its precisely because gamers are vocal and active that Linux should actively seek to woo them. Games have driven CPU and graphics technology for at least the past 5 years. If Linux could gain the support of a few major game studios, the backing would make it much easier for Linux to access the consumer market.

Re:Not Forever

[lpcustom]

The goal of Linux and OSS isn't to snuff out competition or "replace" something. It's goal is to provide quality "alternative" software that's freely available to anyone that wants to use it. In reality, Linux isn't competing. An important reason for this is that it's not looking for market share. Red Hat may be looking for market share. Suse may be looking for market share. They are commercial Linux distros. There are very few commercial distros as compared to freely available distros of equal quality. Yet, most people base their opinions about Linux on these commercial distros. I've never understood that. IMO most of the commercial distros are not good examples of Linux as a whole. The really great distros are the ones that are totally free.

Re:Not Forever

[rufty_tufty]

I think you've got the same problem I had recently.
I would pick a distro and be very happy with it and everything it did. I'd then want to do something else the distro didn't do and ask how to do it.
I'd then be directed on the very intimidating experiences you describe. Is that correct that you're trying to install things from outside the distro's main route for installing new features and running into trouble?

Nowadays I have my Linux desktop which runs a standard distro and little else. Until the distro supports it I don't use feature X. If there is a real reason i have to use feature X I thank geekdom I'm not running windows which wouldn't give me this choice and pull in a solution from outside the distro and all the headaches that go with it.

Yes the fragmentation is a massive issue, but I knwo the thing that limits me getting Linux onto my Dad's computer is 3 things:
* He wants to be able to install things he finds on the web
* he likes his web cam (which isn't supported currently)
* His digital camera isn't supported

So if you stick to a single distro and the only things that offers then the only gaps I can see are better integration of Wine and better driver support.

Re:Not Forever

[dwandy]

if only you actually could save money w/o m$.

Re:Not Forever

[q.kontinuum]

its moot damnit

You're a bit agressive, bad moot today? ;)

Re:Not Forever

[dwandy]

When someone buy a dell or hp they don't have to install anything. They turn it on and a setup screen apears, after figuring out a few clicks, wallah a computer works. Magicaly, these users don't know much about computers...
...Most people just want thier computrers to work and do what they ask of it.

I agree 100%. The real problem with Linux is the complexity. WinXX users just click icons. The very little bit of configuration necessary is already cause for large help desk groups and companies.

Going from windows to linux is about as easy as going from win98 to XP to the majority of users.

More like trading in their Chevy for a 747.
The car has three input devices (steering wheel, coupl'a pedals and a shift of some sort), and two instruments to monitor: speed and gas. The 747 on the other hand has dozens of buttons, levers, controls, guages and readouts.
Learning to manipulate the Chevy is accomplished (to varying degrees of success) by most every 16-year old in only 5 1-hr lessons. Qualifying to fly a 747 takes hundreds of hours...

This isn't a bash on Linux -- I think that most of us here understand that there is an inverse relationship between power & complexity.
The real trick (imho) for Linux is to on one hand remain as powerful as it is for those that want it, while providing the ease-of-use/defaults/automation for those that just want to steer, accelerate and stop ...

Re:Not Forever

[xpyr]

The push for Linux will only come from the education market. When more children grow up in a UNIX-based world, then their preference will drive their purchase. It worked for Apple and Microsoft.

Ah no. In the education market here, well high school, we were pushed apple, and u know what all the bright ones chose that knew alot about computers, microsoft. Including me. Being pushed onto a platform doesn't necessarily mean they will like it and use it.

Right now I equate linux distro to the embedded OS market. Sure all the apps work great on it that are included and well integrated. But you can't have one app work on all distros easily along with it being able to be removed easily. Some work has come along to fix that, but it still hasn't been included in a major distro. Once every distro includes that, then distro lockin essiantially ends which wouldn't be good for some distro makers like redhat. Because then you can say install a free distro, get all the features of the distro you'd have to pay for which would include support, and the market for buying distro's goes away.

Personally I think what apple does in respect of asking the user for the admin user name and password everytime I wanna do an administrative function, but otherwise staying out of the way when I don't need to, is great. And not just in the command line but in the gui as well. I know there is one linux distro that does this, and I hope more pick it up. It's nice and user friendly I find.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? I have just visited the Mandriva website. I clicked the hyperlink labelled *Downloads*, the page loaded, I looked to the left of the screen and amazingly I saw links to download Mandriva Linux.

If you consider that is "under-handed" you are either a genetically enhanced Microsoftie or your current employer is Microsoft and you are spreading LUD (Lies, Uncertainty and Doubt - not quite FUD,no Fear).

Re:Not Forever

[1u3hr]

if only you actually could save money w/o m$.

We're talking about a web appliance/thin client/WebTV kind of thing, not a current PC.

Re: Not Forever

[Drishmung]

What, all of them? I would have thought that most would be using the default browser, which is Safari. Hence my surprise that Safari does not show up at all, if 3% of the hits are identified as from Macs.

Re:Not Forever

[Master of Transhuman]

Probably. Were they referring to the drivers that come with Windows or the ones supplied by the manufacturer?

I wouldn't be surprised if either of them were to blame. Most likely the manufacturer drivers would be buggy because they were in a rush to get the hardware to market and shortchanged the software development (despite not being rocket science). And Windows drivers have a long history of being buggy - even one of Microsoft's executives admitted that during the monopoly trial as I recall.

Besides, any Linux geek who buys the latest stuff will end up writing the drivers himself since he wants to use the latest stuff. That benefits everybody (provided he has some clue what he's doing) including the average user. At least it helps until the manufacturer produces a driver or somebody else with more competence does so. An entire project might be established around certain classes of drivers, such as those for winmodems, TV cards, and the like. It doesn't take long to get some sort of driver to appear for most hardware.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if problems with Linux drivers were mostly for hardware that ISN'T selling well either because it's too high end, too expensive, or doesn't work well in any event. Weed out those drivers and compare to the availability of drivers with more common hardware and I suspect the problem is overblown.

Re:Not Forever

[Master of Transhuman]

Actually, I don't have to concede anything like that.

"I've installed, and uninstalled Linux at least 20 times, and getting the system to a state I'm comfortable with is nie impossible."

Since millions of others have done it, including a lot of non-geeks, obviously you have a problem - either with your hardware or your expectations or your previous OS experience (I won't suggest anything more damaging to your reputation.) I've read the stories of a lot of people who have had problems - most of them were using hardware that could only be called "baroque".

Secondly, Linux adoption has absolutely NOTHING to do with drivers. I seriously doubt that those people who have NOT tried Linux are doing so because of hardware problems because THEY DON'T KNOW about any hardware problems (most have never heard of Linux itself). I also seriously doubt that any significant number of those people who HAVE tried Linux (possibly leaving out laptop users where there are problems due to the extremely proprietary nature of most laptop hardware) - and rejected it - have rejected it because of hardware problems. More likely it's been because of inability to cope with the differences from Windows (which is absolutely not Linux's fault, it's an inability to learn by the user.)

Linux adoption has nothing whatever to do with hardware support. Linux runs on FAR more hardware than Windows will ever do - and I'm talking entire architectures here, not just specific PC hardware.

Certainly SOME people will install Linux and find out their wireless card doesn't work or the sound chip was not detected, or some such, and reject it. Nobody is saying that doesn't happen and probably with some frequency.

But it's a long way from that to PROVING that "Linux has poor hardware support" and even FURTHER away from proving that this has anything significant to do with OVERALL Linux adoption by end users.

As I've said repeatedly, the PRIMARY cause of slow Linux adoption by end users (as opposed to corporations) is a combination of IGNORANCE and INERTIA - nothing more.

Assume intelligence at /.?

You must be new here.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the video card makers to release specifications, or get them to release their binary drivers under a free license, and I'll promise you hassle-free installation.

BTW, while most people assume every piece of hardware just works with Windows, I could show you a tape streamer that doesn't. But it works like a charm with Linux and required *zero* installation effort because it's a standard SCSI device. Always check if something is supported by your OS, whichever it is, before you buy.

Re:Not Forever

[manno]

All right... I was trying to be polite, perhaps have an open and honest debate, I was curious as to what your opinion was, but I guess you're not interested in keeping this above the bar so... we should probably leave it at this:

We obviously both believe the other is wrong, we also appear to have irreconcilable differences regarding the definition/view of what hardware support is, and what a desktop OS should be. It's not going anywhere and is just going to be a waste of both your time, and mine. So in the interest of civility we should drop this. Unfortunatly we will both walk away without a better understanding the others point of view. Our loss.

Have a good one,
-manno

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

And how would this situation be any different with a Linux distro? Besides, is it really that hard to Google something along the lines of [brand name] [model number] drivers and find the drivers in seconds?

Re:Not Forever

[acariquara]

With a Linux distro chances are that your peripheral would be supported out-of-the-box, at least partially. With a graphics card, it would probably work without 3d. With Windows, you are lucky to get anything other than 640x480 at 16 colors.

How difficult? No brand name. No model number. Just a damn camera. Oh yes, the box says "Infrared Web Cam". No manufacturer. No markings. CD says PC-CAM 168. Already tried that - nothing useful. Got some drivers that crashed the whole system.

Re:Not Forever

[sumdumass]

yeh, I'm aware of that. My post wasn/t actualy meant to be a "linux is winning the battle" as much as it was a reply to the "My dad can beat your dad up syndrome".

Linux in any flavor can just about be used completly trouble free once it is set up corectly on reliably good hardware. I get so frustrate when i hear linux isn't ready for the desktop from people who usualy cannot administrate thier own machine. Linux is just fine for the majority of people out there eho don't reload thier computer every 6 months becaue they screwed a setting up or got the i love you virus after thinking someone actualy cared. Not every one buys new hardware every 6 months or has to have the latest games. Most people don't do much more then what thier computer came with. Maybe the thing that frustrates some people the most is that you cannot realy click your way out of trouble. But then again you cannot click your way into as much trouble using linux as easily as you can windows either.

The real thing lacking for it is a large vendor instal support. Maybe a few things could be done differently but then alot of things in windows could too. Linux isn't competing for the desktop as some would like to think but it is capable of supporting a good majority of desktop users. Maybe when these desktop users not needing the help of others as much might be what scaring so many people.

Re:Not Forever

[kubevubin]

Actually, with Windows XP, you'll typically get at least a maximum of 1024x768 at 256 colors, usually at least High Color, though. And why in God's name would you purchase such a generic Web cam, then blame Windows for what was obviously the manufacturer's fault?

Re:Not Forever

[acariquara]

With Linux/OSS I could get down and fix the damn drivers, that's why.

Re:Not Forever

[saskboy]

I'm kinda mortified that you know only one other person who uses that word. I'm rarely mortified, because mortification is a state I like to avoid, but sometimes I manage to achieve that state of horrification.

Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[lightspawn]

This is what happens when joe sixpack (or, in this case, sixsubs) tries to use Linux. Check out the "Linux" entry near the bottom of the page.

Warning: Before visiting the link, disable image loading. Trust me.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Vario]

Instead of pasting your Q3-installation-is-so-hard troll into almost every linux article maybe you could look at the state of installations in current distributions.

After reading about port knocking I did a quick search on gentoo.org for example and an "emerge knock" was all I had to do to download, compile and install the port knocking daemon onto my firewall. A few days ago Ubuntu released a new version and updating was easy and simple. Basically a "apt-get update", "apt-get dist-upgrade" and after two hours about 600 software packages where updated without a flaw.

Windows Update is nice but try to update your whole system automatically in two hours with XP, Office, Browser, Games, IDEs, SDKs,...

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[dustinc20]

AHHHHHH! MY EYES!!!! I liked the comment how he doesn't have time to compile code, yet he has enough time to rant about how he doesn't have enough time..

p.s. that was just mean, you know most of use won't turn off images!

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Toba82]

Like somebody in this discussion already said, it's the state of software installation which is holding Linux back. Drivers and user software installers both vary from one-click-executables, to RPM's, to DEB's, to plain old source with no makefile. What we need for Linux to work for Joe Sixpack is a unified installer system that works on most distros and only requires a few clicks.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

shit man compile most computer users are morons and would go oh shit wtf now now. Same with typing all these commands. there all so used to there shiny double click to inste exe's

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[colenski]

I don't know if that dude is for real or if his site is carefully crafted troll (some of his comments seem TOO stupid) but, damn, that 'guy' must DIE. What a useless piece of shit.

If he IS for real, I feel sorry for his parents and anyone that is forced to physically be in his presence.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

I't's terrific to finally see some authoritative comments posted regarding the lack of Linux desktop adoption. In fact, there's so much wisdom crammed into the linked page it would be criminal not to at least share some blog first lines:

Last night I sneaked out of the house and went to Carbones for a Chicken Finger Sub, Hot, Oil, Mayo, No Onion and 10 Breadsticks.

This is the end......Of blog comments. I am tired of reading hatespeech whenever I check my mail. All I get is "Bitchtits" that, "Pedophile" this.

My parents are so gay.

So I went back to work today. I am glad I am back to work because it gets me out of the house and away from my parents.

So this morning, my dad woke me up.

Wow my dad is dumb.

So today I went out and got me a chicken finger sub, hot, oil, mayo, onion, blue cheese.

I finally seen this movie today.

I just got back from having a round of food at lovejoy pizzeria, the freaks I seen out today will make your head spin.

Today is Monday July 26th, 2004. I have gotten my Gamecube today.

I am fucking tired of going to check my mail and finding 20 messages telling me my blog is being commented on.

No more convincing required here.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[BeBoxer]

This is easier said than done. There already are easy to use installation systems which require only a few clicks. Apt with the Synaptic front end certainly meets this requirement. But how do you get rid of the installers (or lack therof) on other distro's? That's what you are really asking for. Not for an easy to use installer, but for the other ones to go away. How do you get rid of Gentoo and Slackware? Or the BSD ports? Or Fink? In many respects, the package management defines the distribution. That's certainly the case with Gentoo. So should Gentoo just close shop? What we need is for Joe Sixpack to know that if he wants to try Linux he should use Ubuntu (or Linspire, or FC, or whatever) and should not try to use Slackware, or Gentoo, or whatever.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[ettlz]

But Joe Sixpack should not be installing an operating system. That requires nous.

Come to think of it, this guy shouldn't really be allowed free movement of his arms, either.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Toba82]

Yes, I suppose you could say that. The main problem is the fragmented effort to package software - no single repository has it all.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[QCompson]

Please, please tell me this guy is a joke. Please tell me he's not real!

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

"forced to physically be in his presence."

As opposed to what? Televised? Psychic?

You're a fucking moron, with delusions of intelligence.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[colenski]

Hey, excellent, I got the guy to reply!

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Clockwurk]

hahahahaha

He has some real gems on that site:
This morning I did the Sub at 3 AM thing yet again. Parents went to the casino, I ordered a chicken finger sub, hot, oil, mayo, no onion and a box of fries. Powered those down in record time. The only thing is is that when you order from Partners Bar, they have to use the big fucking mini van with the big ass bright sign. I want to order more discretely. I am like a drug addict, only with food, so I consider the pizza guy to be like a drug dealer. I need to keep eating. I need to keep adding to my He-Hooters.

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[irablum]

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

I was thinking about this and I finally came to the conclusion that its bullshit. In 1977, 45,000 personal computers were sold. By 2002, One Billion personal computers have been shipped and sold worldwide.

Market share changes are no longer driven simply by usability. In order for Microsofts Operating system to lose more than 20% market share in the next 5 years, its going to take either A) a Major marketing campaign for a competitor, one which details how much better, cheaper, easier to use, available, etc. or B) Microsoft to do something incredibly stupid, like putting out a new version of their OS which doesn't work and then vowing not to support its old one. (again).

But, that does not mean that Linux is dead, even on the desktop. Some Linux distros are very easy to use, and that will get increasingly better as that becomes more of a factor in selling them. Other Linux distros will become more flexible and powerful as THAT becomes a factor in selling them, and still a third set of Linux distros will split the difference attempting to offer both power and ease of use.

The key to the success of Linux is marketing. Also, the key to the success of Windows is exclusive sales contracts. As long as Frys or Best Buy or Comp USA agrees to only sell computers with Windows built in, then Windows will maintain their market share. But they don't. They all sell Macs, and no Macintosh comes with a Windows OS. In the same way, Hardware manufacturers need to be forced (by the consumer) to provide drivers for Linux. Here's how: When investigating and shopping for a peripheral, (like, say, a graphics card or NIC card or Sound Card) check the website for the existence of linux drivers. If they are not shown, call the sales line and ask if their product comes with drivers for use in a Linux computer. If not, say the following to the Sales guy: "I guess I'll just take my business elsewhere".

Salesmen absolutely despise that sentence. It makes them walk into developers offices and say questions like, "Why don't we support Linux?" The more times this happens at peripheral companies, the faster that peripheral companies start supporting linux and the problem of "My xxx card doesn't work in my linux box" goes away.

Ira

Re:Sure, blame someone else - typical zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have fixed up a date with him?

Has made it? O.o

[Spy der Mann]

From TFA:
Many IT professionals ask me when Linux will finally "make it" on the desktop. How will they know when Linux has made it? What's holding it back?

I don't know about him, but the last time I checked, software installation in Linux was still a mess.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[slavemowgli]

Then it must've been some time since you last checked... check out this rather glowing Ubuntu review in the Inquirer, for example. Yeah, I know, not exactly the greatest news outlet in the world, but they're probably as non-geeky as you get, so the fact that they found Ubuntu so easy and comfortable to use says a lot, IMO. :)

Re:Has made it? O.o

[IANAAC]

I don't know about him, but the last time I checked, software installation in Linux was still a mess.

It's probably been a while... At least two distros that I have personally tried offer no-hassle package management and online upgrades: Suse and Ubuntu.

I invite you to try either one and say it's still a mess. If you still think it's a mess, you probably have other axes to grind.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[keltor]

I can say in the corporate world the "ease" of installing software is a complete and total mess. There so many applications that refuse to work without the user having like 15000 user rights, namely the ability to install software (strange that you need this right AFTER the application is installed)

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Soko]

This is not true. In fact, the distros are each trying to beat the others silly by making package management such a breeze.

All Debian derived systems (like ubuntu) use apt/dpkg, Fedora/RedHat uses yum (or apt4rpm), Suse uses YaST and Gentoo uses portage. All of these will find dependancies for you and generally do the right thing - if the package is available, it will be installed and configured properly.

The only place where this is not true is when there are legal roadblocks (like DVD playback) to using the software in a free OS. Most commercial distros are able to bypass this however, since they pay a fee to the IP rights holder for the use of that IP.

In any event, you can't have checked software installation very recently. Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.

Soko

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, why is it relevant when Linux "makes it" on the desktop? How will this impact your, my or anyone else's desktop experience? Who are these people IT professional people and why do they care? They just need figure out what makes most sense for them and act accordingly. If Linux makes sense for people to use, then they should use it and not get their panties wadded about what their neighbor is doing.

Secondly, there are numerous reviews claiming that Ubuntu is, in fact, ready for prime time (can't be screwed digging them up, sorry.) The install is exceedingly simple (almost as easy as the "install" disks provided by Compaq, Dell etc), hardware detection is excellent and the entire desktop package is ready to go right out of the box. Apparently there are occasional issues with some of the more obscure hardware items, but IMO the an average non-technical user who is unable to find online assistance probably wouldn't be attempting to operate his USB can-opener through his PC.

In my mind, the only HUGE issue for Linux desktop systems is gaming. Sure you can get many to work, but it usually isn't a matter of insert-new-game-cd-and-get-your-frag-on.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

check out this rather glowing Ubuntu review in the Inquirer, for example. Yeah, I know, not exactly the greatest news outlet in the world, but they're probably as non-geeky as you get, so the fact that they found Ubuntu so easy and comfortable to use says a lot, IMO. :)

Great, so that's one out of how many distros? So a end user has to be savvy enough to know all the ins and outs of each distro to find one that's easy to use, uses the same mechanism to get and install packages, etc? And then hope that the hardware they wish to purchase just happens to come with that disto installed?

People want solutions, not choices.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Karaman]

Well, at least programs work after they are installed and dont crash now and then.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier on Linux than Windows? What crack pipe are you hitting?

Software installation on Linux is often times a long, painstaking arduous task that seems to go on forever, and then - nothing happens. When it goes right, it's not too bad, but when it goes bad it goes bad in a big way. Nothing like spending hours trying to resolve dependencies, versioning, etc to get something to install - and then to find out that updating existing packages has now broken existing programs.

I'm sure it's all quite simple for the experienced Linux jockeys, but don't expect J6P to be able to jump through all those hoops and command-line gyrations just to get a program to install.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Overly Critical Guy]

Linux's biggest problem is that it requires any "package management" at all. Because of the scattered directory structure, files are littered all over the place, so you have to run a program to install the program, and run a program to remove the program.

If people were really serious about desktop Linux, they would have long ago standardized a bundled package format like NeXTStep's .app bundles that allows you to install a program simply by copying to your programs folder. Remove it by deleting it.

These kinds of things, along with the lack of true standardized API foundations (see Cocoa, .NET, which cover everything from installation/uninstallation to networking to sound to graphics) with instead a reliance on QT on top of KDE on top of X11, are what hold desktop Linux back.

The mantra of "choice" that people use to justify the incredible fragmentation in the OSS world doesn't justify the lack of a standardized, vertical solution--there should be a desktop environment with its own sound and graphics engine and APIs (built using OpenGL and OpenAL), not relying on X11 and various extensions after the fact. It should provide its own APIs that tie into its internal engines. And most importantly, it should be designed with actual aesthetics and creativity in mind--no more of this amateurish K-this and K-that crap.

Just my opinion. I think many people gave up hope for desktop Linux and moved to OS X. Seriously, some of us have been waiting for almost ten years. Windows is more dominant than ever.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[SmellTheCoffee]

What you call mess is what I call flexibility and freedom of choice...By the way, try have you tried apt-get or yast?

Re:Has made it? O.o

[laughingcoyote]

Well, if you WANT every user you have installing software, set up sudo or a similar permissioning system, and give every user on the system that right. On the other hand, most administrators would rather they control (and have veto power over) the installation of software on their machines, and generally for good reason-the administrators keep up with technical bulletins, etc., that might indicate a vulnerability in a given program. The users normally don't.

As for installation itself? I use Gentoo, Ubuntu, and Debian (on various systems), and I use them for the specific reason that the installation of software is ridiculously easy. How much easier can you get then "sudo (emerge|apt-get) package", and watch the system install it for you?

Re:Has made it? O.o

[GMFTatsujin]

All I know is that it takes less time for me to make/apt-get/emerge than it does for me to wade through an EULA to figure out if I can actually run a peice of Windows software...

Because I'm a zealot. That's right.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Tim C]

Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times. I'm not saying that installing stuff on Linux is hard, I'm just saying that in my experience it's not "easier than it's ever been on Windows".

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you're a mac fanboi. But guess what, no one cares.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[rco3]

Linux's biggest problem is that it requires any "package management" at all. Because of the scattered directory structure, files are littered all over the place, so you have to run a program to install the program, and run a program to remove the program.

Used Windows lately? Every program *I've* installed on Windows in the last several years has not only run a program to install itself and required another to uninstall it, it also usually has to modify the registry and then forces me to reboot after installing. Of course, Windows only has 90%+ of the market - no doubt it would be much larger, were it not for the fact that their package management requires a program to install new software. Imagine if they solved that problem!

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Derek Pomery]

Ok. I'm not familiar with .app bundles (similar to .jars) ?
But other app bundles make it very difficult for application sharing and greatly increase the size of programs on your computer.
Not to mention the complexity of updates.
Linux programs install themselves, or a symlink in /usr/bin since that's in the path and that's where you expect to find apps.
They add their libs to /usr/lib so other folks can use them too.
Ditto adding images and music and miscelaney to /usr/share.

I think this is a great system, and I don't see how using application zips improves on it.
Linux application install tools allows both the flexibility of an integrated upgrade and removal interface, while still allowing parts of the system to interoperate easily.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Klaruz]

Umm.. You do know that's not the tabloid but a computer site? Found by the same guy that started The Register. I don't really follow them much, but they're almost satire of a tabloid, but not really, except they focus on computers. It seems to be fooling people...

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Every program *I've* installed on Windows in the last several years has not only run a program to install itself and required another to uninstall it, it also usually has to modify the registry and then forces me to reboot after installing.

Bullshit. Every program you've installed requires you to reboot? Is IE the only program you've installed in the last several years? Very few applications require a reboot, even most device drivers don't require it anymore.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Draveed]

That's not fair to bring up the EULA. I don't think you sat and read the GPL before you installed or updated anything on linux.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[croddy]

No, package management is a strength of an operating system, not a liability. When the OS "vendor" (e.g., Red Hat, Mandriva, Debian, etc.) is the one who is responsible for delivering your web browser, sound apps, games, and so forth, that means you only have to go to one place for all your security/stability/what-have-you updates.

Contrast Windows Update: the bare core of the OS, and a few things like your browser, mail client, and a crashy video player get updated. Only recently does it also update your office suite. This means that even if you keep your box up-to-the-second on Windows Update, there's a strong chance that there is a lot of software on your system that is getting stale.

Now, back to Synaptic/Click-n-Run/etc.: When you want a new program, you open up your graphical software installer, and browse through things that are available, organized by category. You select what you want, it finds the dependencies, and installs them. It will also suggest other things you might want -- plugins for an audio editor, for example. While you're there, you can uninstall anything you've stopped using, and upgrade everything on the system, to patch any security bugs. This is what most people would describe as an integrated vertical software solution.

Contrast the "Executable Installer" model: You open up a web browser, and start doing keyword searches of the Entire Fricking Web for software. You're bombarded with trials, demos, popups, and people who want you to install spyware or buy the "Pro" version of something you've never used. When you're ready to install it, you download an executable binary from a third party and run it with full administrative privileges. This model is pure chaos.

Perhaps for you, placing packages in a 'magic' location on the hard disk is an easy way to install things. Of course, you're going to be the one with a gigantic red bullseye painted on your system when someone's got a zlib exploit in hand, and you've got 80 copies of zlib, one in each of those absurd, unmanaged application bundles.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Lehk228]

well you must suck at life then. i am a mostly windows guy but i have a few linux shell accounts which i like to have a uniform set of apps on each so i have installed and sliased both systems to have the programs i want including both binary and source installs all from putty or SSH in cygwin.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[spuzzzzzzz]

So a end user has to be savvy enough to know all the ins and outs of each distro...

No, an end user only has to know the ins and outs of one distro. The one they use. Which probably came pre-installed on their machine and undoubtably has a simple, easy-to-use, no-rpm-hell package manager GUI. They aren't as rare as some of the trolls here would have you believe.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Xabraxas]

I'm sure it's all quite simple for the experienced Linux jockeys, but don't expect J6P to be able to jump through all those hoops and command-line gyrations just to get a program to install.

What the hell are you smoking? How hard is "emerge foo" or "apt-get install foo"? Don't have the libraries you need? Don't worry the package manager will install them automatically for you. It doesn't get much easier than that. It's hard to imagine how anyone would prefer the mess that is windows package management. A monkey could install software on Linux.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Illiterate Fanboy Retard,

Get lost.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[AutumnLeaf]

Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.

Not true.

I just installed ImageMagick on my Ubuntu box the other day. Took me awhile to to get dselect to get it all right and install it as the package manager GUI couldn't see it.

*shrug*

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Soko]

No multiple Next buttons for me. Start Synaptic, find package to install, highlight package to install, click apply and it installs the lastest available version. Run program.

For Windows it's Find CD (If you've already purchased it), insert into machine, read EULA, type in CD key, click next a few times, and then it installs. Then you reboot. Then it updates. Then you reboot again. Then you may have another reboot.

I'd say at this point Linux is easier than Windows.

Soko

Re:Has made it? O.o

[bnenning]

Ok. I'm not familiar with .app bundles (similar to .jars) ?

Pretty much. It's a self contained file (actually a directory that is presented as a single file, but you can drill into it if you want) that contains the executable and all supporting resources and libraries.

But other app bundles make it very difficult for application sharing and greatly increase the size of programs on your computer.

True but mostly irrelevant. Drive space is so cheap that it's easily worth a few megs of redundant libraries per app if it makes things easier for the user. I'll grant that it would be harder on Linux, because you wouldn't have the guarantee of certain libraries always being present like you do on OS X.

Not to mention the complexity of updates.

The update process is usually: download new app version, copy over old version, done.

Linux application install tools allows both the flexibility of an integrated upgrade and removal interface, while still allowing parts of the system to interoperate easily.

Even if that's true, the very fact that you need "application install tools" is a strike against usability. With app bundles, you "install" by copying the single file to your hard drive, and "uninstall" by deleting it. That's always going to be easier than even the best designed package manager.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[GarfBond]

As non-geeky as you can get? Check the front page of the inquirer. Notice how EVERY article is computer related? In fact, theinq's rather famous in computer graphics circles for their rumor mongering.

Yeah. Nice try though.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[braindead]

The truth is, installing software is super easy in both Windows and Linux. Let's review the steps for installing software "foo".

Windows:

• Go to store, purchase box that says "foo" on it.
  
• Put CD into computer
  
• Click OK a few times
  
• Reboot
  
• Done!
  

Linux:

• sudo apt-get install foo
  
• Done!
  

See? It's very easy in both cases. We don't have to fight about this anymore.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[rco3]

No, not *every* program, that's what the 'usually' qualifier means. My structuring of the dependent clause probably didn't make that clear. My intended meaning was that it usually had to modify the registry and usually had to reboot. And yes, frankly, the majority of the packages I've installed have in fact required me to reboot - probably not strictly necessary, but that's what they tell me. Now, maybe if I were installing 20 or 30 bits of shareware and freeware a week, perhaps I'd see more software that didn't tell me I had to reboot. But the only time I'm using Windows in the first place is for something I can't use on another OS, and that means commercial packages, and usually vendor-specific. Yes, those usually require a reboot. Don't like it? Don't jump my shit, call Bill Gates and jump his.

And why the fuck would I install IE? Besides being a security hole you could drive a truck through, it comes preinstalled because it's an integral and irremovable part of the OS! I have no intention of wasting my bandwidth on IE updates, either. That's several tens of megs that COULD be used for d/l porn.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Derek Pomery]

I couldn't disagree more. DLL hell in windows is precisely because of lack of DLL versioning as well as a variety of other reasons forcing apps to install their own DLLs.

The advantage of shared system libraries ain't "disk space is cheap" - it is being able to rapidly and efficiently incorporate new changes.
If an exploit is discovered in zlib, I update it once with the patch. Done.
I don't have to update every single friggen app across my entire system and replace their hundreds of "disk space is cheap" separate files.

Might as well statically link at that point. Hah.

If you set aside libraries, unix apps actually are fairly consistent. All configuration files under /etc makes it easier for filesystem maintenance and indexing. Windows registry is a lousy solution to a non-problem that eliminates easy editing. You have a filesystem, use it.

$HOME .config files also end up having their parallels even if you install a massive app bundle. You need to keep configs *somewhere* and the registry, well. Enough ranting.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I had the opposite experience.

I downloaded 3 major distros (including knoppix, and kubuntu). I installed each onto a new Dell PC (optiplex line). I then ran 'apt-get update' as root on each.

Every one except kubuntu *IMMEDIATELY* failed. After three times, the kubuntu was fubar also. I spent several hours working to get apt-get to work properly. Google searches turn up *thousands* of links to apt-get issues including many people who have not gotten apt-get to work properly, or had serious issues.

I help run a 450 user Windows network, and we have one or two machines every 6-12 months that fail on a windows (or wsus) update. There have been a few server based issues with third party software, but other than that it's clockwork.

The only time I've ever been able to manage my linux (and FreeBSD) distros is when *I* HAND install only the software I want, and manage the updates *myself*. I also was able to do *some* RPM updates years ago with RH 7.2. In case you are wondering, I've rolled my own distros for my IDS and Firewall installs so I'm not some windows bigot.

Please, tell me what I'm doing wrong and I'll be glad to correct my mistakes. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Taladar]

When the GP mentions complexity of the update process he probably means the problem of bundled libraries that don't get updated when you (the user) update something but only when the developer of the thing using the lib updates it. And by size RAM size is probably closer to the core of the problem than disk size.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Taladar]

I installed a Windows Software today on 18 PCs. Even though it was able to install from a network drive (big help) I had to manually:
1) go to each PC
2) log in as admin
3) map a network drive (wouldn't run otherwise, why can't you mount things in windows btw)
4) type in the CD-Key
5) click "Next" approx. 10 times
6,7,8) do the same for the second and third CD a few minutes later (yeah, extra installer, how "nice") and the service pack (less "next" but more time between individual install steps due to unpacking)
(insert additional step "get the login box to display the correct Domain for the dumb users" here if your users are really dumb and the admin is in a different domain or a local user)
9) log out the admin

Contrast this with Linux where I can just login via ssh on each PC and execute exactly one command (something like "emerge xilinx-ise" probably if that software were available for Linux in a usable version), log out again (with the use of screen even before the command is finished), not to mention the fact that I could script the whole "do the same on 18 machines" part.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier by far!
I can boot a Kanotix CD, connect to the internet, and surf for info while installing Linux from the same CD. I can reboot (once!) after install, and if I break anything I can boot the live CD to fix/get repair info/whatever.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Trelane]

I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times.

Installing 3rd-party software can be exactly like this on Linux too. Unreal Tournamet 2004 was a very nice install-run the setup program, click, click, click, done. If your Linux 3rd-party Software Vendor doesn't provide you the experienc you want, don't blame Linux; it's not Linux's fault. Tell Software Vendor that their installer sucks.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[westlake]

Windows: Go to store, purchase box that says "foo" on it
Linux: sudo apt-get install foo

,,,and now at last we are getting to the real problem.

