Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?

El Lobo writes "For the Linux desktop, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continuously been fed point releases which added bits of functionality and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day. What's going on? A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision, a goal, for the next big revision. GNOME 3.0 is just that- a name. All GNOME 3.0 has are some random ideas by random people in random places. KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 — but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies. In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system. Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available. Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."

Comments

The bubble was never there.

[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:The bubble was never there.

[rwven]

There ARE easy alternatives to "apt-get" and things of that nature. I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down. Companies like linspire have done a great job of this IMHO, but lack the funds for properly propogating and marketing their works. Linspire is usually a great hit when newbies use it. It's got everything that all the other distros are lacking from a newbie standpoint. The dumbed-down side of it is that there is no compiler... But then again, my mom doesn't want, or need, one.

The problem with many linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are. Linux CAN succeed but it really needs a set of standards to follow. People don't like inconsistency. They really don't even like choice. They don't want to have to choose one of the 300 active distros. They want "Linux" and they want it to work as easily as Windows does.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[El Torico]

To be blunt, most of the linux community are geeks, and geeks basically don't like non-geeks. Linux developers are uber-geeks, and uber-geeks don't like anyone, not even other uber-geeks.

Yeah, that was a bit harsh, but someone had to say it.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[amliebsch]

I disagree with you. The "dumbed-down" environment is pretty much a solved problem. It is not difficult for even a newbie user to accomplish basic tasks in, e.g., Ubuntu. The real issue is that unlike Linux developers, average users don't give two shits about "software freedom" and are not going to tolerate excuses as to why this software doesn't run or that hardware device isn't supported. The users don't care whose fault it is that their hardware doesn't work. Either it does or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, they'll look elsewhere. They don't care why they can't play their games or run Microsoft Office. The only reality that matters to them is, they can't. So they'll look elsewhere.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[hal9000(jr)]

I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down.

nah, it shouldn't be dumbed down. That is the wrong approach. It needs to be made smarter and by that I mean make the user think less about the details. I used to hate to have to update a linux box just because I had to figure out all the dependencies (I am not a Linux guru, just a very experineced users (13+ years)). Things like Yum, apt-get, what ever, take alot of the pain out of it. Updates are on my mind becuase I am installing a new Fedora Core 6 box at the moment and that is way easier than manually traversing a depdedency tree.

But there are other areas as well. Stop trying to mimic the Windows paradigm and make the UI smarter and more efficient. Is there a better way to manage multiple windows than tabbing through them? Is there a better way to launch an application? For example, if I want to write a letter, I have to open an application, then create a new document, then write the letter. Why not have have a short cut that says "Write a Letter" that does all that for me. Ok, that is a simple example, but the point is make the UI more intuitive. It is not a trivial task. Another example. I use Outlook for email, calendar, tasks, everything. Know what I hate? When I get an email from someone, I might want to add them to my contact list. Right now I have to right click the address, lookup the contact, find out they are not listed, click OK, then right click, add the contact, then fill in the information. Why not have a button that ask if I want to add the contact when the lookup fails? I could probably write up some VBA to do that, but why should I?

These may seem like trivial tasks, and individually they are. Implementing one or two would not make me swtich OS's, but if there was a smarter computing paradigm that makes me more efficient, takes the onus of managing my computer out of my hands, then that would be great. Make the computer smarter, not dumber.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[pscottdv]

They really don't even like choice. They don't want to have to choose one of the 300 active distros. They want "Linux" and they want it to work as easily as Windows does.

If this is true, Microsoft is making a huge mistake offering no less than *six* different versions of Windows Vista. That is actually about the number of popular Linux distros tarketing the desktop.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[ichimunki]

Yeah, that's right. Windows is easy and Linux is hard.

Nonsense. The real issue here is not that Linux desktops need to progress anywhere. I use both Windows and Linux for hours a day and they both have their share of frustrations and joys. Your Quake example is a joke, since most people don't care about playing games like Quake on their computers. You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is written to run on Linux at all. But so what? There's lots of great Linux/Unix-only software that I can't run on Windows. Although, I must say that I think the free software aspect of most Linux software makes it much more likely that a Windows port exists for good Linux software than a good Linux port exists for good Windows software.

