Slashdot Mirror
What Does Open Source Need for Mainstream Desktop?
HesAnIndieRocker asks: "So what will it take to make open source technology a mainstream alternative on the PC desktop? It feels like we've been on the cusp for many years now and the applications available for most common tasks are certainly competitive, but we still hover around a 5% market share by most accounts. I've recently written an article in my weblog about some possibilities, but I'd love to hear what others think."
Foobar2000
Seriously, it has to be the most awesome audio player I had ever used, and Linux doesn't even offer an alternative (other than running it on WINE) that comes close to the pure awesomeness of it. I like Rhythmbox and whatnot, but seriously, Foobar2000 could do it all. I mean, it even cured a cold I had once!
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
After ranting for many years about never upgrading past Windows 2000 (mainly due to having to call MS should you need to reinstall, etc) I finally had to put my money where my mouth was when I purchased a new laptop a few months ago (eMachines m6805, AMD64). To make a long story short - I had a buddy help me install SuSE 9.3 on it and I've been on the penguin at home ever since.
What I have seen from a long time windows user perspective is this: functionality and abilities (and stability) is far greater on (SuSE 9.3) Linux then I ever experienced even under Windows 2000. The problem is the "Win95"-esque problems... such as getting my wireless networking card to work. Now fair enough... I had/have these issues with Windows upon an occasion as well, and I can work my way thru them faster then on Linux simply because I've got ump-teen years experience under Win. My gripes come when I have to follow quite esoteric HowTo's to get my gear to work (or to get this thingy to install, or, or, or).
Most times, I'll get whatever widget I need to working thanks to 2-3 of these HowTo's (mainly because 9.3 is a popular distro). But if I were unlucky enough to be one of the first people with problem 'X' I know I'd be screwed. Just the number of widgets and command line prompts and whatnot I had to tinker with to get my onboard WLAN card working was stunning. Then, after it was all said and done, I still couldn't get to websites 'cause the router didn't have valid DNS IP's configured (Linux seems to be a bit "bitchier" when it comes to certain things). Thankfully I picked up on this before blaming the card!
Now... I'm happy with SuSE/Linux and I cannot ever seeing myself turning back, but I'm a nerd that enjoys the occasional hw/sw challenge (something I've not had on a windows box in probably 3+ years). But for Joe Sixpack? We (as in the all of us, or the royal... take your pick) need to bring Linux's usability up past Win95, because in my opinion, that is exactly where (SuSE 9.3) Linux is currently at.
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
Thats it. Thats all it needs. I know over a dozen people who would switch if it just had mainstream games.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
A multimillion dollar ad campaign. That's what it'll take.
Now please, for fuck's sake, let's talk about something else. Every couple of weeks there's another damn article whining about how open source is soooooooo close to succeeding as a mainstream desktop alternative and asking what's keeping it from taking that final step, and everyone always answers "consistency" or "usability" or "accessibility" or "pictures of naked ladies", but the real issue here is that Grandma doesn't know what the fuck Linux is because she doesn't see ads for it on TV.
Goodness I'm bitter today.
1) Drivers
2) Drivers
3) Drivers
From a High Level, to convince people to switch systems, you have to offer them something an order of magnitude better than the system they are invested in without giving up any substantial functionality. This means:
The computer should do exactly what the user wants, whenever the user wants, without the user having to think about it. This means extensive end-user testing and brutal simplification. The user should never see anything unrelated to exactly what they want to do. The folder heirarchy they see on the drive should ONLY contain things relevant to their activities. They should be able to re-arrange everything on their disk and still have it all work. They should never have to edit a config file. They should have to wade through "interface spam" of a million options which one in a million users will ever actually use. And yes, this means extensive high level architecting of everything that goes into the system, something OSS isn't traditionally good at doing.
The computer sould be able to replace legacy systems. That means being MS Office compatible, not a small feat. Not just word, but scheduling, and Excel macros must be readable in the new system.
The computer still needs a killer application or usage that makes everone want to switch to it. Apt-Get is pretty killer for me, but command line functionality will never reach the average desktop user. What else can the nature of Open Source provide? How can we use dynamic re-compilation to do something amazing that retail software can't provide?
No offence, but Linux as a desktop OS is still pretty hacky. There are a million unnecessary (to me) files hanging around when I'm just trying to do something, dozens of different ways to try to do something but four or five of which will work, command line still being integral to anything fun on the system (and even some baseline functionality), etc. My feeling is that the current state of Linux isn't the way to get there, any more than Dos should be the way to get to Windows. Perhaps it is time to throw our collective weight behind SkyOS, Zeta, or another upcoming Desktop-oriented OS, and refocus Linux on being the kick-ass server OS we all know it to be.