If I upgrade Paint Shop Pro, Corel will ship a polished commercial product with a thick printed manual and CD. This I like.

It isn't just games that keeps people on Windows. It is an immense end-user oriented program library developed over twenty-five years that fills every market niche.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[amliebsch]

So you have a domain, and presumably a domain controller, but don't use Active Directory for application deployment and scripting? Why not?

Re:Has made it? O.o

[BoldAndBusted]

That is just not correct. There are lots and lots of mature "enterprise" software management applications, from Tivoli, LANDesk, Microsoft's Systems Management Server and package creation tools like Windows Installer, WISE, etc. that are only now getting started in Linux. Administering software installs/updates/removals in large, geographically distributed Windows deployments is not as hard for admins to master as it is for Linux, where, mostly, every management system has to be architected from scratch by a competent admin team, with little hope of congruency across different shops.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one except kubuntu *IMMEDIATELY* failed. After three times, the kubuntu was fubar also.

Bullshit.

Next wild ass lie?

Re:Has made it? O.o

[aaronl]

The vast majority of Windows software doesn't come with *any* printed manual, let along a thick one; the OS doesn't come with a manual at all now. If you really like having the CD, and you don't want to burn one yourself, then buy a copy of your favorite OSS on CD.

There is an immense library of UNIX software, too. The difference is that Windows software is available in brick and mortar stores, and UNIX software largely isn't. It is a chicken-and-egg problem. Stores won't stock and developers won't develop until there is market, and there can't be market if nobody is selling.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it doesn't work with most applications, perhaps?

Re:Has made it? O.o

[eraserewind]

The people who say linux is easier are looking at it from a sysadmin perspective, the people who say Windows is easier are looking from a "dumb user" downloading junk off the web perspective. The fact is however, that for desktop acceptance, the "dumb user" scenario is more important than the sysadmin one, and that is something the people implementing linux by and large don't get (or don't like or care about if they get it).

Re:Has made it? O.o

[supermank17]

- if the package is available, it will be installed and configured properly.

You actually mention the problem in your post. Yeah, apt/dpkg is great. I love how easy it is to install programs with it. If the package is available. And what if its not available? What if, for some reason, it hasn't been added to the repository? At best you have to search until you find a version of the program that's already in a dpkg form, but just isn't in the repository. More likely, you're back dealing with dependencies, compiling from source, etc. Compare that to Windows, where just about every program has an automatic installer. Yes, Linux installation has come a long way, and in some ways is easier to use than Windows. But there is still room for improvement here.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[dbrutus]

First, you can mount in Windows. It's net use drive letter: \\server\share

In general, all domain members have administrative shares that can map drives so if you're an admin, you can map any drive in the domain.

You generally can script and automate a windows install. Most Windows software installers come with a cli invocation mode and the ability to include the cd key and other responses to the gui script in a specially named text file you stick in with the installer. You can even remote log in with Microsoft's remote desktop app.

People have done thousands of seats of MS installs with scripting. This isn't new technology.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[poofyhairguy82]

The fact is however, that for desktop acceptance, the "dumb user" scenario is more important than the sysadmin one, and that is something the people implementing linux by and large don't get (or don't like or care about if they get it).

Its the third option: can't do anything about it if they wanted to. How do you cross the chaos and make packages that will install in all distros when distros won't work towards a common goal?

You don't.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[braindead]

I agree that manuals are nice, but they're disappearing fast. Even windows (or maybe I shouldn't say "even") has no useful manual anymore. Even the integrated help is dismal in my opinion (and I'm not saying Linux is perfect, far from it).

I agree that if the software you need is only on windows, then pick windows. That's never been in debate.

However the original point was ease of installation, and my experience is that installation is vastly easier on Linux. Granted, I don't often buy stuff that's expensive enough to have a manual that I'd care about (but I'm sure that if I buy Oracle for Linux it'll come with a couple binders of documentation).

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Jherek Carnelian]

If an exploit is discovered in zlib, I update it once with the patch. Done.

And if that update contains an unintended side-effect, also known as a bug, you've now propogated that to all programs on the system too. And if that bug only affects certain programs, no amount of testing it with programs that aren't affected will catch it before you've foobar'd your system either.

I don't have to update every single friggen app across my entire system and replace their hundreds of "disk space is cheap" separate files.

Find is your friend. At least with discrete copies you've got a choice about what gets 'upgraded' when. With a single central copy, it is all or nothing.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Derek Pomery]

You just keep proving my case.
It is far easier to fix a bug once than hundreds of times.
And find only finds code if you know what code/function you are looking for.
Given you were the one who was talking about difficulty of maintenance, this is becoming a sad refusal to admit that programmers
know what they are doing when they implement shared objects.

And lets not forget the advantage in memory savings with loading it once, etc.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Jherek Carnelian]

You just keep proving my case.

No, you just lack enough experience doing software Q&A to understand the magnitude of the issue.

It is far easier to fix a bug once than hundreds of times.

You choose to see only half the picture. The most accurate statement is that, "It is far easier to make a change once than a hundreds of times." As long as you ignore the fact that an untested change can cause problems, you are only addressing half of the issue.

Ask any sysadmin with a production server what he thinks of installing a patch, for, say Oracle that has been thoroughly tested against Oracle but will also modify his mail server which has received no testing against the patch. He'll tell you that no way in hell is that patch going on his system until ALL apps have been thoroughly tested against it.

Given you were the one who was talking about difficulty of maintenance, this is becoming a sad refusal to admit that programmers know what they are doing when they implement shared objects.

Yeah, boofookinghoo, I'm so sad, cry me a river. Keep the random invective to yourself, ok?

And lets not forget the advantage in memory savings with loading it once, etc.

No, let us. Because any runtime linker of any sophistication should be able to prevent duplication of identical code with a decent versioning system.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Derek Pomery]

Hardly even worth going in circles on this.
I just wanted to focus on that last amusing point.
Yes. absolutely. Versioning of *trusted* libraries put, oh, lets say, in a *trusted* location like /usr/lib.

Ah well.
Thankfully you did not design linux.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Derek Pomery]

BTW, Apple's solution is quite nice, but even they have a place for system libraries, and installers. Sure it is optional, but then, you can always statically link as one large file under linux too.

But seriously, this is getting silly.

Re:Has made it? O.o

[Jherek Carnelian]

Ah well.
Thankfully you did not design linux.

Hey, random invective boy, fortunately you did not design linux either because then there would be no way but your broken way.

Genius

[suso]

"Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop

Wow, this guy is a genius for his insight. I really should read what he has to say now.

Re:Genius

[vdboor]

Wow, this guy is a genius for his insight.

It's sad he doesn't give any quality examples. Saying "they block linux" 10 times doesn't make it true. So I did RTFA and tried to find the arguments. Just don't give me the crap like "you must be new here". ;-)

Re:Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's really simplistic to say that all the equipment manufacturers are participating in a conspiracy. Linux was never designed for consumers, and it shows.

Big PC manufacturers have a process by which they setup their boxes. Asking for a box with something other than the default pre-installed is like going to McDonalds and asking for a burger with no pickles. They have some with pickles sitting in the hopper getting old, while they mumble at you and make your special fancy-burger. There's no conspiracy in that aspect of it.

Linux is still basically a monolithic kernel (you can unload modules, but it's nothing like... here's the Linux microkernel over here... and here's all the modules you can compile/download for it OVER THERE....ALL OF IT OUT OF THE KERNEL.). I think this is a huge factor in making things rough for the end users. Apple uses BSD under the hood, but they use a microkernel. Therefore you never under any circumstances have end users facing issues like.... "please install dev tools and recompile the kernel to get this driver to work because foo needs to be compiled into the kernel".

Having multiple mostly-baked window managers and lame sound support (ex: usb midi drivers) is not helpful. Neither is having an audience that is not accustomed to paying for everything they get.

OSX is a Unix as well, but it doesn't suffer from a lot of the ills that Linux does. The user base is small, but OSX users pay for the stuff they use. As a result: the platform as a whole is consistently supported, the user interface kicks ass, sound system is great, etc.

PCs that run Windows are a commodity. Those guys compete based on price, so they don't care if they manufacture it just a little cheaper by breaking Linux compatibility. Loudly and proudly PAY the premium for hardware that runs Linux, and the drivers will be much more available.

So your company is being overcharged to fail?

[gelfling]

Bottom line if this is true then your company is being price gouged and being offered inferior goods and services ON purpose so that WilliamSoft can play out his personal Passion Play against imaginary enemies.

This would be worthy of Federal Prosecution.

Re:So your company is being overcharged to fail?

[Billly Gates]

Yet you can't prove it.

The doj tried that and no pc manufactor dared go up agaisnt MS out of fears they would be priced out of windows and office. The only thing they could go on was an email from balmer talking about cutting off netscapes air supply.

This is just business as usual.

We saw this for a while

[Kjuib]

Dell PCs with Windows cost less then the same PC with a Free OS. How can this be you ask... Well... sit down my friend and let me tell you the story of Big Brother...

Read the rest of this comment...

ya sounds about right

[RLiegh]

I'm surprised that MS hasn't gotten either the GPL (or the concept of Open Source) legislated out of practice yet. After all, supposedly what's good for Business (and to most legislators MS==IT) is what's supposed to be good for america.

Re:ya sounds about right

[chiok]

The problem with this is that Microsoft might lose that battle. That will only give the GPL a stronger legal foundation and more people will risk depending on GPL software. There is too much to lose if they try to attack the GPL.

Re:ya sounds about right

[timeOday]

The problem with this is that Microsoft might lose that battle.

Wake up fellas, it already happened. Microsoft gave SCO $10e6 shortly after they launched a legal and PR smear campaign against the GPL. And, yes, SCO went so far as to claim the GPL is unconstitutional, although they didn't pursue that argument very far in court (which is telling).

So does this mean MS has tried to defeat the GPL through the courts, failed, and moved on? Yes IMHO. There just isn't much of a legal leg to stand on, especially now that IBM has taken sides.

Come on, fellas.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory crackpottery.

Re:Come on, fellas.

[laughingcoyote]

It's "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory crackpottery" to be suspicious that a convicted criminal might commit another crime?

Microsoft has been CONVICTED (not just suspected, not just accused, convicted) of antitrust violations already. Keeping a close eye on them in case they reoffend isn't "crackpottery"-it's common sense.

Re:Come on, fellas.

[ScentCone]

It's "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory crackpottery" to be suspicious that a convicted criminal might commit another crime?

So, best if we have Kevin Mitnick followed around, huh? Why is it that the slashdot crowd always complains that the law's to harsh on crackers, and that once you've done your time, blah blah blah... but that the politicized anti-trust treatment of MS is considered a life sentence? Do you have any idea the scrutiny under which they operate? Give it a rest.

Re:Come on, fellas.

[laughingcoyote]

This conversation hasn't been about crackers whatsoever, so I decline to debate on your offtopic strawman.

As to the analogy, it fails-humans have an inherent right to privacy, but I don't see that corporations really do. This is, of course, as it should be. Quite realistically, Microsoft should've been split, as the judge originally ordered, what penalty is a -fine- to a corporation which is clearing billions a year? They got the equivalent of a speeding ticket for significant antitrust violations. They are -known- to deliberately break interoperability in order to hurt their competitors. They are -known- to use underhanded bullying tactics with OEM's/retailers. They are -known- to raise prices on those who don't agree to their massively restrictive contracts. Again, what is wrong with the natural suspicion of wrongdoing from a known wrongdoer?

It's just 2 guys but..

[js3]

I guess he can apply it to the rest of the world

Re:It's just 2 guys but..

[Overly Critical Guy]

Anecdotes are the fuel of Slashdot commentary.

Re:It's just 2 guys but..

[Anonymous Coward]

they're havin' a good time, havin' a good time...

Re:It's just 2 guys but..

[Pneuma ROCKS]

Your logic and reasoning are not welcome here.

Re:It's just 2 guys but..

[timeOday]

So you think HP and others charge a price premium for a free OS to these two guys in particular, but wouldn't for other customers? That's a pretty wacky theory.

Part 2 has a laundry list of deterrents from linux adoption, and none of them is specific to any particular consumer. Which factors are you referring to?

Missed something...

[coastin]

Good set of articles that point to some real issues but, I think he missed this:

Linspire List of vendors

(http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/featured _partner.php?sent=1&country=1)

Re:Missed something...

[Anonymous Coward]

He mentions Linspire in one of the later installments linked later in the summary.

What he never actually got around to mentioning was how Microsoft (allegedly) bullies retailers (he mentions CompUSA and Best Buy specifically) into not carrying Linux-compatable or Linux-installed products. He also fails to mention exactly why Linux PCs are more expensive than Windows-bundled PCs. He starts out saying that this is all a Microsoft conspiracy, but he never really makes the case.

HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[KiltedKnight]

When I recently went to purchase a laptop from HP Shopping, because I wanted a 64-bit laptop and they were one of the few actually offering it at lower prices, I ended up having all kinds of grief, having an old-fashioned "fuck you" fight with the customer service desk.

It went something like this...

I started customizing the zv6000 laptop, choosing XP Home, knowing that I probably wouldn't get reasonable tech support without having it installed (never mind that there wasn't an option to not get it). As I got to the end, I looked around for a way to request custom partitioning of the hard drive. No dice. So I cancelled the order and wrote to HP Shopping and asked if they could do a custom partitioning job because I wanted to create a dual-boot system.

The response I got was that they couldn't do it and that they were sorry the web site didn't suit my needs.

I responded by asking if they could sell me a blank laptop and provide the installation media on the side, since it was included, and I didn't feel like trying to reinstall the recovery partition for Windows. This is why you don't get installation media... they put it all on a partition on the hard drive that only the Windows installer can use.

Their reply was that they were contractually obligated to sell the laptop with the latest version of Windows installed.

So I told them that they just lost a sale because of their contractual obligations, and that I would take my money elsewhere.

So they replied again with how they were sorry that the website didn't suit my needs and that they would notify the appropriate people.

Now they've pushed my buttons... so I tell them that this is not about a web site, it's about a person sitting there running an FDISK command and watching the install take place instead of just using a ghosting program. I also tell them that I would've been willing to wait an extra couple of weeks, knowing I was asking for a truly customized job.

In the end, I did get an HP laptop, but got it from CompUSA. I got the HP L2000, and for about $40, the tech desk people there were able to do the customized partitioning job for me, reinstall the version of Windows that came with it, and leave me with blank, unformatted partitions to use for Fedora Core 4 x86_64. The tech guys there knew exactly what I wanted to do, understood it, and thought it was really cool. Yes, I need ndiswrappers to get the wireless card to work, and I have to download a driver for the ATI graphics card in there (both are available via a yum archive at livna.org).

Now if only we could get Macromedia to release a 64-bit version of the flash player and Sun to do a 64-bit verison of Java... (yes, I know about the OSS alternatives... doesn't change the fact that they need to do it).

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Chanc_Gorkon]

You have to understand that for HP to hire a guy that is knowledgable enough (not that it takes much) costs HP money in both the position as well as training costs. Look, I like Linux as much as the next guy, but is it worth the extra money to HP for doing your custom partitioning?? No it isn't. Is it worth HP's money and time to do a custom job on your laptop? No, they can't do thatas they would be bombarded with many requests to do the same thing.

Is HP right for not including REAL Windows install disks?? NO. HP should realize....hard disks fail. To a regular AOL/Joe Sixpack type of user, mailing the laptop back to HP or taking it to a service center is perfectly acceptable when replacing a hard disk. To us, we look on it as a opportunity to upgrade the feeble disk it came with. In any case, HP and many other manufacturers SHOULD ship REAL install media....not this crap that accesses a windows recovery partition. They should also stop shipping SPYWARE with there machine as well.

HP's website itself works FINE in Firefox. The website itself is Linux friendly. Not being able to ship you a custom solution should not be a judgement of thier site. Face it....Windows DOES have the marketshare. If you don't like the website that they make you use, then you are free to go to a dealer that IS able to satisfy you. Being mad at them because they won't do your custom job is stupid. Finding a manufacturer that will do whaty you want and supporting them rather then HP is the sure fire way to get HP to change thier ways. What you did by buying from them anyway is VALIDATE thier planning! If a company can't do what I want, I tell them to pound sand.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had filled YOUR custom order, they'd have to fill EVERYBODY's custom order. I'd chalk this up to unrealistic expectation (although not unreasonable). As it seems you concluded, your specific needs may be better-served by a local shop.

BTW, what's the problem with doing the disk formatting and partitioning yourself?

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[NatteringNabob]

[ ...Sun to do a 64-bit verison of Java]

There is a 64 bit Linux version of Java available at the bottom of this URL.

https://jsecom15.sun.com/ECom/EComActionServlet;js essionid=DA5B35C261DED503304CFE10857DC842

I couldn't get the installer to run on FC4 when I tried but the package clearly does exist.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Billly Gates]

Its more profitable for HP to lose a sale then it is to lose 10 sales because the price of their laptop went up to pay the increase in the MS tax.

Until more people demand for unix this will not change.

HP is just doing what is more profitable.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[jshaped]

sorry, but i got to say: duh.
none of the major computer manufacturers are going to go out of their way to help you install a product they haven't approved.
they're all under some sort of contract with MS.
this has been discussed numerous times here before.
this is just all a part of the linux experience.... you gotta do it yourself.
you can't rely on HP or dell or even the compusa tech people.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[KiltedKnight]

BTW, what's the problem with doing the disk formatting and partitioning yourself?

Reread my original post... it has to do with the Windows installation media/recovery partition, having to burn recovery disks, etc. Besides, my time is valuable too. I don't want to sit there and wait for every stupid prompt the Windows installation will put up in front of me throughtout the installation process, trying to figure out what network configuration I want, how I want to configure a specific program because it can't be configured until it installs, etc. With a Linux install (at least through my experiences with Fedora and RedHat), they ask you all the pertinent questions up front. You spend about 15-20 minutes, then just let it go all by itself (if you're doing DVD or network-based, anyway).

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Junior J. Junior III]

I bought a ze4610 back in Feb '04, on the strength of it running Knoppix nice in the store (Circuit City)... and mine came with a real XP Home installation CD, not a restore disk. I also got, separately in the package, a disk with all of HP's utilities and drivers and assorted bundled software, AND a student edition of Office 2003 for some reason, even though I wasn't a student, which I never bothered to install because I don't care for the product activation.

I promptly ditched XP Home and installed XP Pro, and then wrote to HP support asking them if it was possible to resize the partitions on the disk to dual boot with Linux, and while they told me they don't support it, they did give me instructions for how to do it, with the caveat that I would be on my own if I ran such a configuration, which was fine, and doing this didn't affect my warranty in any way.

Given that they don't provide Linux, I don't expect them to support it, although I wish it were an option and that they would offer it along with support for whatever version of Linux they decide to provide. On the whole, it was a positive experience and I was happy with the purchase decision.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Lehk228]

you trust HP to do a custom partition job and not fuck it up? that's brave.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[KiltedKnight]

Is HP right for not including REAL Windows install disks?? NO. HP should realize....hard disks fail. To a regular AOL/Joe Sixpack type of user, mailing the laptop back to HP or taking it to a service center is perfectly acceptable when replacing a hard disk. To us, we look on it as a opportunity to upgrade the feeble disk it came with. In any case, HP and many other manufacturers SHOULD ship REAL install media....not this crap that accesses a windows recovery partition. They should also stop shipping SPYWARE with there machine as well.

This is, of course, how they'll purport to keep costs down. They push the cost (time, materials, etc) onto the consumer to produce some kind of repair media. Then they'll say that these other companies are paying some of the costs by providing "sample software." It's all an advertising game.

HP's website itself works FINE in Firefox. The website itself is Linux friendly. Not being able to ship you a custom solution should not be a judgement of thier site. Face it....Windows DOES have the marketshare. If you don't like the website that they make you use, then you are free to go to a dealer that IS able to satisfy you. Being mad at them because they won't do your custom job is stupid. Finding a manufacturer that will do whaty you want and supporting them rather then HP is the sure fire way to get HP to change thier ways. What you did by buying from them anyway is VALIDATE thier planning! If a company can't do what I want, I tell them to pound sand.

My complaint has more to do with the author's claim that HP will ship you a linux computer. I'm providing anecdotal evidence that this is not necessarily the case.

By buying from CompUSA, HP only gets the profit that they would normally get from the bulk sales to the chain. If I buy from the web site, they get pure profit... especially when the price is the same at both locations... plus I get "instant gratification" of being able to walk out of there with the machine in hand instead of waiting whatever amount of time is necessary to do the shipping.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[HampiRocks]

If you are on centrino then probably may try the native linux driver.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[KiltedKnight]

you trust HP to do a custom partition job and not fuck it up? that's brave.

Eh... I just wanted them to warranty the work, since they made the machine.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[bigbadwlf]

HP Pavilion notebooks (which the ZX6000 series are) do not come with a recovery partition. None of the consumer notebooks do. They come with an OEM CD for Windows XP Home, and one or two driver/application recovery CDs or DVD.
The software will come preinstalled, but you're certainly free to wipe the hard disk and install whatever you'd like however you'd like.
Just don't expect HP to support it, of course.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[poot_rootbeer]

By ultimately giving your money to HP anyway, you truly showed them how much it matters whether they offer custom build options for power users like yourself.

Not at all.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[sweetnjguy29]

Yes, there is a 64 bit Linux version of Java for AMD64. The problem is that there isn't a 64 bit Linux version of the browser plug-in! And you have to do some magical hocus pocus to link the plug-in to firefox. Not to mention that both Java versions are 1.4 and NOT 1.5 . However, if you do a websearch, there are older versions of 64 bit java that do support the browser plug-in. Too bad they don't work on 80% of the sites that I use.

This is a result of Sun not supporting the 64 bit plug-in because of some sort of bug issue. Supposedly, the issue is being resolved.

It pisses me off though, because I had to uninstall my 64bit install of Ubuntu 5.10 yesterday and install the x86 version because too much stuff didn't "just work".

This wouldn't be a problem if Mircosoft didn't have a monopoly and these companies didnt feel that they would be penalized by Microsoft later. Computer companies must get off their fat asses and start supporting linux, or I will stop buying or recommending their stuff. Period. We gotta hit 'em where it hurts...in the wallet. Return items that aren't compatable. Etc.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter anyway, because the 64 bit version of firefox is an utter piece of shit, speaking from experience.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

Its lucky that happened to you I bought the 6000 with the ati 200m installed partition magic partition some
space put fedora then suse on it and yes ati web site says it has the driver it dont work on a laptop

So now I have a 64 bit pc with no 3d hardware exceleration
this 6007 is really a pile of crap.

Its the last hp I will ever buy

The law could fix this easy make all computers come with a blank harddrive if you can not format and install your system you dont deserve a computer.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been trivial to just buy the laptop and resize the partition you know..

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Elshar]

You messed up, though. You were doing so well. What you should've done was go find someone that WOULD put linux on there instead of telling you to go fark yourself.

Then, you could've told them 'I really wanted that linux laptop, but instead I bought a shiny new blatronix 5000 that's not only approximately the same machine, but costs less, comes with a blank partition by default AND I get the installation media in case something happens. Maybe next time I'm in the market for a laptop you guys will be able to provide that service for me.' And then DO IT.

You completely blew the oppertunity to help drive the market. You know why they don't have a linux offering or a blank partition + install media policy? Its because people like you whine and moan about it, and then *buy it anyways*. Geez. I wish I had moderator points, I'd mod one of the other replies up.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[KiltedKnight]

instead I bought a shiny new blatronix 5000 that's not only approximately the same machine, but costs less, comes with a blank partition by default AND I get the installation media in case something happens

I searched around for one. Every site I visited wanted, for a similarly configured laptop, about 1.5 to 2 times what I paid for this one.

So... you find me a site that sells an AMD Turion64 computer with 1GB RAM, a 100GB hard drive, DVD+/-RW, an included WinXP Pro license (I could care less if it's pre-installed with the partition scheme I want or just a blank hard drive and the install media included), and has it for under $1300.

I tried. I failed. I found a deal and someone who was willing to do what I wanted (primarily argue with the Windows installer) for a reasonable price, and I now have a laptop that does nearly all of what I want it to do.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Blakey Rat]

In the end, I did get an HP laptop, but got it from CompUSA. I got the HP L2000, and for about $40, the tech desk people there were able to do the customized partitioning job for me, reinstall the version of Windows that came with it, and leave me with blank, unformatted partitions to use for Fedora Core 4 x86_64. The tech guys there knew exactly what I wanted to do, understood it, and thought it was really cool.

At CompUSA? Are you entirely sure you weren't at, say PCClub or somewhere?

I'm tempted to declare the whole story as BS because of this part... never in my life have I seen an even remotely competent CompUSA employee. ;)

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[NatteringNabob]

[It pisses me off though, because I had to uninstall my 64bit install of Ubuntu 5.10 yesterday and install the x86 version because too much stuff didn't "just work".]

Yep, agreed. I had to go back to 'regular' x86 on Fedora 3 not only because of the Java installer issue, but also because the Cisco vpnclient wouldn't build. The vendors won't support Linux because there isn't a big enough market, and there isn't a big enough market because their isn't enough vendor support. The user base is growing though, and all it will take is a couple of mainstream vendors like Adobe to offer a first class product for Linux, and the floodgates will open.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[jitterysquid]

Off-Topic, but you might want to check out:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/system-configuratio ns.html

It lists Linux 64-bit operation on AMD64/EMT64 processors as of Java 5 update 2.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the reasons that I build my own laptops. I get exactly the computer I want and I install what I want. No need to pay the Microsoft tax.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. HP includes System Recovery CDs with their laptops and desktops that will allow you to recover the system from a completely blank partition. There is a recovery partition for other software utilities, but you can fdisk the drive, install Linux on it, fuck around with it for a time, realize that having it "just fucking work" is more important than a crusade, and reinstall with the included Recovery CDs.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

I just feel sorry for the poor HP phone rep you talked to who obviously had no clue what you wanted, and couldn't have helped you if he wanted to. They don't customize to that extent. That's like calling Pizza Hut and ordering chinese food, and getting mad when they won't sell you any, even though you're willing to wait longer.

It's no wonder people don't want to go out of their way to accomodate Linux/Unix users with attitudes like this. Do you really need people to think your partitioned hard drive is "really cool?" If that's worth $40 to you, then I think it's totally rad. Please send me my money.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[BobTheAtheist]

Can 64bit linux run 32bit apps? That's one good thing about Windows 64bit... I have tried linux on my 64bit machine yet so I don't know how that works.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[dodobh]

Http://www.discountlaptops.com/ offers OS free laptops.

I'm not affiliated with them, just found them while googling for a laptop without Windows. The price is right too.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[sbryant]

So... you find me a site that sells an AMD Turion64 computer with 1GB RAM, a 100GB hard drive, DVD+/-RW, an included WinXP Pro license (I could care less if it's pre-installed with the partition scheme I want or just a blank hard drive and the install media included), and has it for under $1300.

Does that $1300 include tax?

The next best thing I can find here is an Asus A6K: 1.8GHz Turion64 (25W), 1Gb RAM, 80Gb disk (5400rpm), 8x dual layer DVD burner (+/- R,RW), NVidia 6200, 15.4" WXGA, 802.11b/g, 10/100 eth, built-in webcam, XP Pro OEM, other features I can't be bothered to type in. That comes to 1128 Euros ($1344), and that includes tax. Shipping is extra. You must be able to get a similar deal, if not a better one, in the States.

-- Steve

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[dcam]

This is not new. About a year ago I bought a T41 from IBM (I'm typing this on that laptop now).

I wanted exactly the same thing you wanted (blank laptop, OEM version of WinXP Pro), largley for flexibility reasons rather than anything else. I couldn't get it either.

To be quite frank, this is an issue that the anti-competition people should be all over.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[dcam]

I've posted a response to this guy's comment that effectively says I had the same experience with IBM.

What I want is support for the *hardware*. I couldn't care less about the software. *I* can handle support for the software. I'd like them to ship blank laptops, with an OEM CD of Windows XP (optional), a CD of drivers and support the hardware only.

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[NatteringNabob]

[Can Linux x86_64 run 32 bit apps?]

Supposedly yes, but you have to have both 32 and 64 bit libs installed and I hvaen't tried it. This is true for Solaris too IIRC. I would imagine WinXP 64 does something similar.

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=191 79

Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly

[Coniptor]

"You have to understand that for HP to hire a guy that is knowledgable enough (not that it takes much) costs HP money in both the position as well as training costs."

It costs HP or any manufacturer money to hire and train anyone whether they will be supporting Linux or Windows or anything else for that matter. pointless

"Look, I like Linux as much as the next guy, but is it worth the extra money to HP for doing your custom partitioning??"

In your view obviously not. In my view yes. Also take into account that there are freely available disk paritioning tools that run under both dos and linux which someone could create a simple bootdisk for the soul purpose of partioning systems according to pre-defined layouts. Combine that with syslinux and memdisk on a dhcp network and they could prep several systems an hour. Your arguement at first thought makes since but doesn't hold water with further research and awareness for what's *possible*.

"Is it worth HP's money and time to do a custom job on your laptop? No, they can't do thatas they would be bombarded with many requests to do the same thing."

Here maybe not, but you know what? They could contract that out to a smaller company or many companies in different states and make money doing it. Forget that Linux is the os. Were talking about a custom install. People if they are serious will pay more for that.

As for everythin else you have to say I agree except for:
He didn't complain that he couldn't view the site in linux.
He complained that the logical layout of the site when customizing his
laptop would not allow him to customize his laptop to the extent that he
wished to. He then got upset when the customer support blamed his problems
on the website.

And this just in

[Eugene Webby]

Microsoft was responsible for the Area51 coverup, more at 11.

Holy shit!

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

All those guys wearing those tin-foil hats were right!

Fuck, I'm not using phones, internet, or think bad thoughts anymore! They are out to get us!

Re:Holy shit!

[commodoresloat]

They are out to get us!

No, you have it all wrong.

They're just out to get you.

Re:Holy shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we're out to get him.

There's sabotage alright

[saskboy]

I find that some computers just don't want to run a linux distribution reliably. I think it's often linked to something like an ATI video card, but it wouldn't be hard for HP or another manufacturer to introduce some kind of DRM that only works with Windows or other "sanctioned" Operating System.

I tried Damnsmalllinux.org on my HP Evos and dx2000s at work, and they don't boot at all, when it works fine on most other computers I try. Why can't a brand new HP run a new linux distribution every time?

Re:There's sabotage alright

[KiltedKnight]

You're probably talking about the ATI Radeon Xpress 200M (or other cards in Radeon Xpress series).

Check http://rpm.livna.org. They've got a lot of good utilities, including video players, pre-compiled kernel drivers, etc.

Re:There's sabotage alright

[xrayspx]

There's a chance that you are cracked. I have an HP evo pizza box in front of me right now. P4 3.2Ghz hyperthreaded, with the built-in Intel POS graphics card, plus a dual head NVidia card (which 3d does work on), all 3 are at 2048x1536. Before that, I was running a Compaq Evo D515. My x86 laptop is an HP with an ATI card (no 3d, it's one of those botched abortion m200 Radeon cards for which there do not appear to be any 3D drivers), and I have a whitebox PC running two Radeons, both of which do work in 3d.

All of these run SuSE 9.0 to 9.2, flawlessly, with multi-month uptimes, except, you know, the laptop, because...well, because I also have a 12" iBook that I usually use instead...

There is also no problem with WiFi on the laptop, no problem (anymore) with Broadcom 1GB NICs in the EVO, which may be because the new EVO doesn't have the Broadcom card, I don't know.

I think the real problem is that XF86Config screws with people badly. I'll be the first to admit that initially getting things running is tough, and you have to fight through (in my case) SAX, or whatever X configurator you use. These often don't give you anywhere near what you're looking for in terms of res and color depth. I'm not saying users are dumb. I'm not saying I'm particulary clever. I am persistent though, and I agree that it shouldn't take a damn system admin to install a desktop OS and have video that works reliably at the end of it, however I don't think that HP is making an intentionally "un-workable" product in the hopes that Linux users will fail, in any of their product lines.

Please note, I have not seen an HP/Compaq consumer desktop machine in years and years, and hope never to have to again. While they sucked, they too should be capable of shoehorning whatever OS you want to in, but the situation there might be substantially more crappy.

Desktop Linux

[sedyn]

Linux is on my desktop, and on the desktop of my family.

As for manufacturer support, if they don't want to support linux then they also don't want my money.

I hate seeing windows on a PC as much as the next /.er, but let the use of windows be the penalty in and of itself.

Re:Desktop Linux

[Ucklak]

Ditto.

My home is Linux/Mac.

Re:Desktop Linux

[Leiterfluid]

Your money isn't significant enough to matter.
What matters is the deployment and support benefits that OEMs get from Microsoft to deliver Microsoft software on the vendor's hardware.
What also matters is that Microsoft has set up their own testing lab to test hardware from a variety of manufacturers and certify the hardware and the drivers as being designed and optimzed for a particular operating system. This "seal of approval," which may not mean anything to you or me, means a lot to vendors that can sell their wares with Microsoft's blessing. And it means a lot to n00bs buying their first desktop or laptop.

The other side of that coin is that vendors need to see a significant return on investment when developing drivers that will work on a Linux platform. If they feel their customer base is primarily Windows users, what benefit would there be for them to create drivers to appease the relatively small percentage of Linux users that might buy their product.

I've been tooling around with Linux since I bought a Plug & Play Linux distro from a local computer shop in 1995, and quite frankly, I haven't seen anything that would make me want to install any distro on anything other than a VMWare image. If I had a couple extra machines to spare, then maybe... but right now, I'll stick with what works.