The problem for Linux on the desktop is not usability or availability of games or a host of other problems at this point. It's things like lagging support for new versions of ubiquitous software, like Flash. It's the non-existence of any Quicken products for Linux. It's the fact that OpenOffice is a relative new-comer and MS Office/Works products have been around since the 80s. At most major computer retailers, the only operating system you can buy pre-installed on a machine is Windows. The average user never installs an operating system. Mac has a devoted base of people willing to pay a premium price for Apple products, why I'll never know, since Apple's offerings have been an inferior price-to-value proposition since at least the release of Windows 2000.

Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else. For the rest of the world there is only one choice: Windows. Linux isn't on the table. Not because of any real reason why average folks couldn't be just as happy with it, but because the perceived cost of a new computer doesn't include a component for operating system and applications expense. The bundling is the problem. The fact that MS has overwhelming market share is the problem. The fear of trying something new is the problem. People are already scared of their computers--even many IT professionals I've met seem to have limited understanding of how computers actually work. People know Windows, so they stick with Windows.

Until the consumer is informed that their hardware purchase includes a hefty charge for a Windows license and is offered Linux as an alternative (presumably at a different price point), they are not going to know or care about Linux or why they would want to consider it. They're already paying for Windows so they have no incentive to care about anything else.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[ichimunki]

"You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is written to run on Linux at all." should read "You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is not written to run on Linux at all."

Re:The bubble was never there.

[delire]

This is a troll post that we've seen here, in near carbon copy, at least a hundred times.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yes, the users will look elsewhere. And someday they might realize that what these linux phanbois/geeks kept blabbering about was really true and they are paying far too much for too little. At that time it would be too late to change the history.

For example 1959 was the peak of streetcar use in America. Ford+General Motors+Firestone+Standard Oil formed a cartel to buy and shutdown every streetcar company in USA to increase their sales. Sometimes they were secretive. Sometimes they were brazen as the "motorized" America. Fast Forward Sixty years we have, urban sprawl, decaying urban centers and extrodinary dependance on imported oil. When oil and energy consumption was synonymous with economic growth, when "what-is-good-for-GM-is-good-for-America we let the monopolies run rough shod all over us.

Now information is power, we are in the information and communication age. And we are letting information/communication monopolies run rough shod all over us. And we called those dissenters luddites/poverty-lovers/socialists. We call these dissenters geeks/uber-geeks/out-of-touch. History repeats itself.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Daytona955i]

I think that's a gross oversimplication of the issues concerning geeks vs. non-geeks.

First I think part of the problem, is your average geek would prefer speed and efficiency over simplicity while non-geeks prefer the opposite. Personally I spend most of my time at the command line so I think things like apt-get install are great, however most non-geeks get worried as soon as you tell them to open up a terminal window.

I'm sure you were trying to be funny but really, geeks don't hate non-geeks, they just don't see the problem and thus no reason to fix something that isn't broken. They would rather focus on developing something cool.

This is also why I tell people who are looking at new computers to buy a mac. This way, they get an easy to use computer with all the nice GUI elements that apple provides, and when I have to use their computer, I still have access to the terminal and all the UNIX goodness that is under the hood of OS X.

Personally I would love for Linux to come up with a GUI that is as easy to use as OS X. (Yes, yes, Ubuntu is easy to use but it's still not on par with OS X... some people can be really dim) However, I think most developers don't really know how to solve the problem.

Oh, and you got it wrong, most uber-geeks hate non-geeks trying to be geeks...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[evil_Tak]

Plus they almost destroyed Toontown!

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true and you are totally missing the point. MS does it for no other reason than to maximize financial return.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down.

I don't think usability and power are diametrically opposed. You don't need to "dumb down" Linux to sell it to the masses, you just have to make the workflow easy by default.

The dumbed-down side of it is that there is no compiler... But then again, my mom doesn't want, or need, one.

Not having a compiler doesn't directly make Linspire any easier for your mom. The only thing it does is theoretically make developers that want to reach that market provide a binary, but I'd not wager even many of them to that, rather than let the distro do it themselves.