The ______ Agenda
I'm sure I'll be flamebait, but i'll have to file you under "you still don't get it". (that and shamlessly promoting your blog.)
/etc. Thats playing with fire.
Not only don't you get it, you won't listen. Sure - argue that I'm wrong. Willing to take a bet which one of us will still be right in a year? Two years?
You said: "Instead, the problem with Linux is that not enough people are getting it preinstalled on their computers."
Bzzzt. Wrong. Do you think everybody would automatically love Linux if it was dumped on them? No. Not by a mile. Remember, Linux is FREE and can't compete on the desktop with stuff that isn't. Stuff that is generally either put out by an evil empire, or a fruit company
I stand firmly behind JWZ's statement: "Linux is free if your time is worthless".
99.9% of the people out there use their computer as a tool. They aren't interested in tinkering with it, or even worse, fighting with it to try to get something done. I don't want to have to screw with my computer for simple things any more than I want to screw with my car just to get to work. THESE ARE SOLVED PROBLEMS.
If you want to get Linux accepted on the desktop, I suggest you take a good hard look at trying to do even the most simple things that people do on other platforms every day.
-play music
-configure a printer
-move files around the network
-play games
-adding/changing hardware
-etc
These are simple and linux still has plenty of problems with them.
Play sound? ALSA or OSS or something else. Barf. And doing something like adding a new graphics card? *shudder*. The ensuing Xwindows pain in the ass makes me sweat just thinking about it. "You've bought the latest wifi card? Oh sure, you just need to grab this patch, patch a kernel module, recompile, reconfigure, modprobe, and you're set!!" OH COME ON!
If the only way to set something up is to edit a config file, YOU FAIL. Period. This is not open to discussion. You will not win on the desktop. When my mom/dad/sister/grandma calls, I can walk them through GUI's to change settings. I can't/won't dare have them editing some random file in
I contrast this with windows. A recent event for me: the onboard firewire port on my laptop died. I bought a firewire PCMCIA card. I plugged it in. Windows detects it, finds the drivers, installs them, and is done. I plug in my iPod and up pops iTunes, it syncs, and everybody is happy. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THIS SIMPLE.
And i'm not even going to go into the KDE/GNOME/whateverdesktopyouchose wars and inconsistency nightmares that are going on.
(And even more, i'm not going to go into the incompatibility issues with the different distros and system configurations. AIEEEEEEEE)
It's not an exposure issue. Linux still isn't there yet. If you think it is, I suggest you go over to an usergroup like mythtv-users for people setting up that particular media server. You wouldn't belive the fucking nightmares people have to deal with for things like getting digital audio working out of their box.
THIS IS ALMOST 2006! PC AUDIO HAS BEEN A SOLVED PROBLEM FOR A LOOOONG TIME FOR THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE.
To replace windows Linux doesn't need to be as good, it needs to be BETTER. I'll tell you I'm perfectly willing to pay $100 for windows/MacOSX for the shear amounts of headaches it saves me vs. trying to run linux on my desktop (and yes, I have done it). If you think paying $50-150 (arguably, whatever the OEM cost is) for windows over a 3-5 year windows product cycle vs. the amount of trouble it saves you is too much money. Well, I'll just have to say we must live in two very different worlds.
I am soooo not a microsoft fan, and I think a lot of their user interface work is junk, but they **still** beat linux's ass when it comes to general usability.
I think you are missing what's wonderful about Mac OS X.
You get to use an intuitive, easy (and yes, aesthetically pleasing) interface for simple tasks. It saves you time and aggravation. It makes working on simple things simple, like they should be. I'm talking about stuff like printing, mounting an SMB share, synchronizing over Bluetooth with a cellphone, and so forth.
This leaves you more time to spend on complicated, challenging things. And when you need to, you can just start a terminal window and (if needed) an X11 server, both of which come with the OS, and run essentially every application you can under Linux. I use LaTeX regularly on my PowerBook, and emacs is installed by default as well (though I personally avoid it).
For years I thought I wanted Linux on the desktop. That wasn't it. I wanted Unix on the desktop. And that's what Mac OS X brings me. It is the only operating system that doesn't trade power for user-friendliness (or vice-versa). Almost everything you can do in Linux, you can do in Mac OS X. The exceptions are few and far between, only due to proprietary applications or Linux-specific kernel features.
Your complaints are valid for Mac OS 9 and below. But OS X is a completely different animal. I abhorred Macs until it was released, but I switched two years ago and have never looked back. And I'm not some luddite technophobe - I'm an EECS major at MIT.
This space intentionally left blank.
To be mainstream it will have to lose many of the features that make it attractive to tech enthusiasts.
If you want a very nice and easy to use *NIX desktop, head down to the Apple store.