Although I did install Red Hat on some Dell laptops

Re:Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

ATI's Linux drivers are notoriously crappy (though to their credit, they've been improving them). A few months ago I got an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro for the dual-headed capability and better 3d graphics performance, only to find that my system was now crippled because of ATI's graphics drivers. They are the only thing that can crash my machine. Only the latest version of the drivers have been more stable, though they still lack the ability to do change to fullscreen in all resolutions supported by the current X configuration (in other words, if you want fullscreen, you're stuck using whatever the highest resolution your current X config supports).

Re:Desktop Linux

[bladesjester]

I dual booted my dell laptop (inspiron 1100) with xp pro and fedora so I could do dev work on both platforms without as much trouble. Both installs went pretty well once I upgraded the bios (the old version broke the video and was fixed in a later version).

The only problem I really had with either was sound and the wireless card. I was impressed. The only thing I wish it had was a bigger hard drive, but that's just a personal preference thing.

Re:Desktop Linux

[Pantero Blanco]

The problem with that is that Microsoft isn't going to be satisfied with only running Windows on the desktops of non-techies. They're actively trying to make life harder for people who don't use their product with, to use the cliche, FUD. If the administration at a college or technical school has been told that Linux is insecure and that Firefox comes bundled with spyware* , they're going to be paranoid about anyone using it on the network. Even if most people don't have the proficiency to use Linux, they should at least know that it is a valid and secure operating system, that many geeks like to use it, and that it's not going to slot things up. *I have actually heard this accusation from another person offline, after I installed Firefox on a computer. A closer investigation proved it was all the "free games" people had downloaded.

Re:Desktop Linux

[dknj]

And I bet you prefer your mac over linux. Seriously, I will not go to my computer illiterate family members and say install Linux for any reason. Its not READY for a computer illiterate person to use. You're taking a huge collection of unfinished applications, packaging it together and sending it out the door. Granted you have a few fully supported distros, but lets get serious again.. will my computer illiterate family member really want to pay $more-than-dell's-tech-support?

I've said this 5 years ago, and it still holds true today. Linux is where Windows 95 was when it first came out:

• You have a kernel that needs to boot and initialize all of its drivers first, then X11 is loaded (sound like a familiar microsoft product combo?).
• You still have X11 in the picture
• You do not have a rock solid GUI (sorry KDE and GNOME crap out way more under load than a similiarly configured windows 2000/xp system)
• You do not have a uniform feel across every application out there. My GTK app will look different from my KDE app. Hopefully the tango project (iirc) will solve this
• Little to No eye-candy (come on, who wanted to run out and buy mac os x when you saw its expose features :-)
• Support is lacking. If you don't believe me, take a look at a few KDE apps (quite a few programs have sections in their help pages that say "This is not complete yet" or something similiar)
• You still have X11 in the picture

Now at the same time, there are a few things that have became better over the last 5 years. Useful apps that used to only exist on windows now exist for linux and unix. Support is better than it was 5 years ago. Driver support is better than it was 5 years ago.

This article is just someone's fustration with Linux and they are trying to make it seem like there is some weird voodoo alliance against Linux. Wrong. Wrong! Linux is still maturing and will eventually be a decent contender to Windows*. Unfortunately, pressing a key combination that will cause a laptop to reboot without warning, giving up part of your computer and accepting it, and lack of software support does not mean the evil corporate world is trying to kill Linux. It sounds like Linux is not ready to compete with Windows and thus companies are not ready to make a full jump to support Linux.

Before I get flamed, I leave you with this: Who remembers getting desktop support for hardware they bought back in '92.. it was like pulling teeth because it required a phd for an average person to understand. Linux is in the same position.

*Assuming another OS does not beat it there first (hint: get rid of X11)

Re:Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I dual booted my dell laptop (inspiron 1100) with xp pro and fedora so I could do dev work on both platforms without as much trouble. Both installs went pretty well once I upgraded the bios (the old version broke the video and was fixed in a later version).

The only problem I really had with either was sound and the wireless card. I was impressed. The only thing I wish it had was a bigger hard drive, but that's just a personal preference thing.

I dual boot my Dell laptop (Inspiron 1150) with XP Home and Debian 3.1.

The only problems I had were with the video, and the modem. The modem I haven't managed to get going (but I don't really need it, so who cares?). The video needed a kernel upgrade, and an X upgrade.

Like you, the only thing I wish it had is a bigger hard drive.

Re:Desktop Linux

[dknj]

I dual booted my dell laptop (inspiron 1100) with xp pro and fedora so I could do dev work on both platforms without as much trouble.

You are a developer, you are not the average Windows user that thinks voodoo magic happens in the big black (or white) box next to their monitor. Open your eyes and look at the other 90% of computer users out there. A 10% market share will not make any major company support linux.

Re:Desktop Linux

[bladesjester]

"You are a developer, you are not the average Windows user that thinks voodoo magic happens in the big black (or white) box next to their monitor."

Never said I was an average user. In fact, I stated plainly that I wasn't.

"Open your eyes and look at the other 90% of computer users out there. A 10% market share will not make any major company support linux."

I never said it would make a major company support linux. My post was in response to someone that wasn't sure how hard it was to install on his laptop.

As far as opening my eyes goes, I readily admit that linux isn't ready for massive home desktop use (though I do think that it's ready for more extensive buisness use, especially since it can help save quite a chunk of money if you do it right). In fact, in an article coming out in the issue of the magazine that we're currently working on, I take great pains to point this out.

Re:Desktop Linux

[Ucklak]

It actually depends on what I do. I do like the Mac but I'm not sure if I like it better. I use my Mac for portability and wireless (iBook) and 3rd party applications. I have to use Photoshop (Gimp does not do PSD layers) and I love iMovie and iPhoto. iPhoto is great to showcase off the Mac to show troubled Windows users that the Mac actually is good enough for their needs. If one has the time to showcase off iMovie, it's a shoo in.

I do most of my productivity on Linux and games. I purchased Quake3 on cd when it came out and found it just as easy to install as any Windows game at the time.
I do like GQview better than iPhoto FWIW and there (or at least I haven't found any) isn't any comparable image program on Windows.

Re:Desktop Linux

[bubkus_jones]

[quote] but let the use of windows be the penalty in and of itself.[/quote]

That would only work if the people using it actually considered it punishment. It's like letting a drug addict continue to use drugs because "it destroys their life", when in the addict's point of view you're giving them what they want. They don't know any better, so they don't see it as punishment.

Re:Desktop Linux

[Fred_A]

I too have mostly Linux machines at home (and a small XP partition for games) and an iBook as a laptop (replacing my elderly Vaio PictureBook with Mandrake and a dead battery), and while the Mac is fine, I definitely prefer working in Linux.

Granted, there are a few nice commercial apps on the Mac (although the only commercial app I really use there is CopyWrite) that don't have equivalents in Linux. However the reverse is true as well.
Of course you can setup a lot of Unix apps on the Mac, however they are mostly very uncomfortable to work with. Fine for a quick fix, not for serious work.

And the i* stuff... Well, maybe I don't get it but things like iPhoto, frankly, I just absolutely loathe. It's the most useless bloated piece of crud I've seen in ages. It's only purpose is to sell online printing services and .mac storage. You can't even *look* at your pictures with it. Thankfully someone pointed out Phoenix Slides to me.

And regarding eye candy, that gets old so fast that it's not really an argument. Things like Dasboard widgets are mostly useless (and memory hogs)

I posted on my (being built, mostly empty) website a log I kept while I started exploring my iBook. Overall I find it to be a fine little machine but not an awe inspiring one. No doubt a lot of my shortcomings with it came from the fact that I hadn't touched a Mac in over 10 years, but then it was supposed to be easy, wasn't it ? ;)

Re:Desktop Linux

[WilliamSChips]

I purchased Quake3 on cd when it came out and found it just as easy to install as any Windows game at the time.

Well, that defeats that troll...

Re:Desktop Linux

[tsa]

I'm with you most of the way, however I don't agree on the X11 thing. I am in the process of switching from Linux to Mac because after eight years of using Linux I'm tired of having to spend hours just to get a printer or USB device working. Wit OS X you get the best of both worlds. But I still have X11 running standard on the Mac, because I can remotely log in and run X11 programs on the server while having the windows on the client. I know of no other windows server that makes this possible. If you know a way to export Aqua windows this way (so I can run programs on my iMac in the next room whilst laying on the couch with my iBook) I'm very interested.

Re:Desktop Linux

[dknj]

VNC can do the same thing. X11 was a great idea when it was first conceived, but the design is now its limiting factor. Take a look at appserver from AtheOS/Syllable, that uses a similiar client/server model which is easily hackable to display on a remote machine. It does not suffer the bottlenecks of X11.

Re:Desktop Linux

[tsa]

We use VNC at work for our Windows boxen, but the big problem I have with that is the fact that someone else who has physical acces to the remote machine can see on the screen what you are doing. So `secret' stuff via VNC is out of the question. But I'll look into appserver. Thanks for the tip!

Needs update

[Spy der Mann]

TODO: Update Slashdot Eezi Post.

[X] Copy/Paste "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux"

Why do we still post this garbage?

[eison]

"Part 2", the "what MS is doing to stop Linux" part, points out obvious facts (can't buy Linux computers in major retailers), asks why, and then postulates no decent answers. We should all ask, why does it suggest no decent answers? Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume? Or is it perhaps because there is a global conspiracy that stores take against profitable actions?

The author says we should believe: "Obviously, there are forces at work in the IT industry that cause retailers to choose not to participate in being more profitable." Right. Global conspiracy, obvious. Try again. The only thing that is really obvious is that the course of action he is suggesting (selling Linux systems in mass market brick and mortar retailers) is deemed unprofitable for these stores.

Sure, Walmart sells Linux. But only online, not brick and mortar.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[clodney]

The article was sensationalist and attributed to malice and conspiracy what is best explained by profit motive.

The major electronic retailers function as gatekeepers. There are thousands of products out there that they don't put on their shelves, so much so that simply getting a product on the shelf at Best Buy is a huge accomplishment for a small hardware or software vendor.

The primary issue is one of space and inventory turns. Best Buy expects that every foot of shelf space bring in some amount of revenue, and they stock products that will maximize that revenue. A product that only moves 5 copies a month will always lose out to one that moves 5 a day.

Computers with preloaded software take up a lot of space. I suspect that most models don't even give you a choice of XP Home or XP Pro, and XP Pro is far more popular than Linux. But every different SKU to stock means additional inventory headaches, so only the most popular choices are going to be in stock.

Now consider some of the secondary factors. People buying a PC with Linux are going to be less likely to buy additional software. They arguably don't need things like Spyware or Virus products, and much of what they want is OSS and available for free anyway. So the chances for upsell are greatly reduced, and follow on sales are going to be less.

Retailers will offer Linux boxes if the numbers justify it. Show them a way to make a buck and they will be all over it. But at the moment they don't feel it is profitable to do so. No grand conspiracy, just economics.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[grcumb]

"Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume?"

Not to get all empirical on you or anything, but if history is any guide, it's likely because their OEM sales and partnership agreements require that they push MS into a place of such prominence that all other alternatives remain hopelessly unattractive.

Don't feel compelled to pay any attention to this hugely speculative hypothesis; it's only backed by legal investigators from the DoJ and signficant anecdotal evidence from commentary all over the media. Feel free to hold tight to your faith in the invisible hand as it works its wonders on the flock, sparing us from excellence at every turn.

HTH, HAND

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[shmlco]

Probably because said retailer can count with the fingers of his left foot the number of commercial shrink wrapped software packages available to sell with it.

Customer: A Linux box? I've heard of those. And a $200 cheaper? Cool. Oh, I use MS Office at work, let's add that too.

Salesman: Well, MS doesn't make Office for it, but there's a...

Customer: No Office? Huh. I take pictures, how about Photoshop? Can I get that?

Salesman: No, but there's this thing you can download called...

Customer: How about Quicken?

Salesman: No.

Customer: No productivity software? Okay... How about games? I really like Half Life.

Salesman: Not available. But some people can get...

Customer: No games?

Salesman, resigned: No.

Customer: Well! I can see why it's so cheap. It doesn't run any of my programs!

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of these articles and rants begin with the assumption that there's some huge demand for Linux that is unmet by the retail channel.

But the fact is Linux is a totally unpopular and complete sales failure on the desktop. It's Loser OS for Loser customers. You would have to pay normal well-adjusted people to use it.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[harrkev]

Now consider some of the secondary factors. People buying a PC with Linux are going to be less likely to buy additional software. They arguably don't need things like Spyware or Virus products, and much of what they want is OSS and available for free anyway. So the chances for upsell are greatly reduced, and follow on sales are going to be less.

Wow. I had never even considered this. I wish that I had mod points to give you.

But, on to other topics. I am surprised that more companies do not provice Linux drivers for hardware. When I went to build a new system for myself a year ago, I wend nVidia all the way simply for their Linux support. I did not even consider ATI becuase they are way behind in the Linux driver department. So, ATI lost a sale that day, and nVidia scored a GPU and chipset sale. I am only one person, but I wonder how many sales nVidia has actually won by default by providing some decent drivers?

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

No.....the market requires this. If Walmart decided let's just sell Linux boxes, they would choose to switch back to Microsoft or stop selling computers altogether. I am SURE Microsoft DOES have contractual obligations in the contracts of HP and what not, but the real truth is they don't need these in thier contract....HP would rather sell a PC with Windows on it rather then not sell a PC with Linux on it. Until Linux is so compelling that you must make the switch, most people will not switch.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[mcrbids]

"Part 2", the "what MS is doing to stop Linux" part, points out obvious facts (can't buy Linux computers in major retailers), asks why, and then postulates no decent answers. We should all ask, why does it suggest no decent answers? Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume? Or is it perhaps because there is a global conspiracy that stores take against profitable actions?

But, you imply that the choice is one *or* the other. Why not both?

Am I a bit overweight because I don't excercise enough, or because I eat too much? Well, the true answer is: both.

Due to a lack of a unified UI, lack of driver support, lack of commercially available software, the cost of supporting a Linux install *is* higher when supporting the average Joe.

Also, Microsoft does everything it can to ensure that it gets sold on every computer sold by any of the major companies, making it further unprofitable.

Is it any wonder that the "big boys" don't want to install Linux? For most people, it's "fringe" software on the desktop, best used by propeller-heads, (like myself) on servers and "big iron" or in special "embedded" systems.

A funny story: A friend of mine was telling me all about wanting Windows on their computer 'cause it was "easier to use" and that he'd never have a Linux computer. I pointed to his Dish Network 522 DVR, and let him know: he's already got one...

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've yet to hear a single conversation go like this. In fact, most people who're shopping for a PC don't know that much about them, not even enough to ask you those questions. This suggests to me that your whole post was a troll.

Fancy that - a troll. On slashdot. Who'd have thought?

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[T-Ranger]

Well, the thing about ATI is that, historicaly, all their drivers suck. Their Linux drivers have just sucked more.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Javaman59]

Not to get all empirical on you or anything, but if history is any guide,

My memory of the history is that this was a well known, and widely condemned, practice of Microsoft in the DOS and Windows 3.n days. It stopped with Windows 95, or thereabouts, and Microsoft has renounced the practice (because of the legal risks and PR damage). So, your theory is of historical interest, but doesn't account for why Windows is the only thing in the shop 10 years later. Yep, it's like a thief getting away with stolen goods, but it's not the same thing as continuing to steal.

That's my "empirical" version. Disagree? Then let's see some facts. TFA had a good opportunity to dig up the dirt, and conspicuosly failed.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[kindbud]

No grand conspiracy, just economics.

As if economics isn't some grand conspiracy.

Where's my :rolleys: smiley?

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[lspd]

Part 2 is wrong though. Fry's does sell Linux boxes and even goes as far as advertising them in the Houston Chronicle on most Sundays. It's a crappy ThizLinux box used as a bait and switch. Shoppers come in for the cheap Linux box and get sold the slightly more expensive emachines WinXP box.

Linspire is truely evil though. Linspire boxes come with virtually no applications. The whole point of preloaded Linspire is to upsell the purchaser into click-and-run. ($99 CNR subscription for the $200 computer you just purchased!?!?!) I would bet that Linspire pays the OEM a small fee for each install or each CNR subscription. In a sane world these Linux preloaded machines would come with Debian, Fedora or some other free distro. They should be preloaded with thousands of applications and games. Instead anyone who experiences Linux for the first time through a preloaded machine will see the worst that Linux has to offer.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Arandir]

I use FreeBSD, not Linux, so Linux drivers don't help me any. What we really need are OPEN HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONS.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[gnu-user]

While I was in college in the 80s, Apple was extremely succesful selling to schools. Signifigantly better then half the computers sold were Macs. I asked the software buyer for the independent bookstore why PC software had a much stronger presence on the shelves. Did it sell proportionally better. He told me that his suppliers stocked very little Mac software and that he sold all that he could get.
.
The EE school at the time was requiring all of it's students to buy a Mac (they were using them to extend their Apollo workstations). Less then 30 feet from the main EE building was a B Dalton that stocked No Mac books at all (at the time, B Dalton was a good source of Mac Programming books in Des Moines). I asked them why they stocked no Mac programming books (let alone no Mac books). They told me that buying decisions were made in Indianapolis and they had no control.

The "market" dications are hardly clear...

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[lixee]

Still, why don't they give the option of selling blank computers (which accidentally's likely to decrease the cost which in turn increases the sales; The cheaper a computer is, the more often I'm willing to upgrade) ? I believe it's just a matter of time.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[ranton]

Like the parent poster said, it is not economically efficient to sell "blank" computers. The cost that they save per computer is going to be marginal, probably only about $40 at the most (windows is alot cheaper for retailers). And for that $40 they are going to see less sales, more technical support questions, and more returns.

There are going to be less sales because most people want an operating system preinstalled on their computer. A store such as Best Buy only has so much space to sell equipment, and a computer that doesnt sell is better off not being on the shelves.

If they sell computers without OSes, there are going to be more technical support questions. Those tech support staff members cost money, and they need to be more knowledgeable if they need to know how to help setup linux.

And returns cost money too, even if it is just shipping costs or the loss in profit from selling refurbished systems.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[kerrle]

Agreed - I've got a 9600XT that's been a pain since I owned it, though it's nothing compared to the amazing Rage128 as far as bad drivers go.

I thought they'd gotten better since the 9700 when I bought the card - and they have. Just not as much as they need to. Their Linux drivers are still a joke - no 16-bit color, lacking features all over the place, and they ignore my monitor settings in the last release, so I can't do more than 1280x1024.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

shmlco has posted a simulated conversation between a potential Linux customer and the retailer. shmlco then lists a number of Windows applications, and the salesman looses his sale because the apps "don't run on Linux."

In my version, the salesman sells the customer EVERY app he asked for PLUS CrossoverOffice and Cedega, and the customer STILL saves money! That's in addition to getting an OS that comes bundled with thousands of apps, doesn't phone home, and is "default deny" to the Internet's most virulent worms and viruses.

Yeah, I know... I'm preaching to the choir. As an AC, however, I'm obviously not karma whoring.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume?

I'm sorry, but when I see my local Best Buy floorwalker comparing the benefits of MS Windows XP vs. MS Office 2003, I am quite sure they have those problems already. Selling software badly is quite different from badly selling software.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[fcichy]

Now consider some of the secondary factors. People buying a PC with Linux are going to be less likely to buy additional software. They arguably don't need things like Spyware or Virus products, and much of what they want is OSS and available for free anyway. So the chances for upsell are greatly reduced, and follow on sales are going to be less.

Thats a fine nutshell you've put the problem into - abd the solution is right there too. Some enterprising linux distro should create a range of boxed software these retailers can stick on the shelves - not just distros, but individual apps. Design a pretty logo, burn the app onto CD and (heres the clincher) print out the docs (or wrtie some) and stick it in the box - joe sixpack still loves printed docco - and price it at 60-80% of the competing MS product. Pump the profits back into linux development obviously. I presume the GPL allows for something like this. The problem in giving everything away for free is that people still believe you get what you pay for. If people could see the range of applications available for linux, and the fact that they are all cheaper, they might be more willing to try it. Hell, stick a pretty GUI around /bin/false and call it Ubuntu Antivirus...

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[shmlco]

I'm not sure who to believe, you or the prior poster. He says that customers are too dumb to even ask if their software will run. You, OTOH, seem to think that the Best Buy or WalMart retail employee knows about CrossoverOffice and Cedega, can and will sell it, and the customer is smart enough to install it and use it.

At any rate, it demonstrates why Apple, as an example, practically had to write all of their own applications for the Mac. Without a ton of preinstalled and/or commercially available software, an OS by itself doesn't do much...

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[quarkscat]

Not just economics, but also conspiracy!

The USA has relinquished technological leadership in many areas in recent years, all for the sake of the short-term bottom line. Spin off or cast off entire operating divisions of a company after having decades of primacy in that particular market. Offshore outsource product development and manufacturing, all while hoping that the short term perceived (by shareholders) economic benefit outweighs loosing control of your company's IP. Slash wages and benefits for your few remaining professional staff in the hopes that they cannot flee to some other (non-existent) domestic competitor. The corporate officers of many of these companies are grabbing what inflated renumeration they can while they can, before the entire house of cards collapses.

This reminds me of that old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times..."

OEM equipment manufacturers are in the same boat as everyone else -- support the single largest market share OS, keep your heads down, and pray for salvation (in some form). That MSFT is using market pressure to help consumers deselect alternative software choices is not news, and has not been news ever since they became convicted monopolists. That the political regime currently in power would do whatever they can to support their largest corporate campaign contributors, instead of opening up real "free market" competition is also not news. Money, especially big money, is the "mother's milk" of politics.

Any author that promotes a "grass-roots" rebellion against the current status quo is little more than a modern day Don Quiote. The USA has relinquished its role as the world's incubator of innovation, in favor of JIT increased profits to qualify for those fat Board of Directors/Corporate officer bonuses. It will be ironic that a communist-led country that has espoused a capitalist-style free market will take over the "king of the hill" position that the USA has held for 50 years. Corporate national socialism, USA-style, will be no real competition for the Communist Chinese.

I, for one, reluctantly welcome our new Chinese overlords.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I went to build a new system for myself a year ago, I wend nVidia all the way simply for their Linux support. I did not even consider ATI becuase they are way behind in the Linux driver department.

When I built a new PC 10 months ago, I went with ATI because of their Linux support. I didn't even consider nVidia, because their only so-called "linux-driver" is simply a recompiled Windows driver (including registry key references and all), with lousy stability and no support (See "tainted"). And of course binary-only, so I might not be able to move the card to my next computer.

The ATI card works great (including 3D accelleration) with the XFree86 built in drivers, is stable, with source, and everything just works, like I've come to expect of my computer since I started running Linux.

Too bad ATI is becoming anti-Linux after getting the contract for the HaloBox 360. Just like nVidia did after getting the contract for the original HaloBox.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude get a clue.

DELL, HP, etc... they ALL are under contract to sell their computers with windows. just talk to everyone that buys a os-less DELL, it COMES with a copy of Windows on Disk with it. it is 100% impossible to not get windows unless you have a machine custom built by a mom-n-pop computer store (IMHO is a better pc with better parts than that Dell crap.)

please, pull your head out of the sand and actually LOOK.

Let me guess, you also believe that the WMD's are still hidden somewhere.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[waferhead]

I have personally bought one Linux machine at Frys, little Linspire box, 2800 Semptron, ~$200.
(The article indicated that Frys DOESN'T sell Linux boxes. They do, even though they are bottom of the barrel machines)
Runs great in any case.
(The Linspire install lasted about 30 minutes just to try it out tho, Mandrake runs perfectly on it)

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Adammil2000]

The reason retail stores are not offering Linux is because laptops are flying off the shelves already. It doesn't help that when people ask for Linux and the answer is 'No', that they buy anyway.

When some outfit turns into a big player like Dell because they are offering all sorts of custom hardware/software configs, then folks will get the message and you'll be able to get this on every street corner. The big problem here is momentum. There are not enough incentives yet for big business to grab ahold of Linux and run with it. Big business are the ones that really matter, because they are placing orders for tens and hundreds of desktops at a time. Not only does the Linux platform have to offer comparable functionality (read business applications), but there also has to be a big enough incentive for the labor and training expenditure to switch. Perhaps if Linux gets this far, then the price point of Linux is the ultimate pivot point and things start landsliding over to the Linux side.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[ajs318]

Amen to that, friend. Technically it's a common-law property right {you are automatically privy to any secret embodied in any article you rightfully own} but just try exercising it.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[ajs318]

If there was no such thing as GNU/Linux or FreeBSD or any of the alternatives, if using a computer meant Windows to the same extent as it meant using electricity, I know I'd be out there pushing for Manual Methods.

I find the thought of using pencil, paper and six-figure log tables way preferable to sucking Bill gates's knob -- which is exactly what you're doing when you use Windows.

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[1u3hr]

If they sell computers without OSes, there are going to be more technical support questions. Those tech support staff members cost money, and they need to be more knowledgeable if they need to know how to help setup linux.

If they didn't sell the OS, they're not obliged, morally or legally, to support whatever you install at all. If you bought Redhat or SuSE or whatever, you call them. So cost of support to vendor = zero. Anyway, you've assumed that Linux support costs are bound to be higher than Windows. That's somethng many would dispute. (Not for any random distro, but one designed for consumers, like Linspire.)

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure we can stock Linux hardware and software on the shelves so they can upsell. Here's what it would be like:

Next to the Linux PCs on the shelves are the antivirus and antispyware and antimalware boxes for Linux.

When the consumer gets home with the antispyware/malware/virus, you'd hear:

"Honey, these boxes are EMPTY?! WTF?"

Re:Why do we still post this garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, whine all you want, but Nvidia and/or ATI will NEVER release their driver source codes, even if it were profitable to do so, due to 3rd-party obligations as well as patent issues. I have a feeling you know this as well as I do.

Short version of this story

[glomph]

1. Forced sale of MS stuff still exists. Wow, what a surprise.
2. Before buying hardware, especially laptops, spend an hour googling or otherwise studying what IS supported. The morons in the story buy stuff and then find out compatibility. Fuckin' DUH!

Re:Short version of this story

[kashani]

Fucking duh is the entire point of the story. Why as a Linux user do I have to Google for an hour and then hope I can do the proper chicken sacrifice to make the drivers work? The OSS world has shown it can make kickass databases, web servers, kernels, mail servers, languages, etc, but we still can't get drivers installed. I'm likely to agree with the author that there are roadblocks not of our making that is causing this.

kashani

Re:Short version of this story

[glomph]

You miss the point. The point is to -verify- that the hardware has mainline drivers in the kernel. The support list is PLENTY LONG. The kernel is what matters, not whether you get SUSE 14.g or whatever distro. If anything, the gakked-up distros make all of this worse.

If you are the type that buys stuff in retail stores, just bring a KNOPPIX boot CD with you. If that finds all your hardware, you are assured of success. If not, buy something else.

Re:Short version of this story

[The Bungi]

The OSS world has shown it can make kickass databases

No, the "OSS world" has made no such thing. The two actually performant, enterprise-ready databases available under a free license are derived from commercial products that were open sourced by corporations (Postgres - CA Ingres | Firebird - Borland/Inprise Interbase).

The only "pure" from scratch free database server (MySQL) is just now coming of age (welcome to 2005!) by adding niceties like stored procedures and triggers.

If you judge OSS by its track record in producing database servers they tend to look really bad, so I'd avoid it if possible.

Re:Short version of this story

[geekee]

"Fucking duh is the entire point of the story. Why as a Linux user do I have to Google for an hour and then hope I can do the proper chicken sacrifice to make the drivers work? The OSS world has shown it can make kickass databases, web servers, kernels, mail servers, languages, etc, but we still can't get drivers installed. I'm likely to agree with the author that there are roadblocks not of our making that is causing this.
"

The roadblock is money. There's no incentive to support a niche market for consumer hardware running Linux. It's not a conspiracy, just simple economics.

Re:Short version of this story

[jc42]

The OSS world has shown it can make kickass databases

No, the "OSS world" has made no such thing.

Well, now; that depends on whose ass is being kicked.

The canonical example, of course is mySQL. And instantly, I can hear the mouse buttons click as hundreds of readers his the Reply button to royally flame me. We'll have to read another list of "mySQL can't do X" messages.

Well, yes, it probably can't. And a lot of happy users just reply "I don't need to do X. When I do, I'll look at DBs that support X. Meanwhile, mySQL runs significantly faster (with less memory) on the things that I need to do than those fancy commercial DBs that can do X."

As a programmer, I understand quite well why generally a tool designed to do tasks A, B and C will generally run more slowly for all of them than three tools each designed to do A, B or C alone. That's pretty much a no-brainer. You add features to a big program, you usually find that some of the old features run somewhat more slowly, mostly because of all those extra if tests scattered through the code. And it uses more memory, mostly because of the initialization data for data structures for the new features.

So, depending on the state of your ass, there may well be OSS DBs that can kick it quite well. Or maybe not. YMMV, as they say, depending on what you need it to do.

Re:Short version of this story

[The Bungi]

depending on what you need it to do

Yes well, I suppose if I was looking for an Access replacement I'd fully expect to have my ass kicked and surprised into next week.

When you consider MySQL in a vacuum and in the context of a limited set of tasks for which it has been optimized over the course of its history then MySQL absolutely rocks. But "kick ass database" in my world means a little more than that.

In any case, I'm not making the case that MySQL sucks - it doesn't. Just that surely/i? there's a reason it's so far behind Postgres, and I'm pretty confident it's not the size of the community (which supposedly imbues any project with magical mystical powers).

Re:Short version of this story

[benow]

There is more to open software than open code. By opening the dev process, there is more feedback by users, more testing in place, more rounded features, and less company-sposored db admin whoring. There were not alot of open source programs around when postgres and interbase were built.

Re:Short version of this story

[bladesjester]

He doesn't miss the point. In fact, he hits it on the head. You should not have to wonder wether all of the componants are going to play with your OS. I remember doing that with windows...back in the mid 90's.

I'm not placing blame for it, and, indeed it's getting a lot easier to throw it on just about everything now. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be an issue to run a modern operating system on modern comodity hardware and researching "computer stuff" is something that your average pc user is not going to do, and in many cases isn't really capable of doing especially since most people only use their computers for email and the web.

I believe Linux is ready for much more buisness use, but until my mother can deal with it easily, it won't be ready for mainstream home desktop use.

disclaimer: I am the editor of a technical and open source magazine, a software developer, and have been a network analyst. My views are my own and not necessarily those of my employers or clients (past or present). In all fairness, I use Linux and even help others switch, but I realize that there are currently some limitations for its widespread home use.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple answer to your question is (drum roll maestro please!).... because you told the manufacturers and Linux developers that you don't want drivers and easy installation.

When company's do try and support the community with a binary driver, your (as in the /. hive mind) response is to criticise them for not releasing code or specs. You blatantly don't care that they made an effort to cater to what is a negligable niche market, nope, instant response is to criticise.

Now add into the equation Linus'es habit of changing the entry points into the kernel, and we end up with the mess of what drivers the manufacturers do release not working across minor revisions of the kernel.

I'll let Linus off the hook at this point, the spirit of the GPL makes it a political battle he probably doesn't want to fight just to appease companys with IP to protect.

But lets say a company does want to do its bit for the niche market. Next hurdle is support costs. Ever had the thrill of setting up printers under cups? how about sound in Linux? USB mice are fun (yes sir, you will need to unplug it then plug it back in every time you reboot!). Linux is a support nightmare.... a zillion distro's and the prospect of talking a customer through their very first kernel recompile.

Retail is about maximising profit per square foot of floor space. Windows PC's are profitable because they have low support costs, ditto for Macs, Linux PC's on the other hand are cost centres.

So back to the article... yes theres a conspiracy to keep Linux out of the mainstream, but the bogeyman isn't Microsoft or the evil Dell corporation.... its US the geeks who instantly reply to any criticism that the user should either figure it out, or do it him(her)self.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the editor of a technical and open source magazine, a software developer, and have been a network analyst. My views are my own and not necessarily those of my employers or clients (past or present). In all fairness, I use Linux and even help others switch, but I realize that there are currently some limitations for its widespread home use.

Holy crap... a post that's not involved in any form of prosyletising! Sir, I take my hat off to you: a worthwhile post!

Re:Short version of this story

[bortizc]

You can always use a live cd and test things. I did this with my hp pavilion dv1000. no problem whatsoever. runs ubuntu. 100% free open source software. everything supported. just pop in a live cd and check it yourself.

Re:Short version of this story

[bladesjester]

"Holy crap... a post that's not involved in any form of prosyletising! Sir, I take my hat off to you: a worthwhile post!"

I look at it this way: you don't make any long term friends by glossing over the negative points of things that you advocate, especially in buisness. Pretending that negatives don't exist, that they aren't important (if they are), or that, worse yet, they are somehow the fault of the person who wants to buy/use the solution gives you a really bad reputation after a while.

There are problems with every operating system that you care to look at. Some of them are common to all of them; some of them are specific to that OS, but they all have problems. They also all have areas of use where, as they currently exist, they are more suited.

Let's face it, most users just want it to work. If they have someone to support their system or help them with it, great (and hats off to the ones who can and want to do it all for themselves). If not, they are going to go for what is easiest for them.

Believe it or not, it's fairly simple and buisness-like. Don't promise what you can't bring to the table and if your solution doesn't work for someone who might be interested in it, don't blame them. Just realize that you won't be a fit for everyone.

Re:Short version of this story

[Trelane]

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be an issue to run a modern operating system on modern comodity hardware

In an ideal world, no, it shouln't be a problem at all. However, we don't live in an ideal world; vendors implement open interfaces, but many implement their own interfaces and give nobody else the information, or implement the standard in a non-standard (i.e. broken) fashion.

I suspect that you intend to say standardized hardware, and that's generally zero problem under Linux. You can buy USB Mass Storage devices and use them under Linux without fear--heck, KDE and GNOME will also auto-mount the drive on insertion and pop up a little icon on your desktop for you to click on (and optionally start browsing it). The problem is non-standard hardware. Things like the encrypted USB thumbdrives, the various almost-compatible-but-not-quite cameras and things like that. These require the vendor to support your OS, and without copious trial-and-error and potentially even reverse-engineering all of the individual devices, your OS generally can't support it. Outside of a cross-platform device development kit being developed (which requires a fair market which we don't currently have; nobody needs to develop it, since nobody wants it, and since nobody has developed it, it's hard to create a driver for multi platforms, so Windows keeps its dominance, so nobody needs to develop it, and so on), this won't change. Vendors will develop for whoever has the market, and this is Windows. It's worth noting, however, that this is mostly not an innate problem with Linux--it's almost purely the product of an extremly imbalanced market.

researching "computer stuff" is something that your average pc user is not going to do, and in many cases isn't really capable of doing especially since most people only use their computers for email and the web.

I believe Linux is ready for much more buisness use, but until my mother can deal with it easily, it won't be ready for mainstream home desktop use.

While I totally understand why people bring up Linux hardware and software compatibility, it's important to realize that, again, this is nothing Linux itself can fix, modulo a few things (e.g. ndiswrapper), and it aggrivates me that this is so. Yes, hardware and software support is an issue for Linux (and, notably, Mac!), it's important that people realize that this is an entirely artificial problem. No, it won't help them magically get supported, but it will help them wake up to the realities of the situation we live in. Informed consumers are the best consumers, and they're the cornerstone of capitalism (well, OK; this is an overgeneralization; capitalism works just fine with a simple buy-the-cheapest mindset, but such then requires the intervention of government for the general good, as consumers disregard things like their own long-term safety in exchange for cheaper prices and security; informed consumers acting on their principles and information make such government intervention at best superfluous; there may be an interesting feedback effect.)

Additionally, for Mac and hopefully for Linux in the future, the "research" of which you speak consists of looking at the box in the store (or the System Requirements on the website) before buying.

Finally, I disagree with your assertion that Linux isn't ready for your mother. Well, taking "your mother" to be the general Mother At Home. As you state, "most people only use their computers for email and the web." For such users, Linux is ideal, since it's a (currently) virus-poor environment. The major caveats are website support (which isn't generally a problem anymore, though there are a few sites out there), but I suspect that most of these users also don't use the huge Windows/IE-Only sites very much, as they pretty much just read th

Re:Short version of this story

[killjoe]

"but we still can't get drivers installed. I'm likely to agree with the author that there are roadblocks not of our making that is causing this."

In most cases it's illegal to try and write drivers for hardware you don't have specs and permission for. DMCA sees to that.

If you have problems with drivers then you need to yell at the hardware manufacturer.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone talks about how windows supports so many different types of hardware, and how Linux and OSS needs to get in gear like windows and support more hardware.

Ask yourself these questions:

1. How many of these hardware drivers does Microsoft write?

2. How hard is it to write a driver for a completely undocumented piece of hardware?

I think Linux is doing MUCH more work in this area than Microsoft ever will.

Re:Short version of this story

[elronxenu]

It's because the hardware manufacturers are bringing out new cards (etc) all the time, and their new cards are subtly different from their old cards, and so need drivers, and the manufacturer doesn't (or won't) release specifications for OSS developers to use.

I see a lot of gear which is 95% supported in linux, and the developers probably achieved that 95% through reverse engineering. To get 100% you need two things: proper specifications and committed developers.

Re:Short version of this story

[oliverthered]

The reason no one makes drivers is simple: Linus keeps changing the internals of the kernel all the time, so you can't just write a driver for 2.6.x and be done with it, you have to write one for 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3 etc.... and then people complain when they don't compiler properly or work too well (ref ATI).

Linux will never get external people writing drivers until the kernel stabilizes a lot of it's interfaces.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass! Youre supposed to be sacrificing goats(e). Thats why it doesnt work.. Good job. Loser.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not the previous poster's point at all. His point was simply, how hard is it to read the box? System requirements: Windows xxx
The purchaser bought the hardware without reading the system requirements on the box, then went back a second time and bought a 2nd piece of hardware while not doing the same exact thing!
Any person with 1/2 a brain should read the system requirements first.
It's like buying a car advertised to run diesel, then trying to fill it with unleaded. Car dies, driver shakes his fist, and blames for lack of support.
Sorry, but said driver is a moron.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at it this way: you don't make any long term friends by glossing over the negative points of things that you advocate, especially in buisness. Pretending that negatives don't exist, that they aren't important (if they are), or that, worse yet, they are somehow the fault of the person who wants to buy/use the solution gives you a really bad reputation after a while.

Strange, because that's how salespeople do. And salespeople are what businesses employ when they want to sell stuff.

Especially Microsoft, but also every company in every business.

Examples:
Not mentioning that XP is still an unstable, unreliable piece of sh*t.

Blaming the user for every problem (didn't you say Windows was userfriendly? Then why do you need a team of MCSEs to get it to work right?)

Claiming that the next version will fix the problems (that would be Windows 3.11? No? 95 then?)

Re:Short version of this story

[Orcish_Rodent]

I would agree with you, but my mother has being successfully using linux on her desktop for the past year. Yes that means installing new software and upgrading, all the stuff she did in windows. So I fail to see your point.

Re:Short version of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal is it? Let's see......no. Oh wait, you mean you forgot about the majority of people in the world, those who don't live in a certain North American country?

Re:Short version of this story

[Alioth]

The thing is, it's not a level playing field. Microsoft doesn't have to make drivers - the manufacturers of hardware does it for them, and often pays Microsoft for the privilege! Linux and the *BSDs have to (by and large) make their OWN drivers for the same hardware, and it might not even be documented - so they are at a huge disadvantage, having to write drivers themselves either by reverse engineering or by using (often) bad hardware documentation. It's not that drivers are innately difficult to install under Linux (I installed the FUSE driver the other day without needing to even reboot, it took about a minute to install the kernel module which loaded automatically as soon as I ran a program that used FUSE) it's that manufacturers simply don't write them for Linux at all.

It would be nice to be able to use Linux on any random piece of hardware - but the fault that it can't is down to the manufacturers, not the Linux developers who have made a sterling effort to support most common hardware with absolutely no support from hardware manufacturers. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't even lift a finger to do hardware support itself - it just lets the manufacturers pay for it (then pay Microsoft a fee to certify the driver). There are of course some exceptions - I'm sure Hewlett-Packard contributed expertise and source to make sure that Linux runs very well on their server hardware. But by and large, the usual response from hardware manufacturers is to not even release documentation let alone an actual driver.

Re:Short version of this story

[jc42]

When you consider MySQL in a vacuum and in the context of a limited set of tasks for which it has been optimized over the course of its history then MySQL absolutely rocks. But "kick ass database" in my world means a little more than that.

Of course. And every other DB user would probably say something very similar.

The problem is that "kickass" isn't a simple adjective; it describes a relations between an app and a user. It basically means "This thing does what I need in a way that I personally find simple and easy to use". What's a "kickass" app to one person is a horribly deficient, user-hostile app to another.

Come up with some real reasons...

[No Salvation]

So Linux desktop computers cost more than Microsoft Windows PCs do, and it's hard to find devices and drivers for Linux.

Linux works better with most hardware out of the box in my experience. Windows XP won't even recognize my SATA controller, and most of the other drivers don't work very well until I update them.

Oh, and buy a system without ANY operating system, if it still is costing you more find someone with a 3 digit IQ to find a cheaper computer for you. Besides this is mostly Microsoft's fault because they won't give special discounts to dealers that sell computers with no OS/Linux.

The guy running SuSE 9.3 sounded like he tried Linux for a grand total of 10 minutes, of course you aren't going to know how everything works in that time frame. Sheesh.

Re:Come up with some real reasons...

[FST777]

The guy running SuSE 9.3 sounded like he tried Linux for a grand total of 10 minutes, of course you aren't going to know how everything works in that time frame. Sheesh.

Sorry, but this sound to me as the stereotippic kind of you're-not-smart-enough-to-use-Linux-so-don't-use- Linux-and-stop-bothering-me reply to a real problem for many users.

If you expect a desktop OS, and don't get a GUI working (which is what happened here) it can take a VERY long time on Unices to find out what the heck is wrong, especially without knowing what in Linus name is X-window etcetcetc. I'm only a OSS user because I'm persistent. I had the same experience with X with my first Linux-install, and I took the time to find out what was the matter. Most users do not have the time, patience or knowledge to do this and as long as it is needed, Linux will not become a major player on the desktop outside the geek-community.

Think from the users perspective, then reply. Sheesh.

Re:Come up with some real reasons...

[Hosiah]

of course you aren't going to know how everything works in that time frame.

No, you forgot, this is Linux, which must always be held up to an unobtainable standard, while all other systems are deemed exceptional if they boot once. Linux is supposed to teach itself to you while you sleep, cure your AIDS, make you a millionaire, and send two Swedish bikini models over with champagne and a pound of coke to pleasure you every time you boot it up, in order to be considered half as good as the steaming turds put forth as the standard.

I just had somebody about three threads ago complain that they wouldn't use Linux because the live CDs lock the CD drive shut while they're running. I told them about Puppy linux. I didn't have the heart to break it to them about USB-drive-hosted distros.

Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesn't need outside forces to stop it's adoption on the desktop. How many years now has it been the year of Linux on the desktop? Linux on the desktop will always be a niche product. Just get over it and get on with your life.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh.

Re:Genius? Who knows. Smart experienced guy? Yes.

[UnderScan]

That opening line was written by the editor of the piece. John Terpstra is a good author and more importantly, a long time contributor to FOSS, namely samba. See "Samba-3 by Example: Practical Exercises to Successful Deployment".

Of couse...

[jamesgamble]

...Microsoft is trying to hinder Linux. It's the biggest threat Microsoft has ever had. Microsoft knows that if they do not do anything to discredit Linux or prove that it isn't viable in the marketplace/business world, they won't be around much longer. It's a natural reaction to the Monopoly Microsoft has held for years.

Complaints

[Tribbin]

People for who I installed linux, say the following is missing:

Good MSN with all smileys, filetransfer, videochat.
Support for all streaming media in your webbrowser.
All multimedia files supported (without having to add (unofficial) repositories to have support for win32codecs and such).

Oh yeah, for the transition, full NTFS writing support.

Apart from that, my friends, mother, sister and girlfriend really like linux.

Re:Complaints

[bersl2]

Everything except for the second item is extremely difficult, because they rely on proprietary formats and protocols. The NTFS support we have to date only exists because people undertook the Herculean effort to reverse-engineer the way it stores information on disk. Some formats of media files are also proprietary; and so that we don't have to reverse engineer them immediately, we use modified binary libraries; however, we cannot officially package these with distros, because any distro doing so is a big fat target for a lawsuit, as the licenses of the codecs usually prohibit it. Any support for MSN messaging also exists only because someone reverse-engineered the protocol. Tying MSN into existing free file transfer and video chat facilities is something no-one may have gotten around to yet.

In case you don't notice a pattern: the half-complete capabilities mentioned here were attained through reverse engineering, a very laborious, time-consuming process; and in the cases where a shortcut has been taken, there are usually legal disincentives and prohibitions to doing so.

Re:Complaints

[Ucklak]

My biggest complaint is the lack of official 3rd party multimedia support.
I understand why there is no Windows Media Player for Linux and all WMP does for Mac is play files. It isn't the same as it is on Windows.
Quicktime for Windows is almost identical if not completely as it is on the Mac. That shows me that Apple's programmers are much better than those from the Microsoft campus. (comment not intended as troll material)
Real at least gives us a supported player but I really haven't tried the latest version and I'm pretty sure that it will only play Real files unlike the other OS's where the Real player will play AVI's and MPG's, etc...

If Real would play MP3's, AVI's, MPG, etc..., I would happily support Real and forgive their PC Hijackings of years past.

Re:Complaints

[Elshar]

1) gaim - works for yahoo/msn/aim. Has smilies. my girlfriend loves it. :P

2) firefox - supports windows media, quicktime, realplayer

3) mplayer - grab the all codecs version, watch whatever you want. Actually performs better than any other player out there. And its FREE.

4) Yea, that was lacking the last time I checked (over a year ago) as well, but at least it seemed to support reading great. Just toss up a fileserver or something or use smbfs/samba and you can share all your crazy movie collections. :)

Re:Complaints

[NeoSkandranon]

1) gaim - works for yahoo/msn/aim. Has smilies. my girlfriend loves it. :P

But can it do the odd bits, like direct connect, file transfer and vid chat, as the original poster mentioned? That's why i stopped using Trillian. It was a major hassle to have to start up the actual IM client every time someone wanted to send me something

Re:Complaints

[Aequo]

Good MSN with all smileys, filetransfer, videochat.
I think these people must have missed Kopete.
Using a nifty script you can download the official icons from the MSN server and use them without a problem. It has had file transfer support for ages now, and has acquired webcam support quite recently.

Support for all streaming media in your webbrowser.
Mplayer-plugin is a Mozilla/Firefox plugin that lets you display Windows Media, QuickTime, MPEG, Ogg Vorbis, and Real format movie clips in your web browser. Works perfectly for me.

Oh yeah, for the transition, full NTFS writing support.
Moving from NTFS to ext3 or Reiser shouldn't require NTFS write support, should it? With that said, Captive has been providing this for a while.. never used it myself, but I hear good things about it.

Happy?

Re:Complaints

[Freexe]

I doubt he is a troll, they are resonable questions if you ask me, and in a foreign environment evening knowing how to "install" can be an issue.

As for mulitmedia support, this can be a horrible issue for new users, where do you even begin. In windows you can just ask a geek friend and he will tell you which site to goto to download a codec pack and "install". //apart from the "smileys" bit, you can just ignore that part.

Re:Complaints

[Liam Slider]

Yeah, but when I, as a Linux user look at a fresh Windows install/reinstall I note a lot of things missing...

1) No decent photo editing software. Sorry, gotta pay extra for that, or download it. 2) No decent office suite. MS Office is an extra, that you have to pay for. 3) No decent web browser. Anyone who says that IE is decent deserves a punch in the mouth. 4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows. 5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere. 6) CD/DVD burning software? Nope, gotta pay extra for that too. 7) Desktop publishing software. Yeah...gonna have to go to the store again... 8) Personal finance software. Oh great, gotta go to the store again.

This kind of stuff is pretty common on your basic Linux install, without adding new software.

And plug and play is more like "plug and pray" on Windows as you find yourself having to install various drivers for this and that. Sure, vendors provide a lot of support for Windows, providing drivers with hardware and such...but more stuff just plain works out of the box on Linux than with Windows. And it's less likely that you'll suddenly see hardware dropped from being supported on Linux.

The argument of "what's missing" can be applied both ways...and I think more is missing from Windows than from Linux.

Re:Complaints

[cdegroot]

Yup. I am a very early Linux adopter (ran a Fidonet node on 0.99), but I decided to just leave XP Pro on my new laptop, because it's just soo much easier - no messing around with drivers that either don't work or are outdated, MSN just works, there's decent graphics software available (as long as Gimp is 8 bit don't ask me to call it decent), etcetera etcetera. And Cygwin+putty do a nice job of supporting my sysadmin thingies.

Besides, current Linux desktops are just as bloated and unusable as current Windows desktops. The difference simply isn't worth the effort.

Re:Complaints

[MP3Chuck]

direct connect -- Yes. Unfortunately I don't see a way to do so. But I'm confident that I've done it before. It has support for image transfer, which requires Direct Connection. Maybe it has to be initiated by someone using AIM? But that'd be crap... file transfer -- Yes, though the GTK file dialog will take a bit of getting used to for someone used to the win32 file dialog. vid chat -- No. But apparently video support for Gaim is in the works. Can't vouch for its status, though.

Re:Complaints

[braindead]

Gimp supports 24-bit color (also known as "True Color"), and has for as long as I can remember.

Re:Complaints

[PCM2]

In case you don't notice a pattern: the half-complete capabilities mentioned here were attained through reverse engineering, a very laborious, time-consuming process; and in the cases where a shortcut has been taken, there are usually legal disincentives and prohibitions to doing so.

The OP wasn't disagreeing with you. He was just listing reasons why people prefer to use Windows over Linux. You think your explanation is likely to change their minds?

Re:Complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

GAIM does not include any of the features he's asking for.

Re:Complaints

[Tribbin]

Moving from NTFS to ext3 or Reiser shouldn't require NTFS write support, should it?

Most people I got so far that they want to try linux, don't want to completely rely on this OS that they have never used before. They want to be able to open/write their documents in their trusted environment anytime they feel alienated in the linux environment.

Re:Complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

So, essentially, Linux needs better pr0n support.

Re:Complaints

[dtfinch]

In other words, you want them to break a few laws to give you a Windows clone with some actual Windows parts.

Re:Complaints

[Tribbin]

"In other words, you want them to break a few laws to give you a Windows clone with some actual Windows parts."

Does my post say that they must do anything at all?

I love linux and it works perfectly for me.

But (just like you) I also get frustrated of criticism regarding linux, and tell people that it's Microsoft's fault that linux doesn't work the way they want it to. The people I love most are extremely headstrong, so the 'microsofts fault' excuse is not accepted by them.

I summed their complaints just FYI.

Re:Complaints

[Tribbin]

The eight bits he mentioned is eight bits PER COLOUR!

red, green, blue = 3 colours.

3x8=24

Re:Complaints

[slavemowgli]

There is a branch of gaim (dubbed "gaim-vv") that does voice and video chat. It has existed as a separate project for a long time, but is supposed to be merged back into the trunk for the upcoming gaim 2.0.

I never tried it, so I can't say whether it's good or not, but it's something to look forward to, still. :)

Re:Complaints

[dtfinch]

Somehow I missed the first half the the first sentence.

Re:Complaints

[kerrle]

Real does play MP3s and streaming MP3 media. It also plays a variety of other things - basically whatever Helix player supports.

It's not perfect - I still use Totem for movies and whatnot - but Realplayer for Linux is actually a decent media player.

I never thought I'd see the day I'd recommend Real software for anything...

Re:Complaints

[Nimey]

I have a FAT32 partition for that very purpose. Sure, it doesn't support files larger than 4GB, but I don't have DVD rips on my computer so I don't care.

Re:Complaints

[bersl2]

Oh, OK. I misunderstood "People for who I installed linux, say the following is missing". It seemed as though he made several mistakes, when in fact he made only one, "who" instead of "whom". I mean, when someone uses the formalism of placing the preposition in front of the relative pronoun instead of at the end of the clause, is it not reasonable to expect this person to also use the objective case of said relative pronoun?

Yay heuristics!

Re:Complaints

[rjstanford]

Yeah, but when I, as a Linux user look at a fresh Windows install/reinstall I note a lot of things missing...

1) No decent photo editing software. Sorry, gotta pay extra for that, or download it.

You had me at, "Pay extra." Then again, if you're talking GIMP, it runs on Windows anyway. Sure, you have to d/l it, but its hardly a significant issue these days. Not that I really care for GIMP, but that's another debate entirely.

2) No decent office suite. MS Office is an extra, that you have to pay for.

Agreed, you have to pay for it. Its not really that expensive, and it does what it claims to do. I've yet to have a good enough experience with OO to risk using it to create a document I'd send to someone important (ie, sending something to a customer or working on a friend's resume or, well, much over internal documents).

3) No decent web browser. Anyone who says that IE is decent deserves a punch in the mouth.

Quit FUDding yourself. IE works just fine for the majority of people, as long as you don't go clicking "Yes," when it asks you to install randomCrap3.0 - something people could do just as easily on any other browser. Hell, my company creates web-based applications and I run it (and Firefox) and, really, it works pretty well these days.

4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows.

Er, How about Windows Movie Maker? Its a free download from MSFT and works well enough for the vacation-dvd crowd. Sure, its not stellar, but I wasn't aware that there was really good free OSS for video editing either. Its not iMovie but, hey, few things are.

5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere.

Sure, somewhere like download.com that has a boatload of free IRC clients. If anyone cares which, hey, most people don't. But its not like finding something and downloading it is harder than figuring out which bizarre Linux package you want (ie: both are on the surface "difficult," in reality quite easy).

6) CD/DVD burning software? Nope, gotta pay extra for that too.

CD/DVD data burning has been built into XP from day one. For DVD movies, see the MovieMaker download referenced above.

7) Desktop publishing software. Yeah...gonna have to go to the store again...

Yup. And what you get will be a lot easier for most people to use, too - whether they're newbies who need a lot of hand-holding, or pros who want something great.

8) Personal finance software. Oh great, gotta go to the store again.

At least its an option - I've yet to see any OSS finance software that supported any significant automatic online synchronization, for example, which I would consider mandatory for any personal finance package.

Look, modern Linux distros are really good at server-side work. I use them a lot for just that. You don't have to spread FUD around with a shovel claiming that they do everything better than anything else does - if for no other reason than it helps mask the problems and slows down the fix rate. Mmmkay?

Re:Complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

mplayer, even with all the codecs on the unofficial site, doesn't handle the latest quicktime or wmv encoded video files. Nor does winamp on windows, which I think implies that the codecs are built into the players. But the net result is still that windows plays anything given the right proprietary player, and linux does not :(

4) requires 2 computers, and is a bit technical (I'd have to do some reading before knowing how to do it)

Re:Complaints

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

No. Why the fuck should I have to set this shit up myself. Shouldn't there be a distro that does it out of the box?

Re:Complaints

[timbo234]

Riight, which is why when I install the latest WinXP with SP2 I can do all this out of the box? Why can't I play real, quicktime, divx videos out of the box? Why can't Windows access my Linux ext3 drive out of the box?

Re:Complaints

[alienfluid]

you're forgetting that Mac programmers have an incentive to make their software work on Windows (more than 90% user base) whereas programmers on the MS campus don't place pleasing 2% (or less) of the market on the top of their priority list. Hey, I'm not trying to justify anything - just pointing out the facts.

Re:Complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

So, for the GGP poster, before photoshop got 12-bit per channel colour, he didn't use that either?

FilmGiimp does more bits per colour (I think floating point colour is in the cards too, don't know how far the development has gone).

Re:Complaints

[nitio]

Oh yeah, for the transition, full NTFS writing support.
Moving from NTFS to ext3 or Reiser shouldn't require NTFS write support, should it? With that said, Captive [jankratochvil.net] has been providing this for a while.. never used it myself, but I hear good things about it.

For that note I must say Captive works very good, been using it for over 6 months and the only problem I've ever had was with a 4 Gb (note that this is Gigabytes not bits) that refused to be written and I had to force an unmount. Even so, no damage to any partition was done.

Re:Complaints

[Jesus_666]

Because Linus Torvalds is blackmailing the hardware manufacturers. ;)

No, actually it's true - third party stuff is third party stuff. You can't expect a distro to come with this preinstalled, especially when (like Captive) they use copyrighted material. You are free to download the NTFS drivers but they are not free to distribute them.

Re:Complaints

[Liam Slider]

I did not claim it did everything better than everything else on the planet. Nor did I say that some of this software was completely unavaliable.

4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows.

Er, How about Windows Movie Maker? Its a free download from MSFT and works well enough for the vacation-dvd crowd. Sure, its not stellar, but I wasn't aware that there was really good free OSS for video editing either. Its not iMovie but, hey, few things are.

5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere.

Sure, somewhere like download.com that has a boatload of free IRC clients. If anyone cares which, hey, most people don't. But its not like finding something and downloading it is harder than figuring out which bizarre Linux package you want (ie: both are on the surface "difficult," in reality quite easy)

.

Gee, I thought we were talking about the default install, not what you later download from the internet somewhere. I was saying that most Linux distros come with these things by default, because someone else was claiming that Linux distros don't come with other (relatively minor if you ask me) things by default that Windows does come with. Running off to Microsoft's download site, or to download.com doesn't change the fact that a default install of Windows is...lacking in decent software. Far more than Linux can be claimed to be. Or was this simply a pathetic, weak, trollish attempt to change the argument in a different direction in order to salve your ego considerning your OS? If so, you have failed, your argument-fu is weak.

7) Desktop publishing software. Yeah...gonna have to go to the store again...

Yup. And what you get will be a lot easier for most people to use, too - whether they're newbies who need a lot of hand-holding, or pros who want something great.

You've obviously not heard of Scribus. And again, it's often included on Linux distros by default. Microsoft doesn't put out a Windows with included desktop publishing tools, as you admit.

Look, modern Linux distros are really good at server-side work. I use them a lot for just that. You don't have to spread FUD around with a shovel claiming that they do everything better than anything else does - if for no other reason than it helps mask the problems and slows down the fix rate. Mmmkay?

I never, never once said Linux does everything better than everything else. You are a liar on that. I merely was addressing claims about how there were (a few, tiny) things that Linux was "missing" by pointing out that I don't exactly "miss" them all that much when I see a default install Windows machine....with next to no software on it. That if anything, it's Windows that's missing stuff. How is this FUD? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that Windows comes with more than Linux somehow? Or am I missing something?

And yes, it is great on servers, but it's not exactly lacking in greatness on the desktop side either. If it were, I wouldn't be using it. I'd be using something great. I wouldn't, however, be using the cheap (as in quality, not as in price) crap.

Re:Complaints

[braindead]

Are there programs out there that have more than 8 bits per channel of color? Photoshop?

That's an honest question - are there even printers that are able to print at more than 8 bits per channel? Are there people who can tell the difference?

Re:Complaints

[Tribbin]

16 bit per channel is under development for gimp as I remember to have read somewhere.

Stolen somewhere:

Re:16 bits per channel (Score:0)
By Anonymous Reader on 2005.10.05 14:38 (#118545)
The problem is not to be able to see a difference between images with 8 and 16 bits per channel.

The problem is that 8 bits postprocessing is less accurate.

For example, if one of your photos is partly underexposed then you probably want to raise the luminosity in the shadows.

If your image is 8 bits (256 levels), the shadows will provide, let's say, 10 levels of 'gray' to play with. This is not a lot and the result is likely to be crap (and noisy).

Now, if your digital camera provides 16bit per channel then the same shadows will provide 2500 levels to plays with. That's a hell of a difference.

Most digital cameras only provide 12bits but 4bit more bits means 16 times more levels to play with.

Anyways, the situation in The Gimp is not so bad for digital camera owners.
The UFRAW plugin can load almost any RAW image files.
Also, UFRAW allows you to adjust your image (levels, WB, ...) using all available bits.

Once loaded, The Gimp has to work in 8bits but that is less of a problem.

Re:Complaints

[Tribbin]

PNG supports lots of bits already. 16 bits per channel. RGBA (red green blue aplha) makes 64 bits per pixel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG

HP has a history of making so-so boxes

[HBI]

Their desktop models in particular have been very flaky over the years. I have a ton of old Vectras here of various versions, and another company I worked for used them as a standard desktop. They were always weird...strange issues with video or certain expansion boards, and they aren't the best choice in the world for Linux.

We waste more time with 20 Vectras than we would with 100 Dells in terms of hardware-related support.

I was really sad when Compaq was bought out. Their higher end x86 compatible machines were very nice indeed, and haven't gotten better since the 'merger'.

Re:HP has a history of making so-so boxes

[The Bungi]

The wx* series workstations (which you can buy with Linux) do rock though, and are far better hardware-wise than their Dell equivalents. The HP boxes are also far quieter (considering the number of fans you have to cram into a case with two mondo processors generating enough heat to melt sand) than any other workstation I've ever used, and that includes the old SGI ones.

well ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Linux still does a bang up job of putting off desktop users with any asstiance from microsoft.

Most people just want something easy that just works ... Linux does not fit that bill yet ( allthough it has come along way )

More a fault of the limited userbase

[gilesjuk]

It's probably more to do with the long term installed userbase. There really has never been a popular competitor to Windows on the x86 architecture. Even a company as vast as IBM gave in.

Many electronics companies don't see why they should devote developer time or make technical resources available when it's such a miniscule market.

Over time things will improve.

Re:More a fault of the limited userbase

[rmayes100]

Joel Spolsky has a pretty good article about just this (what he says about software certainly applies to hardware as well), he goes a little more into the economics of it:

What this means is that if you are a software developer, the only thing that makes sense financially is to develop a Windows version first. Then, you need to evaluate the cost of doing a Mac version. If that cost is only 10% more, it's worth it. If that cost is something like 50% more, it's not worth it.

www.joelonsoftware.com

Now, an OT discussion of Word Processors

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guys! I have a question. I've been using Microsoft Word For Windows version two for some time, and it's great. However, a friend of mine has been trying to sell me on buying an upgrade for it, and I'm not really sure I can afford it. Now I know that there's been a rush of freeware programs lately and I'm wondering if there are any freeware (more 'free' than warez, plz) programs which can handle word processing and can work with my files. I'd like to not lose any of the current functionality I have, so whatever you endorse has to have at least the features of what I'm using now -and preferably also have something unique that will make it worth my while to 'make the switch'.

Thanks in advance for all of your ideas and suggestions!

FUD alert! BullShit!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fud fud fud fud. Consperiacy bullshit, I figure.

I LOVE Linux. Long time Debian user, I know that I simply couldn't use computers and be as happy with them if I was stuck with only choosing Windows and propriatory applications.

I am a GNU, Free Software, ra-ra-ra type of guy. I probably seem like a nut to many people.

But I don't beleive that it's a consperiacy against Linux. I beleive it's just complacency, laziness, apathy, and other crap like that.

It's not that they care and conspire, it's that they don't give a shit and MS nudges here and there very rarely.

Hardware manufacturers work their asses off making sure the everything works with Windows well. They generally dont' do jack shit about Linux because it doesn't contribute to their bottom line. (it could if they felt like it. No linux support = no Linux-related money = no reason to support linux = no linux support, etc etc etc.)

This is why it's important to support hardware manufacturers that support Linux. Stuff like Ralink-using Wifi cards that use the rt2500 and related chipsets. http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main _Page

And specificly requesting Linux support is the only way to go. Seriously. Buying random hardware and expecting it to work in Linux or expecting that your Dell laptop will work 'just because' is foolish.

This guy is spreading fud. There are certainly hardware companies that dislike the idea of free software. They dislike having to tell end-users how to use the hardware or releasing minimal REAL documentation on the hardware. Well then, fuck them. Don't buy their shit and if you do don't cry when you can't get it to work with ndiswrapper.

PS. Don't buy wifi cards with Conextent, Broadcom, Texas Instruments using chipsets. Avoid them like the plague. Modern 802.11g that work in Linux well are Intel Wifi setups and Ralink rt2x00 based chipsets. Intel 'Sonoma' platform with Intel Video and Intel wifi should work well in a modern Linux setup. Avoid ATI and Nvidia if you can, and if you can't and need the 3d horsepower always choose Nvidia.

What Linux needs for the 'average' user however is pre-installed support from a major manufacturer. The most likely canidate would be HP right now, but it seems to me that it's going to take a relative unkown to realy break through and start making buckets of money from this sort of thing. Maybe a successfull company that produces hardware specialized for Linux clustering or server work can step up to the bat and do it. (not talking about IBM.)

It is certainly possible to get a very nice computer for inexpensive that will work in Linux without having to resort to e-crappo hardware to make it cheap.

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[jonfelder]

But I don't beleive that it's a consperiacy against Linux. I beleive it's just complacency, laziness, apathy, and other crap like that.

So why does it cost more to get a computer without an operating system from Dell then with? It's not exactly a conspiracy against Linux, but I do think it is a conspiracy. In fact, during the DoJ trial (you know the one where Microsoft was convicted of being a monopolist) it came out that Microsoft was forcing OEMs to sell only Windows by telling them that if they didn't, Microsoft would jack up their OEM rates for Windows.

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[giorgiofr]

It's amazing... I agree on almost everything you said. Doesn't happen often on Slashdot. CLAP CLAP CLAP

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[Ann Coulter]

To those who deride conspiracy theorists, consider why you do so. Is it because you do not have faith in investigation or do you have too much faith in your peaceful world? The discussion about printer tracking has already had several highly moderated posts that criticize those who are worried about that disturbing news. Perhaps if more concrete evidence of an Anti-OSS movement comes about, there will be many who will need either more evidence or will argue that Open Source Software deserves to be retaliated against. Again, it is a matter of faith regarding how much evidence one needs to come to a conclusion, and which conclusion. It is also faith that is responsible for most human misery without much gain in the end. So, is it worth it to discard evidence in the name of faith and peace?

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[slashflood]

But I don't beleive that it's a consperiacy against Linux. I beleive it's just complacency, laziness, apathy, and other crap like that.

I think, you're right. There are a lot of small companies out there who are not able to afford the resources for another platform besides Windows. Take RME Audio, they are absolutely not against Linux support for their hardware. The development team is just too small to support it. Here is the proof.

On the other hand, larger companies like HP - and even worse Samsung - should be able to spend some resources to develop Linux drivers. Why is it, that on most of the HW vendors websites, you can't find anything about Linux?

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[Anonymous Coward]

And specificly requesting Linux support is the only way to go. Seriously. Buying random hardware and expecting it to work in Linux or expecting that your Dell laptop will work 'just because' is foolish.

My Dell laptop works under Debian :D

I have to say that I put a LOT of work into it, though. I noted what I did, and put it up on Linux for Laptops. Giving something back, and all that pap.

Modern 802.11g that work in Linux well are Intel Wifi setups and Ralink rt2x00 based chipsets.

Excellent! Thanks - you just saved me some work, finding out what's on that list.

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[detour207]

I'd just like to refute your point about Texas Instruments chipsets. Texas Instruments has had a licensing agreement with Linuxant to support their chipsets with DriverLoader since 09/2004. See the press release about it.

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[Ugly American]

Without getting into any specific examples, the reason I tend to distrust conspiracy theories is because conspiracy theorists have a nasty habit of starting from their conclusion and then cherry-picking evidence to support it. Having made an affirmative claim, they try to push the burden of proof onto the other side. They frequently respond to contrary evidence with ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, appeals to motive, and/or other logical fallacies. Finally, they continue to assert their claims regardless of how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them.

In short, I distrust conspiracy theorists because their tactics show them to be dishonest.

Re:FUD alert! BullShit!

[runderwo]

I bought a RT2500 card. Immediately after buying it, I emailed RALink's sales team and gave them the reasons why I chose their product, one of which included company-supported open source drivers. If only everyone would do the same when buying their hardware...

Taken from Murphy's

[gmuslera]

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[grcumb]

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Yeah, 'cos malice is more stupid than stupidity itself....

No wait, I meant that stupidity is more malicious than malice, which is stupid, uh...

Oh no... Must. Not. Recurse...

*head asplodes*

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[Liam Slider]

Can't they be maliciously stupid?

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[Anonymous Coward]

And those smart ones that know this saying use maliciousness and let others think it is just stupidity. Never underestimate the power of smart & malicious managers/leaders/merketers/salespeople.

-srr

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[supersudssoaker]

Actually Hanlon's Razor:
http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/h/HanlonsRazor.ht ml

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[Mister Transistor]

Thank You! Since some dumbass put together a "Murphy's Laws" website, and packed it full of every clever saying about computers, the internet and technology ever uttered and attributed them to Mr. Murphy, every n00b who hits the net reads it and takes it as gospel.

AFAIK, Murphy only had ONE law, "If anything can go wrong it will, at the worst possible moment".

You'd get my mod points if I had 'em today...

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Hanlon's Razor, actually. And for completeness, Mark's corollary:

"Malice and stupidity are not mutually exclusive."

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[IchBinEinPenguin]

I prefer:

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.

with apologies to both Hanlon and Asimov

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[WilliamSChips]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" comes from Clarke, not Asimov.

Re:Taken from Murphy's

[IchBinEinPenguin]

Was the mistake due to incompetence or malice though?

Revolution 7.1 Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at http://www.maudio.co.uk/index.php?do=support.drive rs

"Release Notes Linux/UNIX

M-Audio uses a 3rd Party Vendor for Unix support. 4Front Technologies
develops and supports UNIX drivers for the Revolution and Delta Series of Products. The software is available for free evaluation and non-profit use but 4Front charges a fee for technical support and commercial use. They can be found at the following web address:

http://www.opensound.com/"

What a joke.

I am trying to port my company's engine to Linux running on the latest Mandrake 2006 just released. The damn master volume does nothing and the Envy24Control just crashes when run. Searching all over the Net trying to come up to speed with Linux sound drivers is not a productive way to port game code.

It is frustrating enough that I am ready to just go back to WinXP.

Update Gate's Mugshot Icon for his 50th!

[nukenerd]

A bit OT, but isn't it about time? That mugshot looks like taken in his student days. The man is 50 on Oct 28th! Let Slashdot give him a treat - an up-to-date shot and many happy returns!

Yes and No

[irenaeous]

The guy running SuSE 9.3 sounded like he tried Linux for a grand total of 10 minutes, of course you aren't going to know how everything works in that time frame. Sheesh.

I have done both -- installed 9.3 and recently 10.0. 9.3 has lots of issues -- the audio is turned off by default and works only for one user, and numerous drivers do not install correctly, even when they are available through Yast. I installed 9.3 three different times and always had to do some extra work to get everything working correctly. In one case (to get the NVIDIA 3-D graphics working driver working correctly), I had to recompile the kernel.

Now OpenSuse 10.0 was a completely different story. I installed it recently and everything worked flawlessly -- much to my surprise. It is more polished, and a much better experience. It is an excellent product.

So, regarding that guy, Yes -- he could have gotten it working with some work, and maybe some help, but No -- 9.3 can be a pain, but if he had used 10.00, he likely would have had a good experience. So, far OpenSuse looks like a great step forward in the right direction for the Linux desktop.

Bad desktop performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Ubuntu (or more specifically, GNOME) is completely unusable on a PII-450Mhz with 256mb ram, the performance is awful.
Windows XP on the same machine ran flawlessly (apart from minor disk swapping sometimes).
I would've thought it was the other way around.
I convinced my coworkers that GNU/Linux would run way more snappy than windows on that box, and I had to swallow my own words.

Granted I could have installed a performance solution consisting of Window Maker coupled with the ROX filemanager, but the office consisted of non-technical users who needed a complete, friendly desktop environment, and appearantly, on GNU/Linux you cannot have both at the same time.

I wish someone made a desktop environment using the Fast Light ToolKit instead of GTK or some other pile of bloat.
The only one in existence that I'm aware of right now is the Equinox Desktop Environment, but it's Yet Another Cheap Windows Clone.

He misses the most important point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Retailers will sell anything - provided - (a) it is reasonably profitable, and (b) it is not a hassel to mess with. Retailers want the consumer to have a good experience. Happy customers are good customers. Happy customers are repeat customers. Happy customers make you profitable.

If a customer does not like something - they will return it to the store. The store has little choice but to accept the return. Why? Or did you forget? In the USA most purchases are via credit cards. You call the card company and dispute the charge.
It is that simple.

Retailers have a choice either (A) - product with little hassel, and little returns, or (B) product with hassels and returns,
which would you pick? Retailers do not want a hassel. Don't be stupid.

Sadly, in the case of Linux - it is some what of an up hill battle.

If your product has too many returns - the store will *FORCE* you to eat the cost, you sell the computer for $300 to the store, they sell it for $500. If they must take it back - they charge you 20% to 50% - PLUS - you have to pay to have it shipped back to you. Sure, cheap products are destroyed in the store.... but not expensive products.

You keep this up, you'll go out of business quick.

No conspiracy theory

[xswl0931]

I have a theory, and it don't involve Microsoft (directly). Support costs. If the laptop in the article was sold with Linux but with no support whatsoever, then I wouldn't understand why it costs more, it should cost less. But if it included the same level of support as Windows, then I can see why it costs more. Now the hardware manufacturer has to test every piece of their hardware against Linux whereas in the Windows world, they would just pick and choose hardware pieces that were already deemed Windows compliant (logo certified) and perform minimal interop testing. Assuming that 95% of their sales is for Windows, they would have to hire a small number of people to take Linux support calls. And this applies to each individual hardware manufacturer (NICs, vid cards, etc...). If only a small subset of their sales is Linux, why spend the extra money to support it?

Cheaper with Windows pre-installed because...

[rmpotter]

It comes down to development and support. In order to ship a PC, Dell has to package and certify a boat load of drivers and asssorted software. It has to be more cost-effective to do this and cater to Windows -- the OS that 95% of the world uses. More to the point -- Dell -- and other vendors -- have to do the best they can to make drivers reliable, easy to re-install, configure and troubleshoot in order to maintain their reputations and keep support costs down.

Now consider support. If you are a Windows user -- preferably an XP user -- and you call Dell or HP for support, theoretically all of the drivers have been tested, most issues have been noted and posted to a knowledge base and chances are good that the tech at the other end of the line will have reasonable experience in helping you solve the problem.

Conversely, if you buy a barebones systems and run into problems, Dell will have fewer Linux techs who can help, these techs will be more expensive to retain and _your_ level of competency will have a huge impact on the length and outcome of the support call than if you were a lowly Windows user.

Perhaps if you could purchase with an iron-clad zero-support option, then Dell could justify dropping the price. But probably not. Dell is probably just as greedy and unwilling to pass the savings on to the customer (if they don't have to) as most other companies. This is also true of many open source vendors. Whether it's Dell, RedHat or IBM, they'll work hard to extract money out of us one way or another.

Re:Cheaper with Windows pre-installed because...

[Ahnteis]

It's not just that -- you mentioned the testing, but didn't really flesh out the idea.

Dell (or whoever) has to make sure all components in a computer are compatible. With a Windows system, they can spread this cost among 95% of their customer base AND they probably recieve additional funding (in the form of price cuts) from Microsoft.

Meanwhile, to do the same Q&A (you may argue _______________'s computers HAVE no Q&A but that would just be name-calling for name-calling's sake) to distribute linux, they have a much smaller number of customers to pass that cost along to AND they aren't getting extra funding from anyone.

Here's another reason that the author overlooks

[davmoo]

I just happen to know the manager of a big-box retailer in a near-by major city (I live in the sticks). This retailer thinks they offer the Best prices to Buy things at (hint hint). Up until a couple of years ago, this retailer stocked a selection of Linux software, mainly Suse, RedHat, and Mandrake. It wasn't a lot (5 shelves on one display section about 6 feet wide), but hey, at least it was there.

Every time a new release of Mandrake (now Madriva...at least this week) came out, I went and bought the pro package, even though I could download it for free. I figured it was necessary to show support so they would maybe expand the selection.

Then it slowly disappeared. It has now been replaced by racks of more Windows stuff.

Not long after it disappeared, I asked him why. The basic answer was because aside from me and 4 or 5 other geeks, no one else was buying it. In fact, many people straight-up asked him "why should I buy this from you when I can get it legally and still for free on the internet?"

Stores are in business for one thing, and one thing only...to make their owners (stock holders) money. Any product that doesn't turn a certain level of sales disappears. Quickly.

To get the big box retailers to carry Linux, they are going to have to be shown there is a market there AND THEY CAN MAKE MONEY DOING IT. Thousands of people can talk the talk about wanting Linux, but in the grand scheme of actually spending money on it, its a very tiny segment of us that does so.

The moral of this story is that if you want more retailers to carry more Linux, then people need to step up with their wallets and actually buy some of the stuff that is already out there.

I still get every new release of Mandriva, but now I do it via the Mandriva Club since I can't find a retailer that carries it locally. And my club membership costs me almost as much yearly as a Windows XP Home license (and I don't have to have a new license every year). So Linux does cost me money, but I want to show support so that's okay. More people need to be showing their support with pictures of dead presidents (or what ever is on the currency in your country for non-US readers). Only then will Linux offerings and support increase.

Re:Here's another reason that the author overlooks

[Lehk228]

linspire might have a chance in retail due to being a product/service combination that can't be downloaded and have the same product

Re:Here's another reason that the author overlooks

[Javaman59]

In my Linux days I did the same thing - buy the boxed copy. Back then, 98/99, there were a few boxed copies on the shelves. The stores also tried boxed copies of Quake for Linux. Those same shelves haven't stocked a boxed copy for years.

Only a fanatic would explain this disappearance as a "conspiracy". Obviously there just weren't many people willing to buy Linux.

How much do Slashdot ADS cost these days, huh?

[Work Account]

Tell us how much this Slashdot link submitted by "Mark Brunell, News Editor of TechTarget" to "TechTarget" costs.

Hardware Makers

[borgasm]

OK so 98% of my userbase uses Windows.
2 % use Linux.

I can write Windows drivers for my device and keep 98% of my userbase happy.

I can write Linux drivers for my device, and keep 2% of my userbase happy.

If the cost of writing that Linux driver is more than I would make back in profits, why would I ever do it?

Business decisions......

Re:Hardware Makers

[sqlrob]

What about the cost of releasing specs so that others can write the drivers?

Re:Hardware Makers

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so dull.

All the hardware manufacturer has to do is release specs about the hardware. It would be the equivelent to a 'shop manual' in automobile terms. It's just the minimal documentation that is provided so that people know how to work on the hardware.

If they want to release Linux drivers usually it isn't that difficult and inexpensive. There are plenty of programmers that are willing to help out and such. If they get their driver introduced into the kernel proper it gets supported for automaticly by any kernel developer and it gets updated with only small amounts of effort from the manufacturer compared to trying to maintain and support binary drivers, even for windows.

And there are plenty profits.

Linux on the desktop maybe minority, but everywere else it isn't. High end movie editing, oracle databases, clustering, web server, high end 3d workstations, datacenters, etc etc Linux is very common and many times have much larger percentage of users then windows in places that would suprise most people.

There are more then enough hardware manufacturers that support linux, and continue to support linux on new hardware, to prove that it is profitable and worth it to them.

Take Intel for instance. Biggest manufacturer of cpus, biggest video card maker, etc etc. Supports Linux on it's hardware generally. Such things as wifi and video work with open source drivers... even 3d acceleration. And intel sucks! Do you think that they do this for their health? They do it because it's worth it to their business, that's why.

Intel certainly isn't the only one. AMD has very good Linux support for their chipsets and motherboards.

If it wasn't for Linux then 99% of people in the server room wouldn't have a reason to give a shit about it's 64bit-ness. Linux is one of the biggest reasons why opeterons got off of the ground. Without a OS that supports 64bit-ness there realy isn't much of a reason to support Opteron over Xeon... and Linux had support for 64bit ness BEFORE amd released the stuff to the public. AMD worked with Suse and others to make sure this happenned.

It's just a matter of time before the 'big OEMs' (which don't produce the vast majority of the hardware they sell) get onboard. Most of them already do for the server-line.

Re:Hardware Makers

[harrkev]

OK so 98% of my userbase uses Windows.
2 % use Linux.

I can write Windows drivers for my device and keep 98% of my userbase happy.

I can write Linux drivers for my device, and keep 2% of my userbase happy.

If the cost of writing that Linux driver is more than I would make back in profits, why would I ever do it?

Business decisions......

Well, you asked...

Let's assume that you make hardware. You have a lot of competition, and you have 10% of the market. Nobody offers Linux drivers. All of a sudden, you decide to offer the drivers, and your market share goes up to 12%. All of a sudden, Linux has added 20% to your business.

If you are a monopoly, then you have little to gain. If you are a fringe player, then Linux support can differentiate you from the pack.

Let's talk another benefit. If a person runs Linux, then there is a 95% probability that they are pretty good at technology. If you offer Linux drivers, all of a sudden you have made a friend .. a friend who may be in a very high position as his company. Or, at the very least, a friend who recommends to his friends/family what type of stuff to buy. This is the type of stuff which may not show up on raw statistics, but can make a real difference.

Re:Hardware Makers

[ettlz]

Amen, I want drivers written by people who know what they're doing, not dopes who are more familiar cobbling together Windows drivers.

Re:Hardware Makers

[ad0gg]

Thats big chunk of change to write docs that you can release the public. My cavium cards have 1000 page reference manuals. I wonder how much of their budget was required to write them? There's big difference in quality between internal documentation and stuff you released to the public. And if the documentation is wrong, now you have to deal with support and we aren't talking some $10/hr tech support guy. Its going be coming straight from the engineering teams time. For 2% market share for a consumer products. Its not worth it.

Re:Hardware Makers

[DarkBlackFox]

Quite right. I had an ATI All in Wonder Radeon 9700 pro for about 2 years. I've used linux off and on for the past few years, mostly off with the ATI card in there, due to poor 3d performance. Upgrade time came around, and I started shopping around for PCIe cards, and settled on the Geforce 6600GT for it's price, performance, and linux support. I could have gone with a x600 for around the same price and performance, but thanks to relatively decent linux support, I'm happy to say I run nVidia equipment in my system.

Re:Hardware Makers

[RoboPimp_3000]

Let's assume that you make hardware. You have a lot of competition, and you have 10% of the market. Nobody offers Linux drivers. All of a sudden, you decide to offer the drivers, and your market share goes up to 12%. All of a sudden, Linux has added 20% to your business.

Yes, if the cost of developing Linux drivers is zero, that would be true. But it doesn't matter if your market share goes up to 12% if the cost to you of gaining that market share is more than you receive in return.

If a savvy entreprenuer figures out a way to make more selling Linux-compatible hardware/support than it costs to develop/maintain it, than by all means he should do so.

Re:Hardware Makers

[Anonymous Coward]

Please!... the documents already exists, how do you think the windows drivers are written?

Re:Hardware Makers

[Arandir]

Thats big chunk of change to write docs that you can release the public.

Yet apparently it's no work writing them for the OEMs. Are you saying it actually costs you money to remove the NDA?

Re:Hardware Makers

[Cyno]

Well, you would have to hire a team of lawyers and programmers to look over each document for several years and pay for licenses to the rights to redistribute any technology you didn't create in house and have QA verify no classified info leaks out. So it would cost about $100k per person for about 15 people for about 3 years to release the specs for a simple ethernet device. And that's not inlcuding the lost royalties on patents and general beaucratic tax licenses and fees.

I'd say it costs, on average, about $20,000,000.00 per technology to release specs. Unless, of course, you're an F/OSS business. Then it costs about $0.15.

Need a reason why F/OSS will win this old horse race? They don't got to play by these stupid rulez, haxx0r.

Re:Hardware Makers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that the hardware manufacturers often cross-license technologies and they may not legally be permitted to produce documentation to allow others to access the devices freely.

It's really easy to simplify all of these things when you have no idea how intricate they really are.

Re:Hardware Makers

[swillden]

Yes, if the cost of developing Linux drivers is zero, that would be true. But it doesn't matter if your market share goes up to 12% if the cost to you of gaining that market share is more than you receive in return.

Well if the cost of developing drivers exceeds 20% of your profits then either your profits are pretty damned small or you're paying your programmers way too much.

What should be really interesting to manufacturers, though, is that in most cases the cost of developing Linux drivers really can be nearly zero... all they have to do is publish the specifications and maybe provide a little tech support to the developers who volunteer to do all the work. I'm amazed that more manufacturers don't avail themselves of this opportunity. I can understand how some of them, particularly video card manufacturers, may worry about their competitors picking up important trace secrets from the published APIs, but most hardware doesn't fall into that category, and all of those manufacturers have the opportunity to increase their market share at almost no cost. Eventually, they'll catch on.

Re:Hardware Makers

[Anonymous Coward]

> What about the cost of releasing specs so that others can write the drivers?

Giving my competitors the perfect opportunity to see exactly how my devices work.

That certainly can't be good for business.

Re:Hardware Makers

[waveclaw]

OK so 98% of my userbase uses Windows. 2 % use Linux.

I can write Windows drivers for my device and keep 98% of my userbase happy. I can write Linux drivers for my device, and keep 2% of my userbase happy. If the cost of writing that Linux driver is more than I would make back in profits, why would I ever do it?


A sale is a sale is a sale.

Because you SELL hardware or support, not dirvers. Look at ATI, Nvidia and IBM.

Becaase you can make BOTH Windows drivers AND Linux drivers.

You may do it for bragging rights, protection from vendor lockin or because Linux is VAR friendly. You may have to support it for government contracts. You know, people do make money selling Linux, or at least try.

You will do it because your main competitor supports Linux and is now able to get into every large datacenter doing clustering, LAMP, etc that you have just been locked out of.

But I don't buy your profits argument. Security of your IP is a matter of driver arch, engineering and legalese so that shouldn't be an issue. You are in business for profit, not just marketshare, right? An unhappy customer is still a customer (with the potential to becoome a happy one.) If you have 98% of your (potential) userbase and your company is barely profiting, support for Linux is probably not your problem (but can be a possible solution.)

Additionally, there is a fixed engineering cost for driver development, namely the care-in-feeding of the engineers to do the work. If you aren't supporting the driver for people who bought your product (seen it with driver developers,) then the margin of profit on that sale is greater. If Linux is not your primary market, release scheduling is not a factor (seen that one too.) Alternatively, you can give your spec to an F/OSS developer and have them support it.

However, when my market is bringing in X kilobucks for each %, I will look seriously at fringe markets. If my company's userbase is bringing in enough money per user, I'll jump through serious hoops for 2% more. A sale is a sale is a sale.

Re:Hardware Makers

[sqlrob]

That's what patents are for.

Re:Hardware Makers

[harryman100]

The windows people aren't kept "happy", they're kept neutral, they expect it to work, they would only ever give a shit if you didn't provide them.

Linux people on the other hand give you respect, recommendations, future purchases (possibly large ones, it's entirely possible that some of these people are in charge of IT buying decisions at companies). Word will spread quickly amongst the linux community, and other linux users (knowing drivers exist) are more likely to choose your product over others with reverse-engineered drivers.

Linux may seem like a small market now, but it's a vicious circle, and hopefully some manufacturers will have the balls soon to embrace it, hopefully improving hardware support and disposing of the "but my hardware won't work" excuse for staying with windows.

Re:Hardware Makers

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, give it a rest. You know as well as we all do that information has a zero replication cost.

Re:Hardware Makers

[sqlrob]

That was exactly my implication. There are enough willing to do free (as in beer) work provided you let them release free(as in speech) drivers, especially for popular hardware. It's only an incremental cost, not very large.

All smoke, no fire

[Michael Woodhams]

"He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks."

Where? I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.

Generally, support for Linux sucks in hardware retailing. There are at least three possible reasons for this:
1 There are good commercial reasons why it isn't profitable to support Linux.
2 It would be profitable, but companies lack the vision to see this
3 Big bad Microsoft is conspiring to keep it this way.

I was hoping to see evidence for number 3, but all I saw was the article questioning whether 1 could be true (but without in-depth analysis - how much would Linux support cost, and how many sales would it gain?), and the /. summary alleging 3 without evidence.

Re:All smoke, no fire

[JudasBlue]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. Evil microsoft promises from the slash writeup aren't delivered in the article, just: wow, these hardware makers and stores sure are stupid.

Actually, it looks to me a lot more like hardware makers being stupid. I mean, I can't much fault Best Buy if they aren't selling units that they would have to cobble together to make use of Linux friendly hardware when one of the points that he is trying to make in his article is that there there is very little linux friendly hardware. Although, personally, I never have much of a problem with that, but it is one of the points he is trying to make that seems to somewhat mitigate his point about the stores being in cahoots with an evil plot.

I mean, sure, they can build the boxen and sell them. But then when joe consumer buys nifty new item X and it doesn't work with his box, he blames Best Buy. And it is joe consumer he is talking about selling to, because the rest of us (the folks reading this here, pretty much) know how to build our boxes and install linux and make sure we have the right drivers and hardware combos for our systems.

The part where I think he is dead on is that hardware companies that don't supply drivers for Linux are idiots and shooting themselves in the foot. It isn't like writing the Linux drivers is a major undertaking when you have the full specs in front of you to already write the Windows driver. It is only a pain in the ass when you are trying to reverse engineer a piece of hardware you don't have the specs on.

But blaming the stores doesn't strike me as brilliant. They are only asking for hassles by providing self-branded boxes that average users are going to get pissed with the first time they try to install Cool New Video Hardware Foo or whatever.

And we never did get our Evil Microsoft connection.

less Linux retailers...

[SmellTheCoffee]

I hardly shop at BestBuy or CircuitCity these days. BestBuy to me is lot of microsoftish. Bulk of my purchases come from Fry's and what I've seen is that Fry's is pretty good at carrying stuff that works in Linux. I recently bought Airlink101 wireless PCI card and got it to work with MadWIFI in 10 minutes...better that windows, where i had to install the gui frontend, drivers, reboot...reboot again.

Bad economics

[airrage]

First it is the applications, just like it is the quality of the movies, just like it is the quality of the television shows. It is the application.

Secondly, the reason the laptop costs more is because it is carrying more burden of the costs associated with fewer sales, thus more cost per unit. This holds true even for identical units. To sell a Linux laptop requires potentially Linux technical support, sales support (knowledge), adding another product line to the web site, etc. While probably all incremental, it has to be shared by the number of units sold. As units increased, this cost would potentially decrease.

Windows on the other hand is massive in market share so everyone who makes cards, controllers, plug-ins etc want to be viable for this market. It's not a great crime to follow the market leader.

Secondly, one quick puruse on goggle.com would have answered which cards offered Linux support instead of trial by error. Stupidity is not an excuse.

It's not some great crime that Linux isn't adopted on the DT. Believe me, once Linux is REALLY ready, we will all switch. Till then, please stop the reverse FUD.

Peace Out.

Never attribute to malice...

[laughingcoyote]

...what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

It's -entirely- possible that the "big boys" treat Linux as a redheaded stepchild, and throw their laziest, stupidest employees at setting it up. "Jim! You're responsible for setting up Linux on these machines!" "But boss, I don't even know how to open the CD drive..."

Still, it's a problem that needs addressing. Granted, I've never gotten a (Dell|Gateway|Compaq|insert other big brand here), I purchase only from a couple of local shops or build my own. However, if adoption is going to take off, it's going to take -decent- preinstallation to work. (And who knows, someone who can build their own may take Dell up on their next $200 CheapPOS 510C with Linux preinstalled for a cheap filewall box or something.)

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[airrage]

I purchase only from a couple of local shops or build my own
 
I think the issue here really, is for us corporate types who buy literally thousands of PC at one go.

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[laughingcoyote]

Believe I addressed that, when I said that if large-scale adoption was to take off, decent preinstallation would be required...

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[harrkev]

Believe I addressed that, when I said that if large-scale adoption was to take off, decent preinstallation would be required...

This would be problematic. For Windows, it is easy. In a corporate environment desktop, you want XP-Pro. Period. Update to the latest patches. You can even get Office pre-installed (probably what you want).

Linux: Will that be Debian, Red Hat, Fedora, Gentoo, Knoppix, Ubuntu, Slackware, Suse, or ... And then, you have the distro nailed down, are they using the latest version, or is the standard corporate desktop a slightly older version? And if it is a laptop, will putting Windows wireless drivers in a wrapper cause them any legal problems? Probably not, but we had better check with Legal just to be sure... As you can see, there are a lot of variables which make pre-installing Linux far from a "no-brainer."

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[laughingcoyote]

And if you're big enough to be doing these "thousands of purchases", you'll find vendors -very- happy to work with your needs, and work out exactly how it should be done. On the other hand, Uncle Joe's Bar that needs a couple systems for the office in the back room, will do just fine with a vanilla Fedora or Ubuntu and (Open|Star)Office preinstalled. Either way, it's entirely possible, and need not be tremendously complex in all cases.

So what?

[Toadius]

Where are the actual facts? BFD .. if I want to install Linux I'll get the box with the best deal - regardless of the pre-installed OS. When the free market demands Linux pre-installed with all the goodies, then the manufacturers will supply it. Until then, for good or for bad, Linux is still in the minority. The fact is that not *all* companies are going to support Linux. ~Caveat Emptor~ I don't want to read a three part article about a few glitches installing Linux and/or another OS along with some theories about conspiracy. Give me cold hard facts.

Not fair

[einhverfr]

I think that Terpstra's main point is that people are comfortable with the status quo and have very little incentive to try to change it. They are mostly afraid of floating inventory (which is a killer due to Moore's Law) appearing to be out of touch with their customers, etc. That and they don't know how to support it.

A few things that Terpstra doesn't mention:
1) Linux is doing *really well* in the embedded market including wireless.
2) Linux desktop adoption overseas is being driven by enforcing copyright restrictions, especially in South-East Asia (this was the case when I lived in Indonesia).

#1 is mostly due to stealth factor. I.e. if it is hidden, nobody gets scared.

#2 is a biggie and is likely to cause a lot of sudden adoption overseas.

Another bit of FUD here...

[suitepotato]

Windows desktops are less expensive than Linux? How can that be when the Windows desktop costs not one cent extra to put a FREE copy of Linux on and you get a Windows license left over.

Micrsoft is hindering Linux on the desktop? Excuse me while I laugh myself into an asthma fit.

The regular slew of updates to KDE ALONE will screw up the average KDE installation bad enough and quick enough to make you want to strangle everyone who works on it. Gnome which is supposed to be so much less cool than KDE is five times more stable in my experience and two times less useful. Of course so is a hammer by comparison to a vertical knee mill but at least the hammer does what it is designed to.

I use Fedora Core 3 as my regular desktop and only log into XP when I have an absolute need. I've made Quake run with sound in less than an hour USING the idiotically bad and largely conflicting and contradictory documentation on the net (woot! I can translate geekoid!). I got SSH working with public keys in ten minutes. I regularly customize my FC3 boxes and rework them rather than the lazier nuke and pave method. So... I am not a Windows newbie-to-Linux here.

The ONLY thing killing Linux on the desktop is Linux. XOrg and XFree86 and their ongoing back and forth pecadillos, KDE's zealot army of moronic children screaming the leetness of their preference, Gnome's less than stellar array of boosters, and both desktops' having little to no clue towards stability and regularity are merely the tip of the iceberg. The neverending foreverwar over what goes in the kernel, the endless bs of how drivers and hardware abstraction should work, the "ooh isn't this cool" phenomenon of distros spreading like mold based on their purveyors' egotistical desire to have some note in the history of Linux... All of this and more is what is killing Linux on the desktop.

It's like the movie Braveheart. The penguin sallies forth to do battle with the incredible menace and its own supporters backstabbing, squabbling, infighting, and inability to arrive at a common vision and stick with it do it in. Penguin meat anyone?

Re:Another bit of FUD here...

[WhiteWolf666]

1. Don't use Fedora. It's not a 'working-out-of-the-box' distribution. Use SuSE. All your updates are automagic, and stuff like 'Quake run with sound in less than an hour' archaic.

I can't believe anyone still goes through that kind of hell. There's a reason that SuSE doesn't update KDE between versions, and its to avoid that kind of inter-version breakage you experience. The full upgrade of the next SuSE revision incldues the next KDE, and it'll upgrade smoothly, too, assuming you have not tried to self-upgrade KDE in the middle.

2. Less expensive Windows Desktops: The article author is talking about preloaded linux machines. At Dell, or HP, a preloaded Linux machine costs more than a machine with exactly the same specs preloaded with Windows. Or, they'll both cost the same, and the Windows machine will come with a free monitor.

That's unreasonable, given that Dell doesn't have to pay anything to license Linux. On the other hand, what it does mean is that your MS-free system includes an MS-tax anyways.

You have to understand, from Joe Q. Public, or Mike A. Purchaser, when they want a system, they want it preloaded. Period. Preloaded Windows systems from the same vendor as exactly the same configured preloaded Linux systems are cheaper, therefore, Windows=cheaper.

Not that I agree with the viewpoint, but that's what he is refering too.

Re:Another bit of FUD here...

[value_added]

Dude, there are no penguins in Scotland. And there probably even fewer in the 13th century, let alone any that wore a kilt or had the surname of Wallace.

Re:Another bit of FUD here...

[ShawnX]

> The ONLY thing killing Linux on the desktop is Linux. XOrg and XFree86 and their ongoing back and forth pecadillos

Excuse me while I chuckle. Xorg and XFree86 aren't fighting anymore. For all intensive purposes XFree86 is dead the world has pretty much forgotten XFree86 and moved to Xorg - The home of the X Window System and X Window System specification -

> KDE's zealot army of moronic children screaming the leetness of their preference, Gnome's less than stellar array of boosters, and both desktops' having little to no clue towards stability and regularity are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Go look at freedesktop.org before you try to critize KDE and GNOME. You really don't know whats going on. Go look at whats in-store for KDE 4 and how GNOME and KDE are beginning to bridge the gaps (DCOP vs D-BUS). Go look at the Usability projects going on. Go look at whats in-store for Xorg and improvements to video drivers.

> The neverending foreverwar over what goes in the kernel

Sure, theres arguments but in the long run, this what Open Source is all about. I don't want crap added to the kernel if its not justified.

Whats really hurting the Desktop is vendors making it difficult to disclose information to write drivers. Legacy crud in X has problems and people are beginning to fix them. You certainly may not blame X for the problems either. 20 years of mostly neglected code doesn't help when your madly rushing to catch up to today's hardware and such. Instead of bitching I don't see you helping out.

It's 2:30am, and your post touched a nerve with me and that doesn't happen too often.

Shawn.

I can understand Microsoft...

[16K Ram Pack]

But why do the electronics manufacturers want to see Linux dead? That doesn't make sense

If I was an electronics manufacturer, the thing I'd want is as many operating systems as possible using my hardware to reduce the possibility of control being with one who could set the standards that I'd be forced to follow.

Hardware manufacturers, it seems to me are starting to open up to Linux. They know there's a market out there, and that if you are the only one in there, it's a good income.

Re:I can understand Microsoft...

[FST777]

If I were a electronics manufacturer, I'd make sure that the market leader would support me, if that was done and going well I'd look into other OS'es to see if support for them would be cost effective.

I -=| might |=- come up with Linux support if I made server-hardware. That'll be it, because everything else would NOT be cost-effective. The fact that large manufacturers like HP, Dell and Xerox do support Linux (to a limited extent) is purely due to the fact that they have a large userbase so anything is quickly cost effective. A small player will only support Windows until the day when another OS is having more than 10% of the market share for that single product (read: not in the coming 10 years or beyond for consumer hardware).

Re:I can understand Microsoft...

[bluGill]

From their misguided point of view: Linux is only a tiny fraction of the market. We can afford to loose that fraction, as it isn't worth the costs to do anything to get it.

I'll leave pointing out the flaws to someone else.

stupid people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok here is what is wrong with most of you..

GPL IS NOT OPEN SOURCE...

Just because something isn't GPL doesn't mean it can't be open source. I dislike the GPL, esp GPL3. So I refuse to release any code under it. I can't wait for Solaris to come further with open source. It is a really good operating system, and now that it is free I am so happy!!!

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[laughingcoyote]

Bad troll, get back under the bridge.

Firefox's vulnerabilities are fixed quickly-but to my knowledge, IE still has ActiveX support. That vulnerability's existed for years. And it's not even close to the only one that's taken ages to patch.

Tell you what, though. Turn off your firewall and A/V for a week on a test machine, and use Firefox to browse. See how many viruses and spywares you get. Then repeat the same procedure the next week using IE. If the machine lasts out that week, see how many are there -this- time.

Re Outlawing the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is just basic copyright law. If it is not allowed, then other copyrights aren't either. Imagine Microsoft and the RIAA butting heads on that!

Re:Genius? Who knows. Smart experienced guy? Yes.

[suso]

I'm sure John is a great and intelligent guy. I was just making fun of the comment that seemed so silly to say on Slashdot.

Symbiosis

[burbilog]

Usually bare/Linux PCs is more expensive because they are spyware-less. Manufacturers accept money from spyware people to preinstall all that junk. Symbiosis.

They could be friendlier

[GMFTatsujin]

It's hard enough making a choice of laptop these days based purely on the numeric stats of the innards. The way they play merry-go-round with their suppliers can really screw up your chances -- basically they play the game of "who's selling the cheapest wireless this week."

Even if you find stable laptop distributors, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to determine whether you can run Linux on it because they usually won't tell you what's actually inside. Like, is that a Broadcom or a Atheros 802.11 wireless in there? It makes a *huge* difference.

If you don't know what kind of chipsets a laptop has in it, you can't do the research. Easy as that. You have to wait for someone to buy the thing, try installing a flavor of Linux on it, and report back what their successes and failures were.

Even if HP or whoever doesn't support the hardware directly, it'd be nice to know what kind of hardware is in there to begin with. I don't need them to hold my hand. I just want to know what I'm buying.

I don't think Microsoft is Involved.

[Zombie Ryushu]

I don't think that MS is involved in this. I see this as Hardware dealers wanting to use Windows software to deliberately cripple the Hardware to make you pay more. Something they can't get away with in the Linux World because Linux users are like Wolves, and Windows Users are "Sheeple"

At issue also, is Hardware Manufactueres trying to prevent you from using software to violate their "Trade Secrets" Again, MS Has nothing to do with this, its hardware makers wanting to keep the "Trade Secrets" of their latest Chipsets from being exposed. ... And I say, from Hell's heart I stabbeth thee trade Secret, for they are only worthy of death.

CompUSA used to sell Linux games

[craXORjack]

When Lokisoft first started distributing through the channel, CompUSA had their titles on the shelves. The problem was that they mixed them in with all the windows titles so you had to look closely at the box to see which OS it was for. Months later they no longer carried Linux software except for OS distributions like Redhat and SuSE. When I asked about it, I was told there were too many returns on the Linux software 'people decided they didn't like it,' I was told. I should have bitchslapped the guy for lying to me. It was obvious that people were buying the Linux versions accidentally only to find out that it wouldn't run on their windows pc and causing the high returns rate. CompUSA lost my favor that day. Now unless it is an urgent need I drive way out of my way to a MicroCenter which has always been much more sensitive to the needs of penguinistas.

Funny you mention it...

[Spy der Mann]

the Ubuntu guys JUST told me that Ubuntu wasn't ready yet - at least regarding audio support. And someone else here on /. recommended me to move to SUSE.

I guess that takes care of your wonderful Ubuntu review.

Not necessarily correct information

[MysteriousMystery]

While I agree with a lot of what is being said one statement is wrong. CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's Electronics and other major consumer electronics retailers do not offer Linux pre-loaded PCs for sale. The Frys Electronics near me in Downers Grove Illinois sells Linux pre-loaded PCs, while they're the bottom of the lineup "Great Quality" brand machines they do sell them.

Why does this not surprise me?

[Audacious]

Because it is more of the same tactics Microsoft was found out to be doing before the Antitrust suit. Now that they can't force manufacturers to sign contracts that lock them in for a large number of years, they are trying the same tactic but with a different twist.

We need stronger laws when it comes to dealing with big businesses. Here are some for everyone to mull over:

1. If a company is run by someone who makes more than a billion dollars a year - that person has to get out of the company. They can start a new company, but the old company has to lose that person. This would effectively remove Bill Gates et al at the top. They could start Microsoft #2, but Microsoft would have to find new people to lead the company.

2. If a company makes more than X amount (obviously in the billions) then the company has to split in two. This would ensure competition because no one company would be able to lord it over everyone else. The two companies can not work together. Neither can any of their siblings when they have to split. Only 4th generations can go back to working together. This might sound radical, but if a company makes, say, $100 billion dollars (Microsoft makes a lot more than that) then they become a threat to everyone else because they are so big they can start throwing their weight around, get stupid laws passed that never should have been passed in the first place, and can even buy people in all areas of the government. By limiting the overall size companies can reach they will spend more time fighting each other than they would trying to rule the country.

2a. When a company has to be split in two the secondary company gets a copy of everything the first company has and must open their offices in a different location (probably a different state). This would spread the wealth around to the various states.

Just some ideas. :-)

Re:Why does this not surprise me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft already split up, see Microsoft and MSN.

By the way,
your idea of punishing the successful is absurd and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were a COMMUNIST

Re:Why does this not surprise me?

[Audacious]

By the way,
your idea of punishing the successful is absurd and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were a COMMUNIST

Yeah....right.

It isn't punishing the successful - it is allowing others to succeed which you can't do if the already successful person keeps you from doing so. Plus, no one said they couldn't go start another company and be successful in that one too.

Re:Why does this not surprise me?

[RoboPimp_3000]

1. If a company is run by someone who makes more than a billion dollars a year - that person has to get out of the company. They can start a new company, but the old company has to lose that person. This would effectively remove Bill Gates et al at the top. They could start Microsoft #2, but Microsoft would have to find new people to lead the company.

First of all, hardly anyone, if anyone, makes a billion dollars a year. Not even Bill Gates. If you are talking about the value of their stock, than you will also have to remove Steve Jobs, Lary Page, Sergey Brin, etc...

Second of all... well, there are just so many things wrong with this proposition that I will just assume you were kidding.

Re:Why does this not surprise me?

[Audacious]

Yes and no it is a joke. I thought it would be interesting to see people's reactions to such a radical proposal. :-) BTW: Here is part of the list of the richest people in the world and how rich they are:

Rank Name Age Worth ($bil) Country Of Citizenship Residence
1 William Gates III 49 46.5 United States United States , WA , Medina
2 Warren Buffett 74 44.0 United States United States , NE , Omaha
3 Lakshmi Mittal 54 25.0 India United Kingdom , London
4 Carlos Slim Helu 65 23.8 Mexico Mexico , Mexico City
5 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 48 23.7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia , Riyadh
6 Ingvar Kamprad 78 23.0 Sweden Switzerland , Lausanne
7 Paul Allen 52 21.0 United States United States , WA , Seattle
8 Karl Albrecht 85 18.5 Germany Germany , Mülheim an der Ruhr
9 Lawrence Ellison 60 18.4 United States United States , CA , Silicon Valley
10 S Robson Walton 61 18.3 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
11 Jim Walton 57 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
11 John Walton 59 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
13 Alice Walton 56 18.0 United States United States , TX , Fort Worth
13 Helen Walton 85 18.0 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
15 Kenneth Thomson & family 81 17.9 Canada Canada , Toronto
16 Liliane Bettencourt 82 17.2 France France , Paris
17 Bernard Arnault 56 17.0 France France , Paris
18 Michael Dell 40 16.0 United States United States , TX , Austin
19 Sheldon Adelson 71 15.6 United States United States , NV , Las Vegas
20 Theo Albrecht 83 15.5 Germany Germany , Foehr
21 Roman Abramovich 38 13.3 Russia United Kingdom , London
22 Li Ka-shing 76 13.0 Hong Kong Hong Kong , Hong Kong
23 Amancio Ortega 69 12.6 Spain Spain , La Coruna
24 Steven Ballmer 49 12.1 United States United States , WA , Redmond
25 Silvio Berlusconi 68 12.0 Italy Italy , North of Milan

You can find it at Rich List

BTW: 194 Steven Jobs 50 3.0 United States United States , CA , Palo Alto

(Wow. Didn't know BG was richer than the sheik. Thought with the price of oil being what it was that the oil king would be richer. :-/ )

LOL

[CDPatten]

I mean seriously. I read it, but it sounded allot more like hysteria and a creative conspiracy theory than anything else.

The reason Linux isn't in demand by users is because of software. People in small business need lots of special industry software that is only written for windows. Morally right or wrong is another debate. On the flip side, Linux is to complicated for average home user. Manufactures invest in developing hardware for Windows because that is what is in demand by the public.

But more directly to the article; did it ever cross anyone's mind that manufactures (like dell for instance) pay more to support the drivers when testing for linux before they deploy it on their machines. Machines get big $$ thrown at them before they make it to the production line, and lots of that money is spent on how the OS runs on it.

How about the end-user support calls with linux? Some of you are forgetting that Manufactures get calls for every little thing from changing a background to why does is it crash to what's my password. Linux is more overhead for manufactures. You can't honestly say that the average computer user will find Linux easier to use then Windows today. Forget if they started with Linux, they didn't, they most likely started with Windows, and they use Windows at work. Go ahead and scream windows spyware and viruses, but people are already comfortable with windows. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is... sorry to disappoint.

Dell and FOSS prices

[Sri Ramkrishna]

I think people don't seem to take into account that Dell and other companies run a highly automated, assembly line style manufacture of PC's. They are so tightly integrated that doing something special will involve more labour than otherwise. So having to set up another process to not install an OS might be more difficult than one would realize. So you're paying for the "special order".

Since the amount of business done for "special order" is not enough to invest in a more robust process you see Dell not bothering until business goes up. You might see better pricing if you were to buy in large bulk I would imagine.

Theories of corporate conspiracy is probably overrated here. But then this is slashdot. :-)

sri

I want hardware, not software

[bluGill]

I couldn't care less how much linux is on the shelf at best buy. I'm a BSD guy by choice, so I wouldn't have a use for it anyway. Put all the Windows software on the shelf you want, I don't care.

I want hardware that will work. When I want a wireless adapter for my laptop I want it today, with no hassles otherwise I'd buy it mail order. So I often find myself in Best Buy looking at some box, and wondering if it will work on my system.

My solution: research. First I find out what will work with BSD, and what will not. Then I go in, and buy something that will not. Open the box, installed it and play a little, and sure enough, it won't work with BSD - return it. Buy the part that does work. I'm doing my best to make it expensive to stock hardware that isn't BSD compatible.

Re:I want hardware, not software

[davmoo]

And you are *far* more of the problem than you are a solution.

It is not the retailer that is having to pay that expense. Its all the other customers who have to pay higher prices. The owners and stock holders have no idea you even exist, what you're doing, or why you're doing it.

Instead, why don't you try doing your same research, purposely buy the product that *will* run on BSD, and then when you buy it, find the manager and tell him you wish the store would carry more BSD compatible equipment.

Re:I want hardware, not software

[bluGill]

If I act alone you are correct. However if all Linux users would act like me, that would make a difference. 5% extra return rate on products that are not linux compatible will get the retailer to start an investigation to find out what is up. Their goal is lower prices and all those returns are cutting into their profit meaning they need to charge more. They won't like that, so they will demand the supplier do something about it.

Conspiracy? Huh?

[Hanno]

Three fellow software developers and I run a small company since 2001. We have employees and freelancers working for us by now, so we do buy and upgrade desktop computers every now and then. We're not Coca Cola's IT budget, sure, but we do spend a bit of money on hardware. We have Macs, Windows PCs and Linux PCs on our desktops, with Linux on about half of them.

I never ever had any problem buying a Linux-friendly desktop PC from our computer suppliers. Ok, we don't buy from Dell etc., we buy from a local computer store here in Hamburg called Comptronic. And this shop isn't specialized on Linux, most likely they sell 99% Windows computers. But when I ask them to make sure it runs Linux, they do make sure to choose the right parts and we don't pay the Windows tax.

It's a regional company, they sell (plain vanilla) hardware to businesses since several years and we are loyal customers. Really good service, we get replacements on the spot if something breaks, sometimes in less than an hour after the phone call. We have also bought several Linux-ready servers from them over the years and I'm more than happy with what we got from them.

So I see no conspirancy here.

If we, as a rather small company, have no problem buying Linux-ready PCs for a good price, a bigger company than us should be even more interesting as a customer for a computer supplier. If you want, say, 150 Linux-ready desktop computers plus three years of service for your business next month, several suppliers like the one we use will be more than eager to provide this to you.

Re:Conspiracy? Huh?

[FST777]

That is like another world to me. The company where I work is based in the Netherlands (which is, like Germany, considered a fairly OSS-loving country compared to the US) and I have NEVER found ANY manufacturer / reseller which said it could support Linux (except for one, who said it could but really couldn't). All the companies we contacted where professional and highly rated bussiness-to-bussiness companies (expect for that single one). The point? There simply is no demand for it. Maybe on web-servers, but that is all dedicated crap anyway.

Less conspiracy, more clue about lusers

[jmorris42]

The reason Best Buy and their ilk only sell the Windows only crap wireless cards and such is because they also tend to be the CHEAP CRAP that the clueful sort of folk using linux at a level to be writing device drivers avoid like the plague. So the cheapo cards don't get drivers written for them by the community and since they are CHEAP cards put out by CHEAP companies they ain't going to spring for a driver, they are doing good to compile the chip vendors (also tending to be a CHEAP outfit) reference Windows driver with their name inserted into it.

So avoid buying at Best Buy not because they sell hardware unsupported by Linux, avoid Best Buy because they sell cheap crap that usually isn't all that reliable in Windows either.

If one does their research they can get a pretty well supported desktop machine for Linux. My beef is that no distro has a hardware compatibility list anymore and few hardware vendors mention whether it works under Linux unless they are selling a preloaded box. (Rare for desktop hardware of course vs servers where most are now very happy to sell a penguin inside.)

Laptops are another story. As far as I know the number of current production laptops fully supported by any Linux distribution is zero. You always lose some functionality, the modem, wireless card, pc card slots, power management, 3d or scaled video, something won't work for at least six months, often times never. This is because the people who make laptops don't give enough of a damn to insist on Linux friendly components. Even companies who pretend to be our allies like IBM and HP pull the same stunts with laptops.

My current Thinkpad comes close to working but the USB ports on the dock are broken and the CD drive in the dock only works at 4X for some reason I haven't been able to figure out. Power management is dodgy and requires I degrade the video performance (to AGP 1X) to avoid lockups when running on battery power. By making a special order I got a Cisco wireless card that works... with a special driver and after downgrading the firmware on it from Windows. And of course on a Thinkpad you only get to pick mini-pci cards from a very short list burned into the BIOS because the bastards check during POST and hang if a non-approved card is installed.

Yeah, right.

[DJCacophony]

With a Linux install (at least through my experiences with Fedora and RedHat), they ask you all the pertinent questions up front.

Pertinent questions like "Which of these 10,000 applications do you want", "what are the specific models and specs for every single component and piece of hardware you own", and "what permissions, groups, files, folders, and applications do you want each user to have". Sorry, but the linux install process is the most intimidating part of linux in it's entirety, even for experienced users.

Re:Yeah, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

What, did your friend give you a Gentoo 1.4 disk? Go troll somewhere else

Re:Yeah, right.

[n4t3]

Sounds like you haven't installed Linux in a while, most of the distros I've tried recently auto-detect everything. Even Knoppix (a bootable CD) auto-detects all the hardware in most machines and will get itself to a workable state without you having to do anything more than turn the PC on. The only thing that might seem a bit strange to folks when doing their first Linux install is the disk partitioning questions - which, in my experience have been defaulted to something reasonable (for beginners) anyway.

Re:Yeah, right.

[rmm4pi8]

If you want user-friendly, use a real desktop distro, that's why there are different distros in the first place. If you try with Mandriva, you'll find that what you say just isn't true. It autodetects hardware about as well as Knoppix these days, and the configuration questions are dead simple, with sensible defaults.

Re:Yeah, right.

[tehshen]

You know, I'd rather have the option to choose which applications to install than trusting the distro to make the choice for me. And none of those questions is asked anyway (the first one is optional) so your point is irrelevant.

I'm glad it doesn't ask such pertinent questions like "Use FAT or NTFS filesystem?" with no default choice, "What are your network adapter settings?" ditto, and "Do you want to activate Windows now?"

Why do people still think Linux is cheaper ???

[MerlynEmrys67]

Look at the price of Windows 2K3 vs RHEL 4.0. Oh wait - desktop. Find me a SUPPORTED desktop Linux (and I don't mean comp.linux support either) and see what the support costs you.

The reason that Linux costs more in retail is that it is significantly harder to support by the manufacturer. At a minimum they have to write custommer support scripts for a small portion of their custommers that want Linux. Then they have to train at least some of their agents.

Now you get into the problem with Linux, I call in and say it doesn't work - well, are you running our stock, boring kernel ? Well of course not... Please reinstall 2.4.22.xyz - why should I do that, it doesn't support what I need... Thank you very much, please call back after your installation.

Linux is almost impossible to support at the desktop - it is way to customizable for that.

Re:Why do people still think Linux is cheaper ???

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Hate to rain on your parade but your just way off base with that. It is not at all impossible to support at the desktop. If you can customize it to the point that tech support can't fix it then you don't need the kind of tech support you call in for.

The kind of user who buys linux on the desktop at a bestbuy isn't going to be installing a custom kernel or modifying their X-Windows config file. So yes you can support it. That's like saying if Mom and Pop buy a preinstalled linux computer then they will be instantly smart enough to find all the ways to mess it up thoroughly. I don't think so.

Re:Why do people still think Linux is cheaper ???

[WhiteWolf666]

SuSE Professional 10.0 costs ~$50.00, and you get support from Novell. I think you get 1 year.

You can buy more years of support if you want, too.

Re:Why do people still think Linux is cheaper ???

[MerlynEmrys67]

Ah, but these are the people who will want to plug their wireless card in, and expect it to "Just Work". So they will go out and ask friends, family, others... who will have them compile in various subsystems - that may or may not work - leaving the system quickly in shambles.

Oh, and then these people will not be the best system administrators, leaving their system open for various bad things to happen, raising support costs again.

Hate to say it, but yes Linux (as in Linux - not a distribution) is extremely hard to support one step off of the mainstream - which is where everyone wants to be

Re:Why do people still think Linux is cheaper ???

[Zphbeeblbrox]

I very seriously doubt that the average person who buys a desktop at best buy already has a wireless card to plug into it. And if they do want one they will look for one at best buy where you can steer them to the appropriate model. Again. If a retailer decides to take this step then they are more than capable of preparing for it. So no, your still wrong.

HERE'S PROOF OF SABOTAGE!

[Anonymous Coward]

..how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks.
 
Yeah, there is real sabotage going on constantly. One example of it I found just yesterday:
 
  London based hit radio station 'Virgin radio' used to stream to everyone who was interested, but Microsoft has obviously made a deal with them since and now you can listen online only if you're using Internet Explorer. Previously you were able to listen with Winamp or XMMS (Linux), but now you can't. It recognizes what software you're trying to use for listening and blocks the transmission if it's not Internet Explorer. So, this is an attack against both Linux _and_ Firefox. I wonder how much of this is happening behind the curtains right now.

Driver certification

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: "A store manager of one of the major consumer electronics retailers told me that his store had received complaints from customers because it had sold a network card for which the Microsoft Windows driver had not been certified by Microsoft. When he contacted the peripheral hardware vendor/manufacturer in question, he was told that Microsoft certification for the driver would require a royalty payment to Microsoft. The royalty would add as much as to $10 to the cost of each unit sold."

I'm sorry, and people were bitching about Apple's iPod logo program?

Saddly...

[bluGill]

I live near Best Buy's headquarters. No Fry's in this state, or even the next one (AFAIK). Nobody in my area cares about Linux, yet I know there are many linux users around here.

Of couse...Mafia hit on OSS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's the biggest threat Microsoft has ever had."

Uh, huh. So when's Microsoft going to put a contract hit out on key OSS members then?

Re:Of couse...Mafia hit on OSS.

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be good riddance for most OSS users :)

Downhill if we work it right...

[bluGill]

We can turn Linux support into a downhill battle if we try. Everytime you want to buy hardware, find out what doesn't work in linux.
Go to the local retailer
buy the version that doesn't work
Open the box
install it
Find it doesn't work
place back in box with all parts
bring back to store
Tell clerk that you are returning it because it isn't linux compatible.
Repeat until you have tried all non-working parts
Buy something that does work (from same retailer if they have it)
Get all your friends to do the same.

The last step is important. There are enough linux users that we can make this work for hardware - IF we all work together to make it unprofitable to carry anything without linux drivers.

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[sigloiv]

Well, if I wanted to take this challenge totally and completely literally, IE would win. You see, IE is actually better if you're using a permission-based system (which I am, as certain applications and WU uses IE). Basically, I put in certain domains (Google, WU...that's about it) that I say are perfectly fine. Then those websites get to do whatever they want. Any other site has permission based cookies, blocked ActiveX, and blocked Javascript. If I truly need to use the site, I just add it to my Trusted Sites.

I can honestly say that I use hardware firewalls (no software firewalls that I can "turn off", no Anti-Virus, and no Anti-Spyware/Anti-Adware. At the same time I have a script process monitoring regimen and will stand by the fact that if you installed any of the above applications, I'd be clean.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that if you know how to use IE correctly, it's perfectly fine (although I use Opera as my primary--excellent interface).

Yes I have

[bluGill]

I have in fact read the GPL. Did it back in 1998 in fact. Since the GPL hasn't changed since then I don't have to read it again. The BSD license hasn't changed in a while either. (just the drop of the advertising clause)

I read the EULA when I installed XP SP2 as well, and thought "Thank God I'm only agreeing to this on behalf of my company, I don't think I'd agree for my personal machines." I don't have Java installed on my home FreeBSD machine because I didn't like the EULA (I object to the provision that it can't be automatically downloaded and installed by FreeBSD's port system). Not to mention all the other license agreements I have to deal with.

Re:Yes I have

[Py to the Wiz]

Yes well some of us have work to get done instead of just mucking around without Java for reasons of religion.

Re:Yes I have

[Taladar]

Actually if you try it you will notice there are practically no (non-java-developer) apps out there that need Java and don't have a non-java equivalent that is at least as good (yeah, I just know someone will now bring up Azureus, but I have yet to see someone get work done with that).

Chicken, meet egg...

[Rob Y.]

While Microsoft probably has OEM's tied up in exclusive contracts through co-advertising or whatever loophole they need to get around whatever antitrust enforcement there is, hardware vendors still do have a chicken and egg problem. Until the 'market' exists, they can't justify support. If device manufacturers are willing to release the specs, you get a driver. If they are afraid to do that, you don't.

The only solution is for customers to demand support or take their business elsewhere. Problem today is that the big OEM's can sell you a system with XP for less than the white-box guys can sell you a naked system. Of course, the OEM's could sell you a naked system even cheaper, but that's where the MS contracts come in.

You're not going to get end-user handholding any time soon, but it should be reasonable to demand naked systems without paying for XP. Somehow, the remaining MS tax loophole has to be closed. Hell, even a system with XP and a recover disk that doesn't trash your Linux co-install would be a step in the right direction. Is there a profitable class-action suit in any of this? I'd join.

We know this guy is making this up.......

[budword]

......no /.ers have girlfriends........

Reason people don't ask for Linux as Best Buy etc

[V_IL_Len]

I agree with most of what he says but I think the target populations for Best Buy etc... are not looking for Linux very often. Most people I know who are looking to try Linux have already discovered lower prices by shopping from web retailers. They are often also are savvy enough to build their own pc's and install operating systems. At this point I don't believe there is a large percentage of people who aren't classified as an advanced user who are looking for linux right now. I think there are other factors that are even keeping a lot of advanced Windows users from Linux both deliberate and circumstantial. Things like little or no support or time to learn at work. Desire to use software on existing Windows machines (like games etc) at home rather than taking the time to learn a whole new interface. I'd rather play Tiger Woods Golf than install operating systems. I realize I blow the geek cache with that opinion. I think there a lot of people like my parents for instance who are a customer base Linux needs to tap to break the Microsoft Monopoly that aren't willing or able to make the leap but will buy computer equipment at Best Buy. One of the best things Linux can do to penetrate the market is try why Apple tried in the 70's and early 80's and that is distribute their software in schools and get the kids accustomed to it as their prefered OS. That would also require having software beyond educational that kids are interested in such as highly desireable games, music, etc... Still schools are broke and need technology. I believe it would take a concerted community effort by Linux developers etc... to provide support and documentation directly to schools and I think most importantly initiative to go into school districts and pitch Linux as a viable alternative. This is where I think Microsoft excells and Linux suffers the social networking accross groups. How many times in history have we seen inferior technology win out because of simplicity or greater social engineering and marketing? It's not enough that Linux is better people have to want it.

Software doesn't cost anything per unit

[iabervon]

The reason it isn't cheaper to buy a computer from HP with Linux than with Windows is that it doesn't save any company any money to not put Windows on a machine. Microsoft made a deal with HP to get a certain amount of money per machine they sell in return for letting them put OEM Windows on whatever machines they want. It would cost HP more to buy as many copies of Windows as they actually need, so this deal is in their favor. On Microsoft's end, it saves them money in accounting to let HP have however many copies of Windows they want, as opposed to having to sell them a particular number of copies. In fact, they only have to give HP one copy of Windows and the right to make more, so the OEM deal costs them less to produce than a bunch of copies of Windows.

The fundamental issue is that software is free to produce per unit; there are costs per version and per contract, and putting Linux on some computers and not putting Windows on those computers doesn't reduce either cost. For the same reason that additional copies of Linux don't cost Linux developers anything, additional OEM copies of Windows don't cost Microsoft anything. So there's no reason for any of the companies involved to charge you less for Linux than Windows. If you want to save on a computer with Linux, you need to get it from somebody who sells very few computers with Windows and spends less by buying individual copies than an OEM license would cost.

Re:Software doesn't cost anything per unit

[theLOUDroom]

It would cost HP more to buy as many copies of Windows as they actually need, so this deal is in their favor.

Only because Microsoft is using their monopoly position in the marketplace to force this deal on HP.

This deal is of questionable legality... but hey what does MS have to worry about? They've been convicted of illegal market manipulation twice and still haven't faced signifcant penalites.

Linux itself precludes massive desktop adoption!

[kindherb]

First off let me state that I am posting this from a Debian box & Firefox, and have been using Linux for a long time.

It is my defacto server install. I replace Windows servers left and right with it and get praises for it.

But it drives me crazy as a desktop computer!!! I can't wait for my Mac! I curse it almost as much as I cursed my Windows box.

Here are some of my complaints.

Multimedia:

Linux suffers here, and as the net grows more media rich, it will continue to suffer.
I have MPlayer installed and using it with hesitations. The version installed by Debian and upgraded with apt-get crashed on certain MP3 files. I had to recompile MPlayer to correct this. Average Joe Blow does not want to recompile an app everytime there is a problem or fix.

And MPlayer can't seek streams or DVDs. I can't even pause a stream, it starts over from the beginning when I press play again. Two things the even WMP can handle with ease.

Download Manager:

I have searched for a simple easy to use Download manager and I can't find one. If someone knows of one please let me know. Net Transport and Download Mage are still some of my favorite apps. I like the ability to queue and download files while I sleep.

CD/DVD Burner software:

Linux is totally lacking in this department. I am burning both CDs and DVDs but it is not as simple and feature rich as it is on a Mac or Windows box. I don't even bother burning some stuff at all on Linux, and use my Windows box instead.

Libraries:

I can't tell you how many times I have had to find/download/compile some library just to get some app to work. Or find out that it only supports a certain version of said library. It can be a pain in the ass to even the most experienced user. The average computer user definately does not want to have to deal with this in the slightest.

Support:

Don't even get me started on this. I can't tell you how many times I have had someone get all uppity when I try and seek help to a question, especially to something that should just work. There are a lot of zealots out there that need to lay off the Kool-aid for a minute and actually try listening to someone who wants to use Linux and help them out, instead of immediately going on the defensive and belittling the user. It happens a lot more than people think or realize.

I can go on, but these are the ones that haunt me on a regular basis. And while they might seem trivial to you, I find them very annoying as I would not have to deal with any of these issues on Mac or Windows PC. Not to mention they would probably completely baffle the average Joe user.

I wish everyone the best success on trying to get Linux to the desktops, but I feel that it has a looong way to go. There are a lot of problems that are inherent to Linux due to Linux itself. And I don't see them going away anytime soon.

And that is why I promote Linux 100% in the server arena, and Macs for the desktop.

Kind Herb
--
"Whether you suffer from glaucoma, or you just rented The Matrix, medical marijuana can make things fabulous, medically!" --Homer J. Simpson

And the 2 percent happen to be System Admins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind stuffs everything. Linux system admins control Windows networks. And will most likely buy something supported by both.

I love hardware makers logic. It just does not work.

100 Windows boxs control by one Linux Server. Hmm printer does not support linux ok what one does that one ok I will take 2.

Point is Linux is used a lot for servers and will grow as it grows you loss market.

Desktop Linux is not the problem server is.

Misinformed

[kahrytan]

Three points.

1. It is easy to get a Linux Desktop in retailers. Just call up companies like Microtel or Linare and stock small shelf space for them.

2. Most major retailers already carry a Linux operating system - including CompUSA. CompUSA has Linspire next to where you can buy Windows XP.

3. Many companies like Dell and HP refuse to support a pc that has linux installed because they have no linux support technicians. I am sure when market share and demand of Linux increases, they might consider hiring qaulified technicians. Most companies like to hire certified and highly trained technicians.

Hey, it's Microsoft!

[Nahooda]

What else do you expect from them?

Apart from that: This Microsoft-Linux black and white scheme makes life so much easier and clearer in this confused and globalized world. ;-P

Article is a gongshow

[Tomchu]

This article is a complete gongshow. The crux of this guy's argument is the following:

1. SuSE 9.3 64-bit didn't work well with a modern laptop. Waaah.

2. He couldn't find a consumer-level PCMCIA WiFi card that would work in Linux. Waaah.

Remind me again how this is Microsoft's fault, and not the fault of the kernel developers/distro makers? Let me contrast this to a little something I hear on Slashdot a lot ...

"I installed Linux, but it wouldn't work with my ______! Linux sucks!"
Crowd response: "Don't blame Linux! Blame the hardware manufacturers!"

Well, come on kids, say it with me now ... blame the hardware manufacturers! Blame the kernel developers for not being able to maintain a stable driver API. Smaller hardware manufacturers don't want to waste their time and money developing drivers that will only be deliberately broken with the next kernel update. Fix that problem, and the drivers will start flowing in.

The author of this article really needs to step back to look at his false point of view. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, and everything to do with Linux's shortcomings in hardware support. Would you go to the store, buy a piece of hardware, and then scream bloody murder when you find out that it doesn't work with your OMG-OPTIMIZED GENTOO RICE EDITION?

No. You would RESEARCH the available hardware, pick something that enjoys good Linux support, and THEN go buy it.

Geez.

Re:Genius? Who knows. Smart experienced guy? Yes.

[johansalk]

This being slashdot means that anyone can throw in a smartass comment and be king for the day.

About Time...

[Hosiah]

We're finally going to acknowledge it in public, huh? (-:

But, I'm tired of being treated like I don't exist: Linux "made it" on my desktop years ago, has run for all of our family's needs (internet, chat, email, games, graphics design, programming, and YES office document use too!), will continue to "make it" on our desktops forever. And we're ALL sick of being discussed as if we were unicorns: "Do home Linux desktop users exist? No, that's just a fairy-tale. It's physically impossible to run Linux on a desktop, because it's just a teletype terminal you have to write the kernel from scratch every time you start it and it doesn't even use a monitor and mouse, it uses punched cards instead." This is all bandied about like it was common knowledge, taught at our universities, discussed with great seriousness in the tech publications, and carried as a confirmed opinion amongst many of my fellow Slashdotters, even.

If you can bear to have your whole reality re-defined, click here: http://www.lynucs.org/ . Behold: Linux desktops! Running on monitors! Note the "taskbar" on the bottom, JustLikeWindows. See the applications open on the desktop, they have a bar at the top with the little "x" thingie to close them and the little box thingie to full-screen them and they use jpg images for wallpaper, JustLikeWindows. Note the scrollbars on the sides of the windows, JustLikeWindows. Note the little icons that you click with the mouse to launch a program or open a file, JustLikeWindows.

Do you suppose, if they spend all this time making all this software...dozens of different window managers and hundreds of distros...that maybe, somewhere, just maybe, somebody could actually use them for anything, at all, at all?

So, the real story is, "Linux struggles daily against Microsoft to survive - and even thrive! - but we'd all be better off if there was less fighting in the world.", not "Linux has been killed by Microsoft. Alas, poor Tux, I knew him...almost." Get it right! Discuss us like we're dead, and we're likely to rise up and prove how alive we are!

Re:About Time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but every time I shop for a new printer, or a scanner, or just an LCD monitor, when I mention that I use Linux on my desktop stores like Best Buy and Circuit City make me feel like I am a lepper. Hang! I just want to be a customer - no different from the ladies and gents who use MS Windows.

I want to know where I can shop for my upgrade bits'n'pieces without having to worry if the hardware will work with Linux.

Am I asking too much?

Re:About Time...

[WhiteWolf666]

You don't shop at BestBuy or Circuit City.

You hope that you are lucky enough to have a Fry's Electronics, or a Microcenter in your area.

If not, you shop at local computing stores, where linux is 'cool'. Of course, those places are usually twice the price.

Either that, or you do your homework before you go to BestBuy, and when you tell them you run Linux you can enjoy the silence of being left alone by all the undertrained sales people.

Re:About Time...

[Hosiah]

You don't...You hope...If not...Either that, or you

Bzzzzzzt! Time's up, thank you for playing.

The correct answer is: "You build your own computers, mostly out of the leftover parts from your lamer friends 'broken' (i.e. new four months ago, clogged with spy-ware now, so being replaced) computers, together with motherboards/processor combos you spec yourself. You'd never be caught shot dead and dragged heels first through a BestBuy or Circuit City, and you think Fry's is a great place for Joe Sixpack and Aunt Tillie to shop. You are never without your screwdriver."

No Clue, they need to RTFM

[oztiks]

Joe went back to the store to return another useless wireless card. Not one wireless card that was on the shelves at CompUSA or Best Buy listed Linux driver support, so Joe gave up. That's right: Not one wireless card currently sold at CompUSA and at Best Buy mentions that it is suitable for use with Linux.

Obviously these people have never heard of the ndiswrapper kerenel module that allows just about _ANY_ wifi network card driver that works under windows work just as well under linux!

People if your going to use linux! you need to RTFM!

Re:No Clue, they need to RTFM

[jofi]

People if your going to use linux! you need to RTFM!

All that for a lousy wireless card? Not everyone wants to be an ub3r-l33t h4x0r. My sig may say otherwise, but we're talking about people who even have a hard time using Windows (and that includes a lot of Linux users too :-P)

Re:No Clue, they need to RTFM

[WhiteWolf666]

Good point.

I do not understand why ndiswrapper doesn't have a pretty gui to go with it.

Someone should write one; not like it has to be tough or anything.

'Click Install'
'Select WinXP Driver Directory for your Wireless Card'
'Installing'
Either
'Install works!'
or
'Wrong Driver for installed Wireless Card'
or
'Driver is not compatible with this version of ndiswrapper, click to submit a bugreport'

Wouldn't be much work, perhaps I should try....

Re:No Clue, they need to RTFM

[WhiteWolf666]

This SuSE howto requires minimal computing knowledge:
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/15484. html

I agree that it is still too complex for John Q. Public, but its pretty close.

Re:No Clue, they need to RTFM

[Anonymous Coward]

My reading of the article said the ndiswrapper did not work. That's possibly correct for the AirGo chipset driver.

RTFM - Right! Sounds like good advice until you put yourself in the shoes of someone like Joe and Dennis, who got caught. Sure they are dumb, uninitated newbies, but do you want to be the one to tell them they have to pay their initiation fees - just like the rest of us?

Re:Hardware Makers - Change the Equation

[Blakey Rat]

That's why Linux developers need to change the equation. How could you make it profitable to write a driver for only 2% of the population? There's only one way: Make it 50 times *easier* to write the driver for Linux than Windows.

A possible solution is to provide a cross-platform "driver toolkit" API that allows you to write your Windows driver and your Linux driver (or OS X driver, for that matter) at the same time using the same, or very similar, source code. Make it robust enough so that it won't have a problem passing Windows Logo Testing, and you've just solved the problem. The hardware maker can now just write one version of their driver, and it'll run on 15% more computers than it did before.

But until Linux developers figure out how to change the equation, you'll never see better hardware support. In fact, from what I've read, because of the blind adherence to the GPL, Linus is actually more hostile towards drivers than anything else by frequently breaking the interfaces to them.

Time for a change of name

[FishandChips]

The constant use of the term "Linux" is a misnomer and the sign of an immature market.

No one goes into a store and asks whether they stock "cola-based drinks", They ask for Coke, Pepsi, whatever. We'll know when Linux has really hit the highway when folks stop asking for "Linux", if they ever do, and start asking soley about a brand - Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, whatever. As yet I guess the main Linux outfits haven't really extended beyond IT industry workers and enthusiasts but their challenge is to ensure that they do.

Re:Time for a change of name

[kbielefe]

I have no clue what brand my house is, but maybe someday when living in houses really starts to catch on...

Just like it doesn't make sense to tell someone from out of state that I live near the corner of Baseline Avenue and Gilbert Road, it doesn't make sense to tell a Windows (pardon me--Microsoft Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98se, me, xp home, xp professional, 2000, or other) user that I run Gentoo Linux with a hardened 2.6 kernel. Abstraction is a good thing.

I've even been known to ask for a Pepsi and not get too disappointed when I get a Coke instead.

Re:Time for a change of name

[FishandChips]

Yeah, prolly not a good idea to tell anyone about "Gentoo Linux with a hardened 2.6 kernel" if that is what floats your boat. Keep it in a cupboard and take it out at night,

Free databases

[Markus Registrada]

PostgreSQL is not, in fact, derived from Ingres. Commercial Ingres was derived from the same original (Free) codebase as was Postgres. There's probably very little if any of that code remaining in either. Commercial Ingres was opened by CA recently, but there's little reason to expect it to go far, given the modern alternatives it would have to compete with.

Postgres is a poster child for astonishing progress in a short time from a codebase of purely academic interest to a real, industrially useful product. Over the last ten years its code got radically cleaned up, then it got journaling, increasingly automated administration, and lately replication.

Given the rate of progress in both PostgreSQL and MySQL, Oracle has reason to be worried for its future. It's worried enough, for example, to have bought out Innobase, just to threaten (or tax) the proprietary arm of MySQL, Inc. Oracle certainly has no use for Innobase, so the only plausible reason is that they are worried. They should know, and we should know better than to second-guess them.

There are still things that can be done with Oracle but not PostgreSQL, but they're getting fewer all the time. At some point they will be too few to fund Oracle's corporate expenses, and the money Oracle charges for an annual license will be better spent beefing up PostgreSQL to be able to do the job indefinitely. We may reasonably expect national laboratories to commission such work; they have stringent needs, the budget to satisfy them, and plenty of favorable experience with Free Software projects.

Re:Linux itself precludes massive desktop adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this out: http://www.krasu.ru/soft/chuchelo

Monopoly Conviction

[Tony]

Microsoft was *not* convicted of being a monopoly. It's OK to be a monopoly. What they were convicted of was worse: using their monopoly power to control the marketplace.

How did they do that? By controlling the distribution chain. Just like they are being accussed of here in the article.

It's not much of a conspiracy if the person being accussed has been convicted of that exact same thing. Is it paranoia to distrust someone who threatens to kill you, if that person is a convicted killer?

Not that it matters. The folks at Microsoft are generally pretty smart. They only behave this way when they are really threatened; and that's a good sign for Linux and the *BSDs.

Re:Monopoly Conviction

[jonfelder]

What does conspiracy have to do with paranoia? A conspiracy is an agreement to perform an illegal act...which is exactly what Microsoft has done.

Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

The writer is surprised that Linux PCs cost more than Windows PCs. I can think of a few reasons why this might be so, none of them related to any conspiracy. 1) Support. The computer manufacturer has to support their machines, regardless of other sources of support the users might have. They might have determined that, due to drivers issues, Linux machines require more support, or that the support calls are more expensive. This might explain part of the price differential. 2) Testing costs. The computer manufacturer has to recover costs for testing and certification. They cannot ship a computer that has not been tested and even tuned for the OS they are bundling. Since Windows accounts for the vast majority of their sales, R&D for Windows would be supported by a much larger number of machines. R&D for Linux (that might also be more expensive due to lower experience or because Microsoft provides better certification and testing services to the company than the Linux community does) has to be recovered over a lower number of machines, implying a higher cost. 3) R&D. THe company probably has to develop some drivers and tools to make the Linux machine a Windows equivalent. Most machines ship with testing, suport and configuration tools, as well as introduction tours, hardware help and manuals. The cost of that R&D has to be recovered over a lower number of machines in Linux than in Windows. 4) Competition. Maybe competition on Windows is higher than for Linux machines. Thus, Windows machines are forced to be sold closer to cost than Linux machines. It's free market, and there is nothing wrong with that. 5) Opportunity subsidy. Maybe the company has observed that Windows users buy more additional products and services (probably software, such as Office) than Linux users. Thus, for the company it makes sense to partially subsidize Windows machines. Again, nothing wrong with that. I could think of other valid reasons that do not require a conspiracy. It puzzles me that the article author cannot. As for the drivers for network cards and other hardware, who said the manufacturers have the obligation to spend money on creating drivers and testing them for every OS? They should do so for only the most popular OSs (there are hundreds of them, and they have the right to draw the line wherever they want, whether that's the top 10 OSs in popularity (which should include Linux, after Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000 and Windows ME) or just the top two. It's called business.

The 3 part author whines about exclusion.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet he does the same thing.

"advising them that you want the choice of Linux on your next desktop or laptop computer purchase. Tell the store manager that if they refuse to be more consumer choice oriented, you will no longer purchase from them."

Fine. Great. Now, where is his support for getting the same treatment for FreeBSD?

One man's exclusion is anothers perfectly fine situation.

this Whole news story is a troll..

[Anonymous Coward]

this was made to make Linux Zelots jump on microsoft and fight with their zelots again and blame them for the reason we all arnt using linux instead... If you dont like M$ then just dont use their shit(Utopia?) and make linux better, which it already is Much better than windows in almost every way, but still isnt ready because Programmers argue about what needs to be done a certain way and that makes it hard for the average user to jump right in. a User should never have to open a config file and edit by hand, never have to compile anything (unless the computer configs and compiles it by its self with some user entered info through a wizard)
and Never see any type of Comannd prompt or shell

UNLESS the User wants to then by all means give control... but Linux forces you to in too many cases (with some exceptions like package managers and such)

Linux on the desktop is a Non issue right now. IT can be argued forever but It comes down to the fact that if basic user (A mother, Teenager, Dumb blond female Coffee drinker in starbucks on a laptop, or stupid average American Football jock) cant move from one system(windows/linux/OSX) to another and be at least 40% proficent in using all the OS functions with only a mouse then its not ready.

I cant wait untill its good but to me all linux distros currently are basicly like using Later alpha/ Early BETA software for a really good OS...
the fact people fight over KDE/Gnome software than can only be used on one distro but not the other proves this.. Linux is open and everything should work everywhere.

ss

Wait A Minute....

[mpapet]

There are online retailers that sell systems with no OS or Linux.

Just because some-retailer-somewhere doesn't sell linux just means they can't pay the vig to get into the store. Once you are in the store there are more fees to pay. Unless customers are beating down the doors to buy, it's a difficult place to have a successful product be profitable without tons of advertising and a great price.

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[yppiz]

The parent post says "if you know how to use IE correctly [it's safe]"

That's fine, but what percent of the population "use IE correctly?" Here's my guess -- the number has no significant digits to the left of the decimal point.

Put a default install of Firefox on an ordinary user's machine, and they're unlikely to have problems. Put a default install of IE on their machine, and they face non-trivial odds of relaying Nigerian email spam from now until they buy a new computer.

--Pat

How to prove a conspiracy...

[Javaman59]

1. State a conspiracy that is widely feared, but not proven

2. Say that you will present the proof

3. Provide a long, factual, introduction, showing the revolting ill-effects of the conspiracy

4. In a linked page, which promised the proof, ramble on about the evil conspiracy. Act as if you've already proven it.

5. QED, case closed. Time to move on to remedies.

Making room

[dbcad7]

There is a workaround for shrinking your drive for a Linux partition.

1.) Get Xandros, run the install, and it will allow you to resize the XP partition making room for Xandros.

2.) Use Xandros for a bit, and see how you like it.

3.) Then install whatever flavor of Linux you want over it.

Or you can spend the bucks, and get partion magic or something like that. But the Xandros thing can be done for the cost of burning your own ISO

regards

dbcad7

Re:Making room

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good grief! DO NOT USE partion magic! Bad things can happen.

Try ntfsresize. It's worked well for me!

For best results, do it BEFORE you first boot windows! (Some versions of windows like to put a swapfile at the end of the window's partition.)

One of those reasons is partially correct.

[Medievalist]

When you build a Windows machine, you have to test it to see if all the parts will work together under your chosen version of the OS and your required end-user application(s). Even if you use only Microsoft-certified hardware and applications!

When you build a linux machine (and I've built a few ;)) it's even more likely that you will have some hardware that simply won't run the software you require, because the hardware vendors typically only do a windows test suite during their product development cycle.

So your reason #2 could be real. The rest of your reasons all boil down to "we think we can extort more money from stupid linux users, caveat emptor" or make the assumption that a significant number of end-users buy their software and peripherals from their PC vendor.

memo

[Anonymous Coward]

All your desktops are belong to us!

Truth is, Linux is not for everyone

[fr0sty]

Even though the guy in the story (Joe), tried linux, he tried SuSe, which, along with the popular FC4, mandrake, and all those OS's are very GUI-based. For me, real linux is defined by source-compiled operating systems, like Gentoo and arch. They give the user the most power, the most control: Most people could never successfuly do a gentoo install. Linux is not for everyone; I hate to use the term "Elitest OS", but source-compiled operating systems just will not work for the majority of the population. While I am very mad at Microsoft's sabotage techniques, I am not surprised, nor do I plan to do anything radical about it: I run two Gentoo computers, and I personally know that only 1 of my friends would be able to succesfully use the OS as an alternative. There is a reason why windows dominates; they just have the right formula, and a huge brainwashed audience, and the result is a huge ammount of corrupted money income. But most people just will not bother learning anything but windows. I'm used to it, and that's the attitude I expect. I love Linux, but it's not for the majority of computer users, and shouldn't be. Because then we'll just have the same problems as windows users will.

In other news...

[Dolda2000]

It is believed that the Chinese government is working to hinder capitalism and free speech.
RMS is believed to be working to hinder proprietary software.
Experts propose a theory that Christian priests may preach Christianity.
Even more controversially, Buddhist monks are believed to attempt to reach Nirvana.
Last, but not least, analysts predict that Microsoft will continue releasing Windows-based operating system, rather than switching to a Linux-based system.

Re drivers, it's a catch-22

[quentin_quayle]

The drivre situation is not a conspiracy, it's just a vicious cycle.

Hardware makers write drivers for Windows because if they don't they'll lose, say, 30% (server) to 95% (consumer) of their market. MS doesn't even have to pay them; they pay for the privilege with certification fees.

Then MS, in turn, has drivers for all the hardware, and this reinforces its desktop monopoly.

On the Linux side the factors work the other way: lack of hardware support retards adoption, and lack of market share reduces the incentive for hardware support.

Linux devs have gone a remarkable way toward breaking this situation with reverse engineering, persuasion, and a population of determined users. If there were justice, MS would ahve been forced long ago to make its OEM contracts non-secret, to offer the same price list to everyone, to have OEMs state the price of Windows separately, and to let buyers opt out of it, and then the Linux desktop would be much further along..

Not a good development...

[Anonymous Coward]

When advocates of so-called "Desktop Linux" are coming up with conspiracy theories instead of suggesting (much less implementing) improvements with desktop *nix technologies such as X11, Gnome, KDE and crucial *nix desktop projects like Firefox, Eclipse, Java,OpenOffice, Abiword, and so on.

Adoption of Linux desktops not going well?

[Anonymous Coward]

[The only] two guys trying to buy Linux desktops found they were overpriced, and lacked certain tools... like a good OS, supported device drivers, and quality software.

which and locate will tell you

[Anonymous Coward]

which opera locate opera

That's just not true, in my experience

[Medievalist]

. For Windows, it is easy. In a corporate environment desktop, you want XP-Pro. Period. Update to the latest patches.

And lose out to your competition because out-of-the-box Windows phones the mothership incessantly and enables your users to defeat your firewalls in order to surf the latest Realmedia or WMV streams. Your bandwidth costs go up astronomically which kicks into your overhead, so that gets investigated, and your boss finds out your end-users are violating copyright and SEC regulations, and you lose your job for being a fool.

I don't know of any major corporations - none, as I sit here in the corporate capital of the world - that do anything other than ghost out a standard image. A PC comes in the door, the disk is formatted and the highly optimized and controlled corporate image is loaded. If the end-user screws it up, re-ghost immediately. Sarbannes-Oxley, HIPAA, GLB, FDA regs all prevent you from storing important data on the local hard drive anyway, so the data's on a server somewhere access controls can be monitored and backups documented.

It can take as long as 400 man-hours to produce a corporate desktop image. The determining factors are the experience and knowledge of the staff member who does it. If that person is a Windows guru, Windows is faster. If the person is a Linux guru, linux is faster.

So it still comes down to the same thing some other poster keeps chanting - it's what the kids are getting taught. My nine-year-old and six-year-old are being thoroughly indoctrinated with Microsoft by the public school system, so there you are. But it's still not malice - the teachers don't know any better.

Attacking the competition?

[nurb432]

A large monopoly using its power against the upcoming competition.. Go figure.

This is news?

Story Summary

[Arandir]

Story Summary: Windows-only hardware works better with Windows.

Tim C sorry you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Tim C but I call bullshit on you. I just updated my version of Ubuntu to the newest version. Although I know how to use the CLI, for the heck of it I tried it through the GUI (using Synaptic).

Point, Click to open Synaptic. Edit the word "Hoary" to replace it with the word "Breezy" in the nice GUI edit page. Point and click a couple of more times, Wait for download and install, and poof - done! A perfect upgrade. The entire operating system, and every single application on my Linux system, all upgraded simply by pointing and clicking.

You simply CANNOT do that on Windows. There is no way in Windows you can simultaneously upgrade the OS (say, move from Windows 2000 to Windows XP) and upgrade EVERY application you are using all at the same time.

You need to refamiliarize yourself with Linux. For a long time now, Linux has been better than Windows on the desktop in the following areas: (a) more control afforded to the user; and (b) much easier to install Linux from scratch on a computer than it is to install Windows from scratch.

With Ubuntu, it is time to add a THIRD area where desktop Linux has no become better - way better: program installation and upgrades. No offense, man, but you are out of touch, and you are the one spouting the bullshit, as you call it.

Re:Tim C sorry you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Edit the word "Hoary" to replace it with the word "Breezy" in the nice GUI edit page.

Honestly? I think you lost the majority of users right there. Even better would be if the update notification could alert them of something like "Ubuntu 5.10 is available, would you like to upgrade?" or even just having a stable symlink in the apt archive pointing to the latest release like Debian does.

Exaggerations and half-truths

[leereyno]

Terpstra's articles are nothing more than propaganda based upon exaggeration and half-truths. I couldn't even read the entire set. I gave up about halfway through part two when I came accross the following:

"If companies really seek to attract the largest number of potential consumers, why are their practices so restrictive? What commercial arrangements have been made behind closed doors so as to keep Linux out of the public eye?"

Companies aren't looking to attract the largest number of potential customers, they're looking to attract the largest number of PROFITABLE customers. Customers cost money, plain and simple. Therefore it is wise to seek out customers that are going to give a return on the company's investment. There just aren't enough people looking to buy systems with Linux pre-installed right now to justify the opportunity cost associated with catering to them.

There are other problems with this article as well. A non-technical person reading it would assume that there were massive incompatibility problems with Linux, whereas in truth the problems are few and generally very minor. His first example points out that one of the users in his story had a hard time getting various wireless interfaces working. If someone didn't know any better, they might assume that this was indicative of a much larger pattern of difficulty with computers and components in general. The truth is that support for wireless cards is the biggest compatability hurdle right now, but it is an anomaly. No other catagory of device is anywhere near as plagued with problems. Laptops are also more difficult to grapple with than desktop systems. My job is to support Linux and unix for the college of engineering at the 5th largest university in the country. I do Linux installs day in and day out, and I can tell you that I'm not often faced with hardware support problems on desktop systems. Laptops can be more tricky, but even then it is usually the wireless interface and/or the video that represents the sole difficulty. In both cases there is a lot of documentation online that details how to get both working for most systems. There have been a few cases where I couldn't get Linux working, but they are very few and far between.

If I were to read these articles on a message board, I would assume that he was a troll due to the way in which he abuses language. He likes to use the term "compatible" in places where "supported" would be much more appropriate. There are not very many vendors who actually officially support Linux with their devices, but that doesn't mean those devices are necessarily incompatible with Linux. In fact I would argue that of all the myriad hardware devices that Linux supports, virtually none are officially "supported" under Linux by the vendor. I neither care nor worry about whether a device is officially "supported." The only thing that matters to me is whether it will work or not. If the drivers are there and they work then that is all the matters to me, and I support Linux for a living.

In general vendors are very willing to work with the Linux community, at least as far as the creation of drivers are concerned. Providing info on a device to someone who wants to create a driver costs these vendors nothing and may even increase their sales. Official support costs money, which is why it is so uncommon, at least on desktop systems. In the server arena things are much different. Most major server vendors both sell systems with Linux pre-installed, and support Linux on these systems. It is only a matter of time before this trickles down onto the desktop.

In all he paints a very distorted picture of where Linux is on the desktop and utilizes 'tin foil hat' logic to do it. There is no vast conspiracy. I do believe that Microsoft does work to try and prevent Linux from succeeding as a desktop OS, but Microsoft alone does not a conspiracy make.

One thing that I don't think he probably mentions is the fact that Best Buy, Circuit City, and Fry's all s

Re:Exaggerations and half-truths

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get back to Joe and Dennis. What advice do you give these dudes? Are you saying that they are part of the unwashed masses that do not deserve to use Linux? Never mind Terpstra's slant on things, what is your advice to these real users - how can they find hardware that works with Linux?

I am sure Dennis is not happy with his experience. Do you have a suggestion that will help him to become a happy user of Linux?

Has Terpstra really said that there is a conspiracy, or is that a distorted reading of his article? Have you asked him to explain that?

Re:Exaggerations and half-truths

[leereyno]

My advice to Joe and Dennis is the same advice I would give to anyone looking to spend a significant sum of money on anything: DO RESEARCH BEFOREHAND!!!

Had these two spent a little bit of time researching their options they would have learned which laptops work well with Linux and which wireless cards do as well. Going off half cocked and (even worse) taking advice from clueless sales people is an excellent plan... if you're looking to get a migrane. If, on the other hand, you're hoping to be happy with something that you've purchased, then doing research beforehand is the most effective way of ensuring that you will be.

Who are these masses you speak of, and why are they unwashed? I think that bad personal hygiene is a much bigger problem to an unwashed person than what operating system their computer is running (at least it is to everyone who is downwind of them). I'd recommend they look into getting some soap, shampoo, and deodorant and worry about computers after they've had a shower.

I'll be sure to ask Terpstra for an explanation the next he and I play golf.

Lee

Re:Exaggerations and half-truths

[janhct]

Hey I want to take you up on your offer. A game of golf will do me good. :-)

- John T.

Linux is a selling point.

[youroldbuddy]

For companies like IBM/Lenovo, Dell, HP & Fujitsu it is a bit absurd not to have a Linux setup on hand for all their computer builds. Most of them have been making the same computers with literally no changes for a couple of years now. A SATA driver there, a wifi driver here, a Linux image is no hassle to build once and update every couple of years. The support cost is non existant. Most of them dont have Linux support anyway for non servers. On the other hand Linux support is a major selling point. IT managers are more often than not happy to hear how easy it is to install Linux on the computers in question, and they are influential in the decision process and it tends to tilt the balance when every penny counts in this cut-throat business.

I have a Great idea for a website!!

[bondjamesbond]

I'll call it "we're not afraid . com". We'll use it to let Microsoft and their minion companies know that we are not afraid to use whichever OS we choose. And we'll not let them bully us. Schools also are making a push to eradicate bullies... but I digress. Anyway, this site will allow people to openly proclaim to the MS et al thugs that "we" are not afraid of them. Maybe with pictures, and the like.

Oh, wait. Someone already registered http://www.werenotafraid.com/ , but it's to let TERRORISTS know that we are not afraid of them. Huh. Go figure.

This idea and any ideas derived from this idea are henceforth proclaimed under the BSD License.

I am bondjamesbond, of Dallas, and I am not afraid.

Hardware support costs money

[GWBasic]

Writing device drivers is expensive. The $40 for a windows liscense pays for many of the drivers. In order for a Linux based computer to be sold in a brick & mortar store, it would need to recover the cost of writing Linux drivers.

Re:Hardware support costs money

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Are you saying that Microsoft is paying people to develop Microsoft Windows drivers for their (the hardware manufacturers') own hardware?...

Re:Hardware support costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you miss the core problem. If the chipset manufacturers could simply make available the information needed by the OSS community to create their own drivers, then there would be no problem. The real issue is that these companies want to control (limit) the ability of others to use their knowledge under the pretense of so called "intellectual protection". There is no need for hardware manufacturers to foot the bill for driver development - the community is far better at writing drivers than they are.

Electronics stores do not write drivers, they just resell what OEMs provide. OEMs seldom create the chipsets, that is done by specialty companies. Belkin did not create the AirGo chipset, AirGoNetworks did. Why have AirGoNetworks not made their chipset specifications available to the community?

The real problem is that manufacturers do not trust open source developers. Have the OSS community has given them cause for mis-trust? The problem is not cost, it is the lack of trust and a lack of willingness to work with the customer instead of against him.

Re:Hardware support costs money

[GWBasic]

Microsoft does develop drivers. This has always been the case, every version of Windows that I've used comes with a significant amount of drivers for legacy products. In addition, Microsoft provides (expensive) certification programs that, if the device passes, can display a "Made for Windows" logo.

Re:Hardware support costs money

[WhiteWolf666]

Agreed.

If your company makes an even moderately popular piece of hardware, all you have to do for great Linux drivers is release documentation and information regarding the hardware interfaces.

If there are license restrictions regarding some of this stuff, keep it secret.

Honestly; if their competitors want to find out their product secrets, they'll reverse engineer them. The amount of money required to hire Chinese, Indian, or Pakistan developers (even highly qualified ones) to figure out what makes your 802.11g chipset tick is insignificant compared to the budgets of some of these companies. The only reason they don't release this kind of stuff is short-sightedness.

Either that, or MS really is behind the scenes, pushing to keep it all locked down.

Re:Hardware support costs money

[GWBasic]

You assume that most companies have perfectly documented specs for their hardware. This is not always the case. For smaller companies, the "spec" is that the guy writing the driver sits next to the guy who is designing the board.

The mentality of "just release the specs and we'll write the drivers for free" doesn't reflect reality. Preparing the specs for public consumption and then answering all of the questions costs a lot of money and takes valuable engineers away from developing new products. In addition, if the "free" driver turns out to be buggy, it could give the hardware company a bad reputation because consumers will think that the device is faulty, when it really is the "free" driver.

Re:Hardware support costs money

[WhiteWolf666]

Well, if its a small company, writing an uncomplicated driver, than the opensourcing the "spec" means that the guy sitting next to the guy designing the board simple puts his work online somewhere :)

SiS started to do that kind of thing, but they were so hopelessly behind in their release schedule that it was just silly.

Re:Hardware support costs money

[GWBasic]

Drivers aren't always uncomplicated. In addition, porting a driver from Windows to Linux isn't a matter of recompiling, because both operating systems use different interfaces.

Why would MS bother?

[Mirzabah]

Having made several attempts to switch to Linux, I have come to the conclusion that Linux is already doing a brilliant job of stopping itself from gaining widespread adoption on the desktop. Ubuntu is the closest I've seen to a cheap or free distro that "just works" and even that has severe deal breakers. For me the inability to configure WPA easily would stop me from deploying linux on laptops in a commercial environment - yeah I know about wpasupplicant and all, but why is not installed out-of-the-box in any distro? Home users would baulk at the inability to play DVDs without having to jump through several hoops to install "tainted" or downright illegal codecs. For both home and business users, OpenOffice 2 is the first version that comes even close to being a MS Office replacement and it's *still* in beta. Commercial distros may be better, but if I'm going to shell out money, why not go with the market leader? One of the real sticking points for linux on the desktop is the the desktop environment itself. You don't have to dive into Linux very deep before you get mired in the Gnome vs. KDE debate. Fact is they both blow chunks.

Quite a Simple Solution

[Greyfox]

Make it illegal to bundle software with a computer.

That's right, you heard right. Simply force the user to buy his OS and software separately, and bar manufacturers from distruting system-specific install software too. Let the user choose his own OS and software according to his needs and install them himself. And no discounts for having just bought a PC, either.

"But Grey, the average user isn't qualified to install his own OS," I hear you cry. Well then how can he possibly be qualified to connect his OS to the Internet, where his zombie PC is currently gumming up the works for everyone. Besides which the Windows install is a point and click thing that anyone with half a brain can do in their sleep. Isn't that what Microsoft would have us believe? And if the user, presented with a choice between Windows for $200 or Debian for the cost of the netinst CD it's burned to, happens to unwisely choose the much harder (Microsoft would have us beleive) to deal with netinst CD, well at least he isn't out that much when he has to go back and buy the Windows media. Right?

As an added benefit, maybe then the manuals will tell us what hardware is actually in the machine we just bought again. Have you ever seen a manual from the pre-Microsoft era? You got ASCII charts and port pin-outs. Seriously. What do you get now? "Here's how to use all the bundled software that's installed on the machine," which I just formatted off in favor of Debian.

Re:Quite a Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should tell Dell that you want to install software for the end-user. If you would kindly post your phone number I could give it to them. Are you kidding me? Criminalizing bundled software is the dumbest idea I have heard of.

Re:Quite a Simple Solution

[StrawberryFrog]

That's likely to be as popular with most computer users as say, making it illegal to bundle tyres with a new car, or to bundle cheese with bread and sell it as a sandwich. Convenience is king.

Remember that software should "just work" (tm). Well, your average user doesn't make that sharp distinction between the hardware and the software. They want the computer to "just work". And you know what? It's a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Try Powernotebooks.com

[citizenklaw]

Hey, those guys sell lappys without an OS, and have IMHO excellent Linux support. If you want WinBlows, you'll pay extra for that. Compare the options for the PowerPro C 2:20 Ultra with the following specs: 1.73 gig Processor, 512 MB, 40 gig Hd, DVD + CDR, Wireless, MemCard reader, etc. etc. for $1163 ($1133.92 if you pay Cash) Vs. The same machine for $1308 with WinBlows XP Pro. Forget about the HP's and Dell's. These guys rock! Even if I were to buy a lppy with WinBlows, I would look into these guys. Just check out their reviews in ResellerRatings.com! Go to www.powernotebooks.com And, just in case I don't work with them. Before I was handed my corporate D(H)ell Lattitude POS machine, I considered getting one from these guys. If I get some cash probably I will. Uh, Anyone can spare $1200? I'll put them to good use! :-P

Well put!

[iamacat]

I don't see how a company can risk using Microsoft for any mission-critical task. If Linux or Apache break, that bug can be fixed at a trivial (for a business) cost of hiring a consultant. If Windows/IIS breaks, they are dead in the water unless they are the size of Dell and can actually make an impact on Microsoft's revenues. Even home users can type some stuff into bugzilla and have a reasonable chance of getting their problem fixed after a while.

Re:Well put!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Linux or Apache break, that bug can be fixed at a trivial (for a business) cost of hiring a consultant."

Proof, please? Which bug? The one you don't know about? How do you know that to be the case?

Re:Well put!

[iamacat]

Does it really require a proof that a competent programmer with access to full source code can fix a small bug in a few days, at the cost of perhaps $10000? Read ChangeLogs for Linux kernel, Apache, Netbeans or Firefox and look for all the corporate contributions. You might have heard of IBM adding a few enhancements to Linux kernel a while ago.

What an absolute waste

[nicklepede]

This article is a ridiculous waste of ink. The guy obviously has no idea what goes into PC hardware manufacturing & support - how much time and energy software & hardware developers, integraters, and testers spend getting the umpteen zillion parts of a PC working with the various OSs the system has to support. He seems to think that manufacturers develop their hardware, then ship it - end of story. Nope, we (I'm in the business) spend a godawful amount of time supporting the various operating systems we are required to support. And get this: the OSs with the largest user base get the most energy & resources. We spend countless person-hours making sure our hardare and software works on WinXP. WinME and OS/2 - not so much. Win2000 is ramping down, and Vista is ramping up. Linux is another bottom feeder: there's no great business reason for supporting anything but the barest of hardware functionality. Honestly, you can *thank* the few PC manufacturers that require at least some semblance of Linux support. If it wasn't for those PC manufacturers then most Independent Hardware Vendors wouldn't bother supporting Linux at all.

Don't Google then...

[carlmenezes]

...and don't whine if you buy some god forsaken piece of hardware for your PC and find it's a bitch to get it working on Linux.

Seriously though, give the OSS developers some credit. How in hell can you expect them to support every damn piece of hardware that is available for your PC? Sure, there are good drivers for what is commonly used and there will continue to be.

For Linux drivers, you will need to stop worrying once Linux becomes a more widely recognized OS. Because it is the manufacturers who will need to provide the drivers for their devices and that's the only way you're going to be sure that something will work. Even then, how many devices do you know come with perfect drivers for Windows? Even after it's so widely used, if you buy cheap hardware, chances are you'll get dodgy drivers.

So if you dont want to Google, buy stuff that's in common use or grin and bear it and if you can, help write the drivers for that exotic piece of hardware. Either that, or buy from a retailer who's known to sell devices that ship with linux drivers. Don't know about the USA, but if you're in Australia or New Zealand, you can shop at Dick Smith Electronics and they'll even tell you which VERSION of the Linux kernel the drivers have been tested with.

So just be patient. Linux is getting there. Device driver support for Linux is on its way. It just takes time. So either be patient for now and do your research to make sure the hardware will work with linux, or try and help Linux to get there.

It's the American Way

[Bullfish]

Let me see if I have it right:

1. Create a product
2. Sell product and build market
3. Ruthlessly through any means stomp on competitors trying to enter market .....
4. Profit!

Really, this goes back to robber baron days... or are they still with us

Buy a computer?

[gov_coder]

Seriously. Why would anyone in their right mind do that?

Here's a short list of the bad things that have happened to friends because of the commodity crap I've seen them buy in the past six months:

• Shitty Dell hardware that doesn't work with generic 3rd part hardware like you'd expect (you must buy the Dell CD-ROM burner, for example)
• HP machine so out of date with respect to patches that it was hopelessly foobarred by spyware the very first day it was brought home and plugged into a cable modem
• E-machines puter that wouldn't accept its own darn driver updates from the internet
• HP laptop that had to have its flatscreen replaced 3 times due to dead pixels
• IBM thinkpad (T40 I recall) that BSOD'd constantly despite being returned several times for service

Why would anyone ever want to put up with that?

For myself, my family, and several of my friends - the better way is to either custom build yourself or have a geek friend do it.

./ Passports

[dxminxs]

IMHO we should build a Linux "portal" where all Linux users can go for support. Independent of the dist of choice, where everyone can come to ask questions...developers, coders et al would most definitely sign up, and read/provide insight. ./? distrowatch? Let's get our own passports!

Re:./ Passports

[Tidal Flame]

LinuxQuestions.org is a pretty good site for help with Linux... you won't always get the answer you're looking for, though. The people are mostly friendly, but not always.

Not at all!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure, Walmart sells Linux. But only online, not brick and mortar.

Maybe in US land, but not in Brazil. Wal-Mart has sold Linux boxes brick and mortar since some 2~3 years. It's a difficulty sell, though, Windows machines are cheaper, exactly the way Terpstra told.

As a Linux user I looked for a deal some 2 years ago and decided to have a Windows box, because it came with monitor + printer for free (as a bundle). Well, I learned it the hard way:

1) The monitor was actually a 15-inch one -- and with a bad dot pitch. Needless to say I was not thrilled when I brought it home -- but hey, it's costless, huh? :-/

2) The printer was excellent, but... the first ink cartridge was to cost about half the price of a new printer! And no alternative refills, because the cartridge was patented or something... I actually had to buy a new printer (this time the one with cheapest original cartridges)

3) The computer itself had only 3 PCI slots, one of which was rendered useless because of a projecting part which went over it, preventing any possibility of card insertion.

Not to mention configuration problems I had to overcome, because the equipment was not guaranteed to work with Linux.

Recently, government support has made Linux come up in retail stores again. It's easy to buy a basic Celeron/Sempron, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB HD, CD-ROM, no monitor for some US$ 400. Windows Starter Version outsells [Linux+apps] 2 to 1.

I consider this significant and a victory for free/open source software. And this is about to improve as new credit lines become offered in the next weeks, for those apply mostly to computers with Linux (unless $omeone ups the ante and put money to help sell Windows Starter).

But not all is roses. I once needed to know if a computer had a modem and what would be its speed. The salesman looked at the box and said "Yes, it has. It's 52x".

They know absolutely nothing and _do_not_want_to_learn_.

Some 3 months ago I saw a cheap webcam. Since the store had Linux machines I asked a vendor to test it with a Linux machine, because the packing simply stated it was Windows-compatible.

Mind you, I would buy two if it worked (though I didn't say this).

The salesman just said "No can do".

When I must buy hardware, I need to check Linux-compatible first. I always wanted a store that would specialize in Linux, to just drop by, buy new hardware and get home happy.

pointless article

[SQLz]

Warning, author clueless.

StarOffice anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love the option of buying a Linux PC at CompUSA or Best Buy... But, maybe even more importantly, why can't I buy a copy of StarOffice? You'd think there would be a huge market for it. The vast majority of home users don't need MS Office and definitely don't need to shell out $400 for it.

Yes, I know OpenOffice is free, but let's think about people like my parents who have dial up and don't know how to download or install anything.

Mod parent up - dumb article on important subject

[Animats]

The original article is a terrible article on an important subject. Microsoft is known to be doing things to prevent computer manufacturers from preloading Linux. This has been a major issue in several antitrust cases. But the author doesn't cite the cases, or quote from the Microsoft preload agreements that have surfaced.

I'm not going to go into the history of the Microsoft antitrust cases, but you can't discuss this issue intelligently without looking at them.

Who wrote this article?

[AlexMax2742]

Why did you post AC? This post is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

Lots and lots of holes

[Bun]

A desktop computer can be purchased for as little as $400. A laptop computer can be purchased at a price point below $550. Linux is free. Microsoft Windows, coupled with its bundled software, must cost at least $40 per machine. So, if Linux were to be pre-loaded, the retailer could offer the device at the same price and make an additional 5% to 10% gross margin.

Anybody see the hole there? How about: what are the COSTS associated with installing and supporting an OS used by 5% of a businesses customers?

Proprietary codecs are a risk.

[jbn-o]

And throw away my software freedom to watch movies that require non-free software to play? No thanks. I'd consider free software reverse-engineered compatible codecs, though.

Fine time for learning how the world really works.

[jbn-o]

And those non-free codecs may do things users don't like (spyware, for instance). Copying those non-free codecs might constitute copyright infringement (depending on the license for the codec), patent infringement, and they just plain won't work if you're not running GNU/Linux on a compatible architecture. Finally, it's great that your relatives and girlfriend enjoy the Linux kernel. I hope they enjoy the rest of the operating system as well.

That is an excellent point

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot about how easy Unreal Tournament 2004 was to install. (At least, on my version of Suse (9.0 Professional)) you could even just double-click on the installer file and everything installed from the GUI. Or from the CLI, you could type a simple command (a shell script starting with "sh ... something"? (Sorry, I'm only semi-tech savvy and I don't know scripting well and I forget the detils, this was a year ago).

But anyway, your point was excellent. LINUX itself placed no impediments on the installation. The UT2004 creators deployed a very easy install script, and the installation was a piece of cake. I was happy to pay my money for that game.

It's just economies of scale

[cfulmer]

Linux support at a manufacturer is not costless. If Dell, for example, decides to sell Linux on some systems, they have to get it running, test, document, change the website to reflect it, advertise, support, duplicate CDs, create part numbers, etc.... These costs need to be allocated to the Linux machines sold -- if it costs you $1M to get to the point where you can ship Linux, and you only sell 5,000 of them, you have to increase the costs by $200 per machine just to break even.

Many of the corresponding costs for Windows are probably higher, but they are also spread across far more machines -- the end result is that even with the Windows license, the per unit cost is lower.

Bullshit meter pegged

[Anonymous Coward]

>Microsoft does not support Windows in any way.

Who modded this tripe informative? What do you call http://support.microsoft.com/ ? The Microsoft knowledge base? Microsoft Services ( http://www.microsoft.com/services/microsoftservice s/default.mspx )? Windows Update? Granted, their phone support is expensive, but it exists. Whether Linux is better supported than Windows is an open question, but the quote above is laughable.

Re:Bullshit meter pegged

[grahamm]

Will the Microsoft (or most other commercial software) telephone support provide fixes for bugs? No, all they will do is help you use the software or suggest work-arounds for bugs. If you are lucky 'your' bug might be fixed in the next (or later) release of software for which you will (normally) have to pay.

All they have to do...

[fyngyrz]

...is provide an OS-wide, encumbrance free standard set of UI elements like every other operating system and they'll see a surge of activity. IMHO. No one will bite you if you ask the system for a directory listing — but use a widget and suddenly you have to open source your code?

I'm speaking as/for a commercial developer which already has a working port on Linux of a very large and powerful app but can't release because of the license mess the linux GUI/OS is in.

It's entirely one thing to co-develop open tools. It's another to shoot yourself in the foot by making them block entry into your space.

If there is a plot to keep linux off desktops, the significance of it is dwarfed by the OS's licensing problems.

Re:All they have to do...

[stoborrobots]

I'm speaking as/for a commercial developer which already has a working port on Linux of a very large and powerful app but can't release because of the license mess the linux GUI/OS is in.

Licence mess? Hmmm...

Have you looked at projects like FLTK, wxWindows, Tk from Tcl/Tk, TIX, the Adobe Source Libraries, or Mozilla's XUL and XPFE etc? It's definitely possible to develop closed-source GUI software on X11 with a range of widget sets without violating licences.

And really, if you're developing closed-source software and want the KDE look-and-feel, you can always purchase a Qt developer licence instead of opensourcing your code.

There is no one-true-widget-set which forces you to open-source your code. The closest thing to a "one-true-widget-set-for-X11", it would be Motif - and even that is free if you're developing for Linux - see OpenMotif...

Re:All they have to do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this is nonsense?
There have been plenty of Gtk and Qt based commercial applications.

Re:All they have to do...

[fyngyrz]

it's not nonsense, but you have to read for comprehension:

encumbrance-free

Re:All they have to do...

[fyngyrz]

Yes, we've looked at all of those, and more.

I'm saying the OS needs a standard GUI. The GUI needs to not be financially encumbered. The GUI needs to be present. Not "installable", not "downloadable", not "part of our install", but present. It needs not to be a hurdle you have to jump, but an always-present assist up to the next step on the ladder. Calls to GUI routines need to be as dependable and omnipresent as memory allocation and command line parameters. It needs to not enforce a language (you should be able to get directly to it from assembler to C to C++ to the most obtuse HLL you can think of.) The only thing that even comes close is *cough* xwindows itself, if you want to code your own widgets, which does no one else any good because they're not there unless you put them there.

It's as if there were 50 networking standards, and everyone said, "gee, you can use this, or you can use that, but you have to pay for this one and if you use that one you have to open your code and if you use this one over here, you can't use any of those libraries over there..." No one would put up with it, and rightly so. The thing I've never understood is why linux folk put up with GUIs in precisely the same state.

Look at Windows, the Mac... want a widget? Bam, you've got it. It's part of the OS. Of course it is. It was on the Amiga, which was a glorious machine to write code for. Perhaps someone can say if Be has a standard GUI, I don't know but I'm thinking it probably does. But linux does not. And Linux is the platform that has managed to go great guns into the environment where what is standard in the OS is present, in other words networks and servers... but when it comes to graphics, it's like entering the mind of a psychotic... and there are very few serious general linux apps out there that aren't highly specialized or network-centric. Some of the (very few) examples I know of are the Gimp. OOo, and GnuCash. All three of these "big dogs" lag far, far behind apps in the same venues on other platforms, and only OOo can make a somewhat reasonable claim. And where are the commercial and OS competitors? Really, there aren't any. Under linux, anyway. But there are plenty elsewhere. I think it comes down the GUI problems, I really do.

In our case, we ran into zero problem other than GUI. Almost everything in our app is self-contained, barring a very few calls into the standard C library. As soon as you need a file dialog, a palette, a button, a list... you're on your way to the lawyer, typically. If not the bank. or both. I sure am glad no one else takes this approach. After banging our heads on this problem, we went to do a Mac port, and you can't believe how smooth that is going. It just works. Both the PPC and the Insmell versions. Windows just works too, but we were used to that, so after linux, the Mac looks like heaven.

I thought it would be a great idea to port to linux. I was wrong. It took considerably more money, time, and legal advice than porting to the mac. When we were done, we still had a "works here, but not there, here if this lib is in but otherwise not..." result. That makes no sense to me, and it surely made no sense to my accountants.

All IMHO, of course. YMWDV. :-)

Need to anyway

[bluGill]

Nearly all of that documentation needs to be written anyway. It is the only reasonable way for the programmers to know how to write the drivers.

Oh sure, you could have the programmers bug the hardware guys directory for every detail, but between the programmer forgetting (where is foo again? Bit 7 or byte offset 0xff3a...), and the interuptions of the train of thought for both guys, you need the paper anyway. If as an investor I found out you used that process I would start a shareholder lawsuit - when someone quits you loose all their knowledge, and that is criminal.

Now there is some more effort in making it publicly releaseable, but it should be much above what you have to do. If it is your documentation isn't usefull internally either.

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[Anonymous Coward]

"Put a default install of Firefox on an ordinary user's machine, and they're unlikely to have problems"

BECAUSE FOREST FIRES DONT BURN IN THE DESERT!

I laugh constantly at all you people! You have to reach CRITICAL MASS before it becomes a problem! I must be the only person who sees this... in nature... and on the web... oh well...

Enjoy security through sparsity...

Linux: Stopping Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage

[Fussen]

The title should have said "Linux: Sabotaging Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage"

Hasn't been true for years

[bluGill]

Microsoft stopped doing that years ago. Such bundling killed OS/2, but the government stepped in and killed such arrangements years ago.

good idea

[zogger]

putting a free disk in a mainstream non computer magazine. Sounds like something mark shuttleworth -Ubuntu- could afford, but not too many other people. Heck, you can't get a lot of the big name distros to pop 50 grand to include MP3 play out of the box, they just give you hints to offshore servers for the gray area plugin. Cheap is as cheap does, and you have to admit, look at how far ubuntu has come once someone threw some serious cash at actually getting linux "out there", with out there meaning "besides the suit and tie enterprise arena". I don't know exactly what he's dropped, but it's in the millions no doubt. If he were to do this with those mags like you suggested, well...it would get slapped into some disk drives, then word of mouth, etc. FF raised a fifth of a million just for a stupid ad in the newspaper, I wonder if "the Linux Community" could raise an even million bucks for the great magazine give away? I bet several mags would be interested in making some cash just for including a disk.

HOWEVER, I see another way to sneak it into mainstream use,perhaps even to make some enterprising lads some coin, and that is as an impulse item game disk on the gaming shelves at some of the larger stores, heck, even walmart. If you had a "Tons-0-Free-Games!" disk for ten bucks retail,not 20 or 50,but @ 9.99$, which also coincidently was a more or less complete "linux web surfer edition" distro underneath, a LOT of people might accidently try it out. It has to be on the shelf though, and be a Live Cd-installation very optional type deal.

I think he missed something

[sabre307]

In reading the article I noticed that the author missed something I think is a major factor in why Linux desktops actually cost more than comparable windows machines. I firmly believe that Microsoft is subsidising the cost of desktops preloaded with Windows. It is the only explaination why a computer with a $100-200 operating system preinstalled cost less than one with an OS that is free (or at least nearly free in the case of Linspire) to load. I think Windows has become a "loss leader" for Microsoft. Note that they will no longer include Office preloaded on a machine and it cost to have it added. MS makes a fortune every year selling software to run on their OS and charging hardware manufacturers for "certifying" their drivers. Not to mention that if you do decide to buy an upgrade version of Windows you still have to pay an arm and a leg to get it. That's a tough thing for Linux to compete with. I know some Linux fan will come along and mod me down for saying this, but it has to be said. (btw I'm on my laptop loaded with Mandriva LE 2k5 right now and later I'll move to my desktop loaded with Mandrake 10.1, I got rid of Windows about 3 years ago) Linux is just not going to beat MS being a free OS, or even a "value added" OS. It's going to take an entreprenuer like Michael Robertson to figure out how to create a real business model out of Linux. Just look at my dad. Regardless of how long I use Linux and refuse to boot MS on a computer in my home, how much college I get behind me in CS, or how often I complainn about having to fix their MS boxes AGAIN, he'll always stick to the same argument he has used against Linux since day 1... "You get what you pay for, how good could something free be. I mean, Windows cost $200, it's got to be better than something that's free" The only hope I can have in this world is to counteract the brainwashing in my son by forcing him to use Linux on a daily basis at my house. Kids are great, you get to decide just how to screw them up from day one and they get no say in the matter!

Distract the Developers

[LordMyren]

My main suspect is that they're distracting our developers. all these UI-centric articles taht keep coming out are simply a red herring to make OSS try to out Redmond MS. Somehow we've fallen for the ploy and decided taht linux will only win by being more user friendly.

Fucking bullshit. Linux community need to get off its ass and start innovating again.

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[jp10558]

Right, and if you use windows XP correctly it will run smoothly for weeks and more without reboots, and never need a reinstall (well, random hardware problems notwithstanding). Yet, where I work, we still get people every day paying $140 to clean out the spyware and viruses *yet again*.

Most of these people have no idea about "best practices" for computer use for a number of reasons.

1) 0 attempt at education by manufacturers. Most people who buy store sold PCs *still* haven't heard of AV or Anti-Spyware, and Symantec has been advertising out the wazoo + preinstalling for *HOW LONG*?

2) It's obscure and non trivial. You go to start -> control panel, internet options, etc. etc. Disable this and that, and set this entry. Now some sites don't work, so go into your trusted sites list and add this.

3) Now look at firewalls - many people turn them off because they "break" thier internet or their programs... Because the configuration isn't that simple.

All this leads to effective social engineering attacks against most internet users. Plus the constant manual work - checking if the auto updates are working, possibly approving the update, checking on scans, knowing what to do when something is found etc...

Linux sabotages itself no need to sabotage from M$

[elfarto]

Excuse my bad english, is not my native tongue.
Trust me i'm no M$ apologizer, i hate them as much as all ./ers do.
Linux sabotages itself, i've worked on a project to sell linux preinstalled on cheap boxes sold in my country, we wasted 3 months trying to develop a distro with a decent GUI. I never been so frustrated by the lack of common sense in the GNOME/KDE/Xfree communities, from problems like being unable to add a goddamn item to a gnome menu to the total confusion created by the mostly useless options in KDE , how is possible that linux users cannot fu**ing change the resolution color depth and refresh rate in realtime? Do a simple test, install XP and Gnome/KDE on the same machine, guess what, XP (i regret to say this and hope that someday this changes) is faster , i mean WAAAAY faster, everything is smoother everything works. Why can't this be done in Linux? I tend to blame X and it's ancient Client/Server architecture, i think that smething must be done to get rid of it or at least make it a modern technology with perhaps direct access to the hardware instead of the kludge of apis and interfaces required (kde/gnome/qt/gtk/ice/X/DRM/etc.etc) today. why can't the very capable OSS community come out with a solution like Apple Quartz did. I don't know much programming as to help or start any project, but i gladly donate to such a project.
So it's not definitely M$ fault, Stop blaming M$ or others for all the shortcomings of Linux GUI development and rethink the whole idea.

I think he's real.

[Grendel Drago]

You can't fake man-tits like that. Imagine the dank sweat festering beneath them.

My god, dwarves could wear them as floppy, gelatinous hats.

Re:Mod parent up - dumb article on important subje

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the author have writen your article for you? What is wrong with your writing skills? It seems you know something the author does not know (hardly surprising), so why don't you write a better article.

Send your article to the editor (jstafford@techtarget.com) and see if it gets published - you never know - it just might. I want to see the look on Terpstra's face.

The article was not about Microsoft, it was about two guys who want to run Linux and found obstacles. The article asks why these exist. That might be obvious to you, but not to the average Joe.

Go on, write it - you can do it.

profit motive is malice

[aeoo]

The article was sensationalist and attributed to malice and conspiracy what is best explained by profit motive.

And how exactly is profit motive different from malice?

Profit motive means "Making myself rich is priority number one. All else, including humane treatment of people is priority number 10 and lower." That's very much what malice is. Malice is not some diabolical desire to destroy the world. Malice is just wanton, unrestrained, unconsidered selfishness.

Compare this with some of these others motives:

"To make everyone happy, including myself"

"To advance the health of the community"

"To be happily content."

"To learn new things."

"To share."

Etc. These are some examples of what I consider to be non-malicious motives. Gathering up and hoarding of stuff for oneself is as evil as it gets.

All motives are selfish at some point. However, wanton, unrestrained selfishness that has not been subjected to some very serious, prolonged inquiry is what malice is (unlike other, more enlightened kinds of selfishness).

Deer Park

[dhasenan]

1.0.7 kept crashing on my Gentoo box, roughly once every twelve hours. I'm using Deer Park beta 1 now, and it seems to be more stable. Don't ask me why; 1.0.7 worked fine until last week.

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[deaddrunk]

Microsoft shills always blame the user for their 'stupidity'. The GP there expects you to jump through the hoops normally required by older Linux distros just to surf the web. So much for 'intuitive' Windows.

More "Linux on the desktop" stuff?

[Tidal Flame]

I've heard this all before despite the fact that I try to pay no attention to it. People can complain all they want, but it won't change anything...

The fact is that Linux - as it is right now - is not going anywhere in the desktop market. Linux is awesome for servers. I love it. I wouldn't dream of using Windows for running a server, and trying to network Windows machines without at least one Linux box to keep it altogether is about as much fun as, say, trying to have sex with an ant nest. But Linux just doesn't work well as a desktop operating system right now.

I love the power, control and security Linux gives me for certain tasks. But when I want to sit down and watch a movie or listen to some music, chat with friends or play games, I don't want to worry about whether or not I'm going to have to install (read: compile) a new piece of software, update my device drivers, or edit config files. I'm fully capable of doing so, but why bother? It's just not worth it. I use Windows for that kind of stuff. Believe it or not, my XP boxes are speedy, virus and spyware free, and I can't even remember the last time I got BSOD'd.

There are still many, many things that need to be changed before Linux has a chance as a desktop. The GUI is pretty bad (neither KDE or Gnome are very good, and X is worse), but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The fundamental design principles of Linux make it a poor desktop operating system (excluding as a development platform; it excels there too.) Too much control, not enough automation. It's the same reason Windows is horrible as a server - it wasn't designed to be one. Too much automation, not enough control. So, making Linux viable for the desktop is a lot of work.

Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible to make Linux work as a desktop OS. I mean, it's theoretically possible to take Linux and change it enough that the average user could use it, but would it still be Linux? I certainly don't think it would be Linux as we think of it today.

Eh, it doesn't bother me, anyway. I just plan to keep doing what I'm doing - Linux for servers; Windows for desktops.

Re:More "Linux on the desktop" stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you fscking moron get it? Linux is a kernel! KDE & Gnome are desktop environments just like Apple's Aqua or Jaguar. It is possible to build a great desktop environment on top of Linux and it will happen whether you believe it or not.

Re:More "Linux on the desktop" stuff?

[Javaman59]

Linux is a kernel! KDE & Gnome are desktop environments

He knows that - read what he says about KDE and Gnome. Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean that he's stupid. IMO his post was balanced and insightful (and well informed).

Re:More "Linux on the desktop" stuff?

[Tidal Flame]

Uh, yeah, I know Linux is a kernel. This argument isn't about semantics. We're talking about where Linux stands as a desktop operating system and where it could be going. Would you prefer if I had said GNU/Linux? Honestly, get over it.

Anyway, my argument still applies. If you look at Windows systems, Bob and Joe and Sue all have the same basic system under the hood. You can say that it's bloated, slow, unstable... whatever. It's more or less the same, even between different versions of Windows. However, if Bob and Joe and Sue are running Linux, there's a pretty good chance that each one of them has a slightly different version of the kernel to suit their own needs, plus they've all probably got different modules installed, etc etc etc. That's great for servers where you need the highest performance you can possibly get without any bloat, but it makes things much more complicated than a desktop should need to be. The lack of standardization throughout the operating system and all of its applications makes it great for specialization but less than great for general use.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to show me a good window manager, go ahead. I haven't found one yet.

FUD, I say

[Anonymous Coward]

I just went on a quest to buy five desktop PCs. Nothing fancy. Budget was an issue.

Making a long story short, I ended up buying AMD powered $159 GQ-brand PCs at Frys, which came with Linspire. Installed memory was only 128 so I sprang for an upgrade to 512. This brought the out-the-door price to right at $220 for a totally capable PC running linux or right at $1100 for all five machines. I am honestly impressed with this cheapo Frys PC. I can barely build one from sub-par parts for what I paid.

Anyway, it runs linux not Windows although it certainly can run Windows if needed. Linspire seems to run OK. Yeah, I know Linspire won't get any respect on /. but /. isn't offering to come install something better so this is not an issue for me. YMMV.

The point is it works. It's linux. It was amazingly cheap. And it does what I need it to do.

Film Gimp

[Anonymous Coward]

I ask You to call it decent. Ok, it's not gimp, so You are not bound by Your statement, but give it a try.

Gimp uses 8-bit component (24-bit rgb), and Film Gimp uses 16-bit component (48-bit rgb)

If this does not suite your needs, feel free to custiomize the code as you want, or pay someone to do it. (64 or 128 or a whole harddisk per channel?)

Just beacause You don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't out there.

Re:What HP, Dell, etc. websites are you seeing

[slaida1]

Because when I go to HP or Dell or any big name website and search for business PCs with long warranties, without useless software bundles and with linux preinstalled, I can't find any. Can you? Are rest of the world surfing some different websites where those kind of machines are offered?

I think so too

[ajs318]

For a long time, I have suspected that Microsoft are persuading manufacturers not to support the popular GNU/Linux operating system.

Any cheap ethernet card you can buy will have a Realtek 8139 chip, which is well supported in Linux {it's hard in the kernel on some installation disks is how popular it is} and BSD. It will also have a Microsoft Windows logo on the packaging ..... but no Tux, and no Daemon.

Every modern digital camera behaves like a USB disk drive, again well supported in Linux. No driver software is required: just the usb-storage module {NB, don't compile this hard into the kernel}, ImageMagick and the GIMP which are on almost every distro's installation disks. Again, none of them mention on the packaging that they will work happily with GNU/Linux. Yet it's been my experience that digital cameras behave more stably under Linux than under Windows. This is no mystery; this is exactly as I would have expected, since an open API is by definition better documented than a closed one and therefore software can interact much more reliably in such an environment.

Switches and routers absolutely do not care what OS the host computers are running, as long as it supports TCP/IP {and they all do nowadays}. A moderate-to-high-end one -- the sort of thing you might find in a medium-sized office setup where there is someone who has a clue about IT -- might have a Linux logo on the packaging, but a cheap one almost certainly will be labelled as though it were only suitable for Windows.

{This one isn't hardware; but it's a personal crusade of mine. How often have you seen next to a PDF download "requires Acrobat reader" ? Does it bunnies -- gpdf works fine. I'm e-mailing every website owner I can about this because I believe many people are needlessly polluting their GNU/Linux systems with closed-source software.}

Now, I know what I'm doing. I've been using computers since the Sinclair ZX81 and the BBC Model B, and in those days I used to write all my own software in BASIC and assembler; I have always enjoyed testing the boundary between the possible and the impossible. Does that make me a hacker? It's no big deal to me to patch a kernel module and compile it "after the event" so to speak. But I know I'm the exception.

One thing I would like to see done about this is Mandatory Full Disclosure. That is, you should not be allowed to sell a piece of hardware without supplying full details of how to interact with it at every level, gratis and unencumbered, to every rightful owner on request. Register descriptions, communications protocols, and so forth. No or insufficient documentation should mean no CE / TÜV / FCC / UL accreditation. Never mind giving away secrets to your competitors -- not only do your competitors already buy your products and reverse-engineer them anyway, but you will be able to read your competitors' Mandatory Full Disclosure documentation -- or take them to court for not supplying it. {What you won't be able to do is package a 300DPI printer as 2400DPI, or a 2 megapixel camera as a 6 megapixel camera, or sell a graphics card more expensive than an electronically-identical one because it has one byte different in the driver software and one byte different in the firmware. But that, of course, would be called "deception" or "fraud".} And never mind that in the case of wireless or telephony kit, people might be able to use it in ways that might not meet local regulations -- it's not your business what people do with their own property {never mind that they might conceivably be operating wireless tat out-of-spec inside a Faraday cage, or running phone tat out-of-spec on a PABX isolated from the PSTN, and so beyond the scope of regulations}. Breweries are not responsible for drunk driving. Petrol refineries are not responsible for arson. Fertiliser manufacturers are not responsible for terrorist bombs.

Re:I think so too

[chawly]

Thanks. I found this post to be most informative. I did not know of the existance of gpdf. I agree with your thoughts, sir.

PKI tokens and readers? USB tokens?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Seriously missing. Seriously MS-only.

Seriously you're going to need these to access your bank account in a couple of years.

Conspiracy? Microsoft has Verisign in their back pocket or somethin?

Didn't somebody mention a _contractual_ limitation that one of the vendors acknowledged?

Seriously.

Re:Sorry bud but Firefox ain't what it used to be

[xtieburn]

Wait...

'It's had more security bugs in this past year than IE'

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/07/26/ 211088/MicrosoftworksonfixasFirefoxisupdated.htm

True.

'Note: I still USE Firefox on all my machines but it's because I don't mind wasting time patching it every few weeks when another vulnerability comes out.'

Favourable comment regardless fo previous fact.


'Don't get me wrong, I love the features of Firefox but from a security standpoint I realize I'm taking a risk by using it.'

http://news.com.com/Symantec+Mozilla+browsers+more +vulnerable+than+IE/2100-1002_3-5873273.html
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=163100338

Also True.

So how exactly is this flamebait?

People who graded this as a flame are burying there heads in the sand. Firefox has become more popular it has therefore come under more attack and yes it has been found not to be particularly secure. Theres a simple reason why. No Web Browser non of them witout exception are secure nor will they probably ever be.

Take a step back from your MS bashing two seconds to realise that IE has actually been working hard on sealing its bugs up non stop since its conception. MS wasnt leaving bugs in for a laugh, and the people working on this arnt rubbish programmers or incompetant. The problem is simply overwhelming.

The idea that Firefox, which hasnt had years of being tested against a vast army of crackers, and has only even been a particular target for spyware and such relatively recently, would be more secure is ludicrous.

Now whether the speed and how they handle the security flaws is good enough to counteract the greater numbers of bugs is another argument and not one Id want to speculate on.

HP do ship some XP install CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely prophetic. The HD in my HP laptop is failing (I give it a week to go, tops).
My laptop (bottom of the Pavillion range) did ship with an XP home install CD (August 2004), maybe HP's UK product is better supported?
Rather than going through the grief of a warranty claim for another 30gig drive, I'll stick a nice fast 80gig drive in and use a "partimage" backup created using Knoppix to restore the OS (hopefully this will work with a bootable NTFS XP install). Then I can get back onto trying to get my wireless card to work with linux :(

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Because slow adoption of linux on the desktop has nothing to do with the fact that it SUCKS ASS. "Oh, you want to get both monitors running at once? RTFM NOOB LOL LOL.. I don't know why this year wasn't year of linux on the desktop???"

People pay OEMs to install their software.

[darkmeridian]

A system without Windows will cost more because third-party companies will pay OEMs to install their software onto the system. Their software is compatible only with Windows. That link for AOL on your new Dell, for instance, was paid for by AOL.

Think about it this way: people have to pay you to install Windows on your computer.

Haha.

Cost issue

[Grayputer]

(Note: I like Linux, I run Linux, the company runs Linux in the infrastructure. The following is a business discussion NOT a personal preference.)

OK, go to Dell chose a Linux PC and note the price. Now go to a windows XP Home based PC and 'upgrade' the config to match the Linux PC from a speed/memory/disk/video perspective. Last time I did this the price difference was ~$40 on an $800 PC (5%). Remember that while XP is $200 retail it is ~$30-50 OEM (hey $40 times a million PC per year per 'Dell' adds up).

On Walmart.com I see a celeron D 2.8Ghz 256meg 80G drive Win XP Pro for $407. A celeron D 2.8 Ghz, 128 Meg, 40G drive, no OS is $78 cheaper (note smaller drive and less ram on No OS and the Win box is Win PRO not home). Walmart does not really do support (manufacturer support) so it is less likely to mark up for support costs (the manufacturer to walmart costs MAY already have a markup for it).

So the 'manufacturer' has double the OS test/certification costs to reduce his retail price ~$50 or ~5%. For this effort he gets entry into a small market space. THAT IS THE MAJOR ISSUE. If I have to test on multiple OSes and support multiple OSes I need a reasonable return on that cost. Right now it is not there.

The cost of training the support staff to support Linux doubles or triples my support training costs. I now have N sets of drivers to track and make available on my support web site. I have extra sales training (I want to use Linux and I want to do X, what PC model and software should I buy).

The expectation as has been stated here a zillion times is the PC will 'cost less'. So for my ~$50 in price difference I MIGHT sell a few PCs to the currently small Linux market place. For that I have to control my support costs and sales costs to market two different OS systems in order to keep a profit. (note: assumption, the $50 difference in price is roughly what the OEM cost of Windows is, does anyone know the OEM pricing for large retailers like Dell?).

That's on an entire PC. For a network card manufacturer selling product at ~$20 retail his 'profit' is probably a couple bucks per card, why should he assume the extra cost burden of doing driver dev and testing twice and supporting them?

I can 'almost' double my training and software tracking/'driver dev' costs and support the whole market or get ~90% of the market at half that cost.

Please explain again why the business guys are not making a good business decision?

The answer is: Cross-Platform Development!

[kp_sidekick]

If we develop more applications in Java, we could port to any OS we feel like. If I could use my Windows-based programs in Linux, I would give it a try. Right now, I'm stuck. :(

Problems....

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You can't have your own kernel in wondows, so get rid of that.
2) You use (or should) "root" in windows to install drivers
3) You don't have to edit xorg.conf

My routine for exactly the same thing in Linux:

1) Open YaST (similar to Windows Update, asks me for root password)
2) Select Install software and where to get it from (defaults work)
3) Select Install NVidia driver
4) Restart the XServer (not a reboot)
5) Configure the desktop as normal with GUI tools

Now, tell me why, when I change the name of my computer in the network settings, I have to put my windows disk in and it re-installs netbios and a couple of other things. I JUST CHANGED THE NAME!!!!

Ta.

So we forgive stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that any response? The result is the same, but "High-powered" execs, the best of the best, earning big bucks becasue they make the smart decisions are stupid? That's no better (in fact, it is worse) than if they were just colluding and it WAS malice.

Fix your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

The Titanic was built by professionals. When Noah built the Arch he was an amateur ...

That should read "When Noah built the Ark".

What else is new?

[smindinvern]

Microsoft and electronics corporations are just the kind that will do _anything_ to get an edge over the competition. Unfortunately, the linux community is left to go up against the big guys.

Free software is not without cost

[Ymerej]

Terpstra is wrong to complain that Suse x.x did not install flawlessly on both laptops in his example, in which the buyers did not pay for that system integration. It costs enginering time and money to get any operatng system working reliably on a particular machine configuration. All system integrators spend time (money) getting Windows (or any other OS) working on their systems. Yes, MS charges money for its OS. So does Red Hat. Big deal.

Re:Free software is not without cost

[chawly]

You mean that there is no free lunch ? Have I got the idea ? If so, how are we set for a free supper ? Breakfast anyone ?

Linux Desktop!=Command Prompt

[Ignominious]

Repeat after me: Heavy Use Of A Linux Desktop Does Not Require The Command Prompt.
If you use a popular distribution and you know your hardware is supported you do not ever need to open a command shell window.