Linux Desktop Ready, Says Mainstream Media

DeathElk writes, "The Sydney Morning Herald recently featured an article espousing the virtues of desktop Linux. From the article: 'Linux is shedding its hard-core techie image in a bid to woo ordinary human beings seeking an easy-to-use operating system that can be downloaded for free.' Is this a step forward for widespread GNU/Linux desktop adoption? Too bad the article doesn't mention the large range of live CD/DVD distributions available for try-before-you-fly, or the range of Windows applications tested and working under Wine." Also, the article is slightly unclear on the concept of open source, defining it as an arrangement "where the source code can be modified upon the request of users or other developers."

Comments

Of Course!

[susano_otter]

If the Mainstream Media says Linux is desktop ready, then desktop ready it must be!

After all, the Mainstream Media is well known for its expertise in IT and its reliability as a source of proven facts and sober analysis!

Hrm.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do believe this is proof positive that Linux is absolutely not desktop ready.

Re:Of Course!

[MyDixieWrecked]

linux is NOT ready for the desktop.

I thought it might be, but it really isn't. I recently installed ubuntu and kubuntu, and although they are leaps and bounds better than anything else I've used and it's getting really close to being ready, it really isn't.

some problems I encountered (which should be relatively easy to fix) are:

• you insert a device (ipod), but it doesn't mount. you have to explicitly mount it
• no mp3 playback out of the box (probably strictly an [k]ubuntu issue)
• sluggish filesystem browsing (it takes a while to launch konqueror to start viewing the filesystem. that should be loaded on boot so it fires instantly)
• doesn't remember the system volume between reboots (easy enough to fix, coding wise)
• package manager really needs a more advanced user to utilize properly. it should have a function to view popular packages and more robust categorizing of packages (you really need to know exactly what you're looking for in order to install it)
• slow boot time, then really slow login time (relative to OSX, at least; I'm really not familiar with windows boot time)
• most apps still feel cluttered. the GUI toolkits don't really help with designing clean looking interfaces. maybe web-based apps really are the answer! (not)
• overly complex system settings. most things should be hidden in an "advanced" tab since no one is going to fiddle with many of those settings
• still very poor laptop support; although it supports many things on my powerbook, it gets weird when I close the lid, then open it. plus it takes forever to go to sleep when I close it.
• when you boot the live-CD, it really should pop up with a window saying "do you want to install [this]?" and the installer should let you just agree to erase the drive and get going... (for non-tech savvy users)

I'm a huge proponent of linux, but it's really a lot more painful to use on the desktop than windows or osx. although it's got some nice features, it's playing follow-the-leader to the big 2, for the most part, and hasn't fully implemented features that users expect. it'll be nice when they finally get that far.

don't get me wrong, linux is fine for the desktop for the techy crowd. but not for the mainstream. Gramma could use it if all she's gonna do is type letters, surf the web, shop on amazon, and send/receive email. but when 13 year old jessica wants to play her music and do crap with myspace, she's SOL.

I wish I could agree with this

[jimstapleton]

If the user isn't the administrator, then I could, but for the average every-day user?

I'm more tech savvy than most and I still find Linux to be a pain in the ass when installing applications and setting up stuff. The problem is while most distros share a general code base, a lot is slightly different enough to make compiling/installing apps a royalpain, and the documentation is often less than stellar.

Having recently put a lot of effort in getting Gentoo, Ubuntu, KUbuntu, and before that spending several years with Red Had machines, I cannot see giving normal users Linux machines.

Mainstream?

[supabeast!]

How exactly does one Australian newspaper with a circulation of 365,000 (Wikipedia) count as the mainstream media?

Re:Mainstream?

[Tim C]

I suspect it's "mainstream" as in "aimed at normal people rather than techies".

I agree

[TrippTDF]

I used to play with Red Hat in 2003, and I found it just a little too hard for everyday use to keep using, so I went back to Windows/OSX

A few weeks ago, I started playing with Ubuntu, and I gotta say, there is no reason why it can't replace windows on the desktop. If Dell will start installing it on systems (thus knocking $100 buck off the price of a machine), then it can make some serious in-roads, and knock Windows back.