I'm not bringing this up to "bust your balls" but because I think this is a really important consideration that is often overlooked. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see compilers used to improve the usability of Linux, rather than be removed to "dumb down" Linux. Here's my ideal software install/management system. Take a nice, package manager and integrate it with the OS. Have it set up with at least one nice repository of software by default, with the ability for users to add more repositories. This provides for finding and downloading a lot of software and keeping that software up to date. Combine this system with OpenStep so that all normal software is a contained package that can be installed globally or within a user account and can be installed and uninstalled via drag and drop. More than that, it is easy to store and move applications via thumb drives, CDs, e-mail, IM, etc. Augment OpenStep by adding repository information to it, so that even if you only have an application on a thumb drive, the next time you use it the system can look for updates. Further augment OpenStep's existing set of binaries for different platforms with a subdirectory for source code, licenses, and build instructions that let the OS build a customized binary at its leisure and without the user having to do anything. Use the compiler to make it faster and easier, rather than removing it. Build your toolset with an official software registration service to make ACLs a practical security solution.

So where does this get you? If you're thinking of Linux strictly in terms of a server OS, this gets you unnecessary bloat. That is why this will probably never happen. If, however, you're thinking of Linux as a server and desktop and possible embedded OS, then it gets you ease of use and flexibility. Disk space is cheap these days and the ability to drag and application onto a shared server, or automatically upgrade to a new laptop with a different architecture, or IM a program to a friend who uses a different OS, and have it just work... is a huge win, in my opinion. For servers or embedded applications where disk space counts and optimization is more important than ease of use, this same system can work fine and nothing stops the OS from stripping out and discarding unused portions of the package. There are already tools on OS X that go through and do just that for people with disk space constraints that want to recover the space taken up by Intel or PPC or 32 or 64 bit binaries. Even then, since it references the repository in the package, making a shared binary work is easy (but a bit slower) so long as you have an internet connection.

The problem with many linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are.

Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop. A few are running a BSD, a couple are running Windows, and the remaining majority are running OS X. And that is one of the reasons I see Linux on the desktop having less support than it used to. While there are some great, motivated projects, like the OLPC project, a huge numb

Re:The bubble was never there.

[drooling-dog]

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.

Which is pretty much fine with me. Having spent a long time in both camps, I do feel that the "Linux is too complicated" meme is way overdone. Many of things you cite that make Linux more "difficult" - like having to deal with file permissions, for example - are precisely the things that have made Windows a cesspool for viruses and malware. For those of us - and I realize it isn't everybody - who are not challenged by these little things, the freedom from manipulation and onerous licenses - to say nothing of cost - that Linux affords is well worth it. And yes, we do sometimes shake our heads a bit at the crap that our Windows friends willingly put up with everytime Microsoft and every other software vendor has a revenue itch to scratch. To me, the money they'll spend and the restrictions they'll endure are simply the price of ignorance and fear, but who am I to say it isn't worth it for them? The world outside the womb is a vast and scary place.

We don't look for "one size fits all" in any other domain, so why should we demand it in our operating systems? The same features that Aunt Millie finds comforting and reassuring may be excruciatingly annoying and condescending to a more experienced and knowledgable user. Why should they both use the same OS? It wouldn't bother me one bit if Linux tops out at 4 or 5% of the desktop market, because to go much further would require turning it into something I wouldn't want to use. Gnome has aruguably been going in that direction for several years now.

Prediction: Now that MS is fervently trying to get everyone on the Vista bandwagon, we will be seeing a big "grassroots" deluge of posts like this. Oestensibly from earnest users, they will complain about how impossibly complex and scary Linux is, and warn that any ordinary user who even considers touching Linux will surely go to Hell. As usual, the "experiences" that we read about will bear little resemblence to anything that I recognize as a long-time Linux user who wiped his last Windows install off of a dual-boot machine several years ago (and has never regretted it for a minute). YMMV, of course, but that's fine with me...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

you mean <1% , right?
Oh, did the nonretarded-OS usage dull your brain? Click Next, pls.

Btw - have a look at an ubuntu 6.10 install, if you prefer everything clicked in a user-friendly way. Surprise, linux desktop. Click Next, pls.

...and for every child growing up right now the so-called "mysteries" of computers will be self-evident.
Click Finish, pls.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[certain death]

Funny...I can double click on the firefox icon on either windows or linux and see the same exact Internet... Installation is a breeze, and I am not a zealot by any means, I run both, both have their place.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[vertinox]

They don't care why they can't play their games or run Microsoft Office.

Actually, truth be told, users don't care if the OS runs MS Office, but as long as they try to open documents they receive and it opens fine and if they save it and send it back to whoever has the MS version that it looks fine on that too.

Think of it like replacing the IE shortcut with Firefox.

Users don't care as long as it does what they want (so same thing you said, but not including MS office).

Re:The bubble was never there.

[couchslug]

Most people who "choose" it will not be installing it, and don't care about anything but the cost. They will buy a bundled package, use it, and have someone else fix it when it breaks. It's still "Windows".
Linux distros require user installation and that the user learn enough to be their own tech support. For someone who is not a devoted geek this can take years. For someone who IS it can take years.
After spending years learning Windows, few people want to throw that effort away to learn another OS.
What we call fun they call tedious and frustrating.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

Oh boy, are linuxers naive...

Let me paint you this very real picture (someone I know): you own a computer store. You do have Linux on some machines. Customers come in, they look at it. They're curious. Oh, so this is "Linux" (notice? they've heard of it; they might even know it's open source - the term free software, in English, I'm not so sure is a good one - it sounds unprofessional.). They want to know if they can still have MS Office. Can their kids play games? Windows games?

But here's where things start to go wrong: you are not allowed, for instance, to install CodeWeavers http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/ for them to see MS Office inside Linux, or Transgaming's Cedega http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=Conten tExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=29 so their kids can play games. You are not allowed to do that, because Microsoft has you under a draconian contract. You do that, you're dead meat.

There's no way you can prove to Joe Dad that he doesn't need Windows, but that he can still have the Windows software he needs. That he will save money, by not having to pay for the expensive MS OS, and that he will gain in security, and save in antivirus software. In fact, your deal with Microsoft may even specify that if you even suggest that, you'll be in breach of contract.

To make matters worse, Microsoft (and Intel, BTW), will shove you a lot of money to promote your store (as long as you flash their brand names), even give you money for advertising.

So, you see, this is not such a simple world where "the best technology wins" or "as long as we have standards." This is much more than that, it's a marketing game. Linux, PC-BSD, etc, will have to start with the corporate desktop, where money matters. Unfortunately, Windows users are in a deadlock, because the FLOSS community has not been able to come up with competitive Office solutions (please, do not say OpenOffice.org is that solution - people who say that have no idea what they're talking about), including integration with the said hypothetical suite.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[toddbu]

it's going to have to be dumbed down

It's attitudes like this that keep Linux from being broadly adopted. What really gets me is the arrogance of this statement. What if auto enthusiasts built cars this way? After all, why should a car be "dumbed down" so that all you have to do is turn a key and put it in drive to get to the store? According to Linux advocates, you should be forced to build your car from the ground up, but only after you've first earned a degree in mechanical engineering.

If Linux is to compete seriously on the desktop then it has to be inclusive. That doesn't mean that you still can't make it as configurable as you want. You just need to make it easy to use for the masses. Until you do, you'll never see any serious market share.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bubbl07]

If this is true, Microsoft is making a huge mistake offering no less than *six* different versions of Windows Vista. That is actually about the number of popular Linux distros tarketing the desktop.

Except that the differences in the different versions of Vista are minimal compared to those between various Linux distributions. The Vista editions are ranked, too, such that that the more you pay for the more features you're given -- while all the software is handled identically and there really isn't much of a difference ostensibly to the end user. Between distributions (let's assume for the sake of argument that they're free, although there are some that aren't), the differences lie in preferences -- desktop environment, package management system, themes, default installed software, etc.

Saying that the different editions of Vista offer a real "choice" to the user is undermining the meaning of choice. "Choice" in this case really comes down to how much money you want to fork over.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[It'sYerMam]

But users only throw a wobbly at a command line because they're not used to it. I remember reading that CLIs are generally thought to be easiest for completely new users. And of course, everyone coped when there was no GUI available. Not only can newbies succeed with the command line, there are plenty of GUI tools, too. The OP has a point in some circumstances, but this does not always apply. Last week I saw someone playing "neverball" on Fedora, but didn't notice the name of the game. A few days later, I thought it looked nifty, so I searched through synaptic for "ball," scroll through the list of applications, find the one I'm looking for, click "install," "OK," and there it is. In my opinion, that is simpler than what I might have to do on windows - put the CD in, setup, jump through some hoops including where to install, etc, maybe open a readme, reboot, blabla.

And of course, let's not forget that games that work on linux are often not built with linux as a priority, and are almost certainly not built with your distro in mind, unless it's redhat, maybe. This does not mitigate the fact that the installation is tricky, but it would do to compare like with like.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[cayenne8]

"Fast Forward Sixty years we have, urban sprawl, decaying urban centers and extrodinary dependance on imported oil."

While it is sad that most cities don't have streetcars any more (the St. Charles line in NOLA just started partial route again, YEA!), I don't think that if they'd stayed around, that the future would have been much different. The car would still have come. The car is what gave people more freedom to move about, and to move out of the crowded cities. People in the US, especially back a few years...like to have room to 'stretch their arms out', we don't often like being crowded together too much...speaking in generalities. It is a big country with lots of land...and the car gave those with a more independant spirit, the method to move out of the crowded cities.

While dependance on foreign oil is bad today, the growth of the country it promoted was NOT. We have the great economic power we have now because of it...it is just now time to start finding the new, more domestic source of energy to keep moving forward.

Street cars are quaint, cool, and a great throwback to an older time, but, they are not the way of the future. I like to be able to travel when and where I want, with no dependance on someone else's schedule. Now that is an American attitude you won't change...better to change the energy to power that attitude rather than that attitude.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so preposterous to suggest that Linux development is directionless and Microsoft is more attractive to end-users?

It's completely true. You guys are living in a fantasy world.

OpenOffice is not just 'new', it's crap. If you've tried Microsoft Office 2007, you probably know this by now. Running OpenOffice is like running a bulkier, slower Office '97. Way to steal away the masses, open source. I don't even understand this whole principle of software freedom- it seems sort of impractical.

There's nothing evil about MS- they had the superior product- Linux began to get more notice when Windows was poor in the late 90's-early 2000's- then Windows caught back up again by XP SP2. Ever since Apple created Mac OS X, their first OS to use post 1980's technology, they've began to gain market share against linux and Windows.

Windows improves Windows Server so it is supe0ior to Linux (and cheaper to maintain) as a basic small/medium business server- they gain ground against Linux.

The Market is 100% fair- if Linux is doing poorly, it's because it's a weaker product. Management and end users know this- they're not the blundering idiots IT/tech types make them out to be. People know what's easier, or more convenient. Apple and Microsoft have PAID USABILITY EXPERTS who conduct studies, research- they have resources to figure this out. ...And don't even get me started on Linux on Embedded devices or in Aviation/Military- Horribly Insecure- and irresponsible.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[jedidiah]

How to install something?

        Use the "Add Applications" applet. Think of it as like the equivalent applet
for Windows except the Linux version will actually go out and download the stuff
for you (rather than you needing to find it yourself).

How to install some game?

        Run the installer.

        No installer? Well then it's not really a supported game & puts you
        in much the same position that a similar sort of problem would be on
        any other platoform (iow, potentially quite problematic).

As someone who used to be keeper of the tech support database for a major
game studio, I an attest to the fact that WinDOS is no silver bullet when
it comes to games support. It has many of it's own issues involving driver
& compatability issues and just plain bugs.

If the most you can come up with is the difficulty of apt-get versus
synatic versus huntware and the fact that the industry mantra isn't
"It's gotta be Linux compatable man", then Linux is infact doing quite
well.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[jedidiah]

If you own a computer store, you're a small fry just like anyone else.

Now Best Buy might get some deal on bulk copies of the retail version of Windows. However, they don't have to worry about the OEM price of windows since they aren't an OEM. They just sell black boxes that they get from their distributor. It's HP and Dell that have to worry about the draconian OEM licenses.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[LaughingCoder]

you are not allowed, for instance, to install CodeWeavers http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/ [codeweavers.com] for them to see MS Office inside Linux, or Transgaming's Cedega http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=Conten tExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=29 .... That he will save money, by not having to pay for the expensive MS OS ...

A classic example of why Linux can never win. Guess what, both of those links point to "pay-for" software that is at least as expensive as that "expensive MS OS" you so decry. One of them is even a $5/month subscription! A Windows license costs the end user around $80 tops. And they don't have to fiddle around with 3rd party kluges to run their games and apps. They don't have to worry about compatibility with their hardware (did you even read the hardware requirements for those packages?). Expecting non-technical people to use 3rd party OS-emulators is a non-starter and should not even be discussed seriously. Sure, if there is *one* application somebody wants to run, and *only one*, and it is known that application works in the emulated environment, then perhaps it makes sense. However, it makes *no sense* for a general purpose system onto which people plan to install many different apps and games. To suggest that non-technical people go this route is simpy irresponsible.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[westlake]

For example 1959 was the peak of streetcar use in America. Ford+General Motors+Firestone+Standard Oil formed a cartel to buy and shutdown every streetcar company in USA to increase their sales.

Light rail was as good as dead before World War I. THE WRONG TRACK The public abandoned the streetcar as soon as they could afford a Ford.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[jedidiah]

OpenOffice is fine for the vast majority of end users.

MSOffice is infact ridiculous overkill for the vast majority of end users.

It was true when WordPerfect was still on top and it's still true today.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Overly Critical Guy]

First I think part of the problem, is your average geek would prefer speed and efficiency over simplicity while non-geeks prefer the opposite.

You've got it slightly incorrect. Simplicity leads to speed and efficiency, which is what non-geeks want. What geeks want is slow complexity so that they can feel a sense of accomplishment getting something to work. For them, using and configuring an OS is a hobby, not a means to get things done. Following some out-of-date HOWTO on how to get a soundcard working is perfectly appropriate to them.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[name*censored*]

Yes, the users will look elsewhere. And someday they might realize that what these linux phanbois/geeks kept blabbering about was really true and they are paying far too much for too little. At that time it would be too late to change the history.

There are still a disturbing number of people who don't care about where petrol comes from (it comes from the pump at the petrol station, right?), the history of streetcars, and don't know about the history of said monopolies. The dissenters (luddites/poverty-lovers/socialists) aren't vindicated because no-one cares that they were right about the monopolies being evil. These are the same people that don't vote when election day rolls around, and then complain about the outcome. I'd like to think that these people's line of thinking goes further than "this is good/bad" (ie, "this is good/bad; therefore we should do xyz about abc problem") but unfortunately the evidence points towards the non-thinking/non-caring being the prevalent.

The reason Linux will never become popular through it's own merits (and thus the monopolies win) is not just that people don't *not understand*, they also *don't care* - to them, a computer is WORKING or BROKEN, and if it's DIFFERENT then it's BROKEN. It's the same reason many slashdotters don't spend hours shoe shopping - shoes either FIT or they DON'T, none of this "do they go with the clothes I own/is it worth the extra hours shopping if I can find something similar for slightly less?" business :). Without some massive external force pushing linux into the limelight (perhaps we're starting to see it with more businesses and governments taking up OSS initiatives), it will probably stay on the fringes, since there's no reason to change OSs (since this "windows" thing seems to WORK).

On an intersting sidenote/sideproof, it's funny to note that phanbois/geeks are simultaneously the ones with the strongest opinions also the most underappreciated (that pretty girl on fifth didn't thank you for fixing her computer for the twelth time this year did she?)..

Sorry to be so cynical/negative, but it would be recursively ironic to not bother posting about "why apathy is bad".

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Overly Critical Guy]

But users only throw a wobbly at a command line because they're not used to it.

That's like saying people don't like getting teeth removed because they're not used to it.

I remember reading that CLIs are generally thought to be easiest for completely new users.

I remember reading that Santa was gay. It must be true.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[torako]

Maybe street cars are the way of the future. Most cities in Europe have light rail networks that connect important places right in their downtown areas and reach out to the suburbs, also. There has been a recent street car revival in France where several cities (e.g. Strasbourg) have recently installed new street car systems, because they are a lot cheaper than digging subway tunnels and can be almost as efficient.

You don't have to worry about or remember schedules in most European towns either, as most street car and subway lines run on a 5 or 10 minutes interval, sometimes even 24/7 (and you don't have to worry about finding / paying for a parking spot either).

Re:The bubble was never there.

[RebornData]

This hasn't been my experience as a small business and home IT consultant. Users are very brand loyal, and while they don't necessarily like everything about Microsoft, they recognize it as "what everbody uses". They're not going to switch to some unknown thing they've never heard of without a strong, compelling reason.

The problem is that "free" (either as in beer or freedom) isn't a compelling reason for many people. The prices charged by MS, while monopolistically high (especially for Office), aren't unafforadable. People are generally happy to pay for "the genuine article" rather even if there's a free, similar alternative... "you get what you pay for" is a really basic gut instinct (which is true in most cases), and with free products they always wonder what has been sacrificed, and that it's a "cheap knock-off".

Firefox has been an easier sell because it has that compelling reason: you won't get infected (again) with spyware. They're also ready to distrust MS when it comes to security, thanks to wide media coverage and security industry advertising. But there's not nearly as much disenchantment with MS Office...

-R

Re:The bubble was never there.

[LaughingCoder]

I've read a lot of posts in this thread, and I think you come the closest to nailing the issue. I especially liked your questioning of why someone would pay a premium price for Apple products as I have wondered that myself these many years. I think, however, that everyone is overlooking one very obvious problem with displacing Windows. Joe Consumer goes to Best Buy and sees reams of Windows computers. Then he wanders down the games aisle and sees reams of Windows software and a few Mac-compatible games. He wanders down the "productivity" aisle and sees lots of Windows software and a few expensive Mac apps. Even if Best Buy were to devote half their shelfspace to Linux computers it wouldn't make a difference because there is no pre-packaged software available for Linux. People on this thread talk about apt-get and other such nonsense which is far beyond most non-technical people. Nevermind that it presupposes the end-user has broadband. And even if they did understand it, the selections available are dwarfed by what is available for Windows. It is the classic chicken-and-egg problem. There won't be off-the-shelf packaged software until Linux has a large installed base, and there won't be a large installed base until there is a wide selection of reasonably priced off-the-shelf software.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Overly Critical Guy]

I've been saying this for years--the reason desktop Linux hasn't taken off is the lack of a universal desktop framework. Instead of relying on these third-party toolkits that run on top of X and compete with each other, Linux needs a universal framework for application development, app installation/uninstallation, user configuration storage, sound and graphics, and more. You need a development platform that rivals Windows and the Mac and acts as a cohesive whole. That way, a developer doesn't have to choose between multiple toolkits and desktop environments and can just target the one, big framework that covers all ground for developing modern desktop applications. And users won't have to install two entire desktop environments just to run all the apps out there.

But I've been saying this for years, and nothing has changed. I gave up on the Linux dream long ago and switched to a Mac.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[ArcherB]

But users only throw a wobbly at a command line because they're not used to it. I remember reading that CLIs are generally thought to be easiest for completely new users.

That's not necessarily true. Granted, given training and a cheat sheet, the CLI may be better, but if I take someone's grandma and put them in front of blinking cursor and keyboard, they are not going to know where to begin. You put that same grandma in front of a GUI with a mouse, or better yet, touchscreen, in about 10 minutes, she will have completed something, even if it is something as mundane as clicking "START" or "HELP". Even if you take an DOS expert and put him in front of a *NIX box, he's going to be clueless because he does not know any of the commands except the once common to both OS's, like cd.

The CLI is good for newbies when they are being supported over the phone. It's hard to screw up on the CLI. You either type it right or you don't. Not typing it right usually ends up in a syntax error and no damage is done. A GUI, on the other hand, is very easy to screw up. I had a clueless IT admin come up to frantic because she had lost the company's only NT installation files. She told me "I was moving the upside exclamation point 386 directory and it disappeared". A quick search found it. She was trying to copy it to a networked drive and her finger slipped off the mouse, moving it to another directory. That type of screw up is hard to do on the CLI.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[EdMack]

Non computer people ARE NOT JUST DIM! They just do not care to learn every detail and idiosyncracy of a computer because they have _better_ things to do with their time.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[westlake]

If this is true, Microsoft is making a huge mistake offering no less than *six* different versions of Windows Vista

in the home market:

for light office work on the cheapest box you can find there is Basic.
for media and games and pretty much everything else you spring for the Premium system bundle.
for the heavy hitter who works hard and plays hard on the same machine and is not starved for cash there is Ultimate.

three distinct market segments, each very easily described.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[btpier]

the FLOSS community has not been able to come up with competitive Office solutions (please, do not say OpenOffice.org is that solution - people who say that have no idea what they're talking about), including integration with the said hypothetical suite.

This statement is complete crap. OpenOffice.org is just as good, if not better, than MS Office in most areas. My wife who's a kindergarten teacher uses it for all of her lesson plans, to make name tags for events, to make desk tags for the kids, etc. She does more with it than her colleagues manage to do on their PCs or Macs with MS Office.

Please tell me where OpenOffice.org is lacking, especially in the context of Joe Dad and his family.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[It'sYerMam]

That's like saying people don't like getting teeth removed because they're not used to it.

What a load of rubbish. If you want to say that you think the command line is awful, go ahead and say it, with reason. My claim is (obviously) that it's not that bad, once you're used to it. Simply asserting things with a poor analogy does not bring about the truth.

I remember reading that Santa was gay. It must be true.

Ah, I see, you're one of those people. Fine. Come back when you have something to say.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[westlake]

Last week I saw someone playing "neverball" on Fedora ... A few days later, I thought it looked nifty, so I searched through synaptic for "ball," scroll through the list of applications, find the one I'm looking for, click "install," "OK," and there it is. In my opinion, that is simpler than what I might have to do on windows - put the CD in, setup, jump through some hoops including where to install, etc, maybe open a readme, reboot, blabla.

To you this looks easy, anyone else will begin by asking "What the hell is synaptic?"

The newcomer to Windows get pointed to Download.com. There he finds a friendly editorial page, all programs neatly cataloged and reviewed. One click to download. One or two clicks to install.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[DuckDodgers]

What geeks want is slow complexity so that they can feel a sense of accomplishment getting something to work

All this broad stereotyping is foolish. I'm sure some IT geeks like to feel elite by doing things the complex way. But most of us just want things to work, like non-IT people.

I believe most Linux developers fail to make easy GUI applications for common tasks for three reasons:
1. GUI apps are hard work, time consuming, and less interesting than other projects. Once I have my computer up and running, I empathize with people having a problem configuring their MP3 software but I don't find writing a GUI app to ease the setup that exciting.
2. Unless you have a huge cross section of equipment, time, and software available (i.e. a business atmosphere) for testing, it's likely you'll miss things. It's all too easy to write a printer setup application that works fine with HPs and Canons but fails with a particular Epson model. Or make a nice graphical installer for a movie player that breaks with a particular version of GtK. Or a nice application for managing your music files that has the display go fuzzy at a certain display resolution.
3. GUI software requires a graphics or windowing library or engine of some sort, which involves extra work, longer build times, and extra dependencies.

So a command line app is much quicker to write, faster to compile, faster to distribute, and easier to test. I want Linux to become more popular, and I want it to become more popular because it's more free and also more easy and intuitive than Mac or Windows. But there's no hiding from the reality that a user-friendly GUI is a lot of extra hard work.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Market is 100% fair

Bullshit.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Coeurderoy]

It ain't true, geeks do not really dislike some much non-geek but experience has taught them that typical non-geek are awed by jocks and jocks have a tendency to push the average pack of nobodies to harass geeks.
Uber-geeks might have learned that the