I don't know if it's ready for a corporate enviroment, though. Although I don't like MS, their combo of Exchange, AD, and DC is pretty powerful.

Shame the artcle doesn't mention...

[bhunachchicken]

No DRM
No Viruses
No Spyware
No Malware
It's cheaper
It's Free

I've been using Linux now for over 5 years and I honestly don't think I could go back to using Windows at home. The need for virus checkers, etc. just leaves me feeling paranoid. So what that I can't play many games on it, I have a PS2 for that...

I no longer care if Linux is "ready"

[massysett]

I am so tired of two sets of articles: those discussing whether Linux is "ready" for the desktop, and those that say that "NOW is the time when there will be massive adoption of Linux on the desktop."

On the first set of articles: Linux is already "ready" for the desktop. I use it on my desktop already, and it does everything I need it to do. It is for me a superior choice.

On the second set of articles, what they usually mean is that upon some event, there will be massive adoption of Linux on the desktop in rich, developed countries. "some event" varies and is typically purported to be 1) the coming of a new Windows version, such as Vista, which will be expensive and have high hardware requirements; 2) some big vendor preinstalling Linux, or 3) some big Windows security flaw, or 4) some other pain in the ass thing that MS is newly implementing, such as more DRM or copy restriction.

Well I've got news: it's highly unlikely we will ever see "widespread adoption" of Linux on desktops in rich developed countries. People in these countries can afford Windows, and switching is a big pain. Windows is crappy, but not crappy enough to switch away. It would be amazing if we even saw adoption rates that paralleled the adoption rates of Firefox in parts of Europe, but I think even that is unlikely. Note that I'm not saying anything about developing countries, where the dynamics--economic and political--may be quite different.

I'm tired of these articles because I don't understand why they're relevant. It's much more likely that we would see massive adoption of the Mac than of Linux. But we don't see articles crowing about that. Macheads are secure in their superiority complex; they don't see a need to sit around and predict when Mac world domination will happen. They don't worry that the Mac is irrelevant, no matter how small its market share is. Macheads are happy because their machines do what they want them to do. As a Linux user, I feel the same way. My machine does what I want it to do. My platform is not irrelevant--huge companies like Adobe, IBM, and Intel realize its importance even on the desktop. I do not care that roughly ninety percent of people use Windows, and I do not care about world domination.

Unfortunately it's often pro-Linux people (rather than just random press idiots) who promote this world domination crap. We need to realize that we've got a great platform, it works for us, and it's continuing to improve and work for even more people. The world domination and "ready for desktop" talk is tiresome and it just makes us look stupid.

Re:When I can play games

[ratboy666]

"When I can play games on Linux with all my funky graphics and sound card options and controllers working right out the box like I can on Windows, then I'll make the switch. Last time I installed Linux, about a year ago, I had to spend a day finding drivers, had problems with the display and half my peripherals didn't work. Much as I don't like M$, I don't get those kind of problems when installing Windows XP. It takes 30 minutes, 1 install of SP2, a couple of drivers installs and a reboot and I'm back to normal. One point to make about Linux and enterprise and use in business. Linux doesn't ghost very well, which is a problem as far as I am concerned."

I want to discuss most of your points... (but not in order):

1 - "Linux doesn't ghost very well". No, but it tars and dds well. Why are you trying to use a Windows tool which isn't needed?

2 - Windows XP does take 30 minutes to install. "a couple of drivers installs" -- I run XP SP2 in VMware. The last time I tried to install it on real hardware: I needed drivers for the IDE driver, the audio, the network and the video. None of which were included. Of course, the drivers were too big to put on a floppy, and XP refused to see the CDROM drive it just loaded from. Of course the network required a driver as well. Way to go! Fedora Core "just works" on this machine -- needing a driver for the video only.

3 - Play games... If you want to run Windows games, use Windows. End of story. No other explanation is needed.

4 - "funky graphics and sound card options and controllers working right out the box". This is bullshit. THEY DON'T WORK RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX WITH WINDOWS. You need to install drivers. Which are very dodgy at times. If anything, Linux has FAR more quality drivers than Windows "in the box". I still use QIC tapes: is there a Windows XP driver that is supported for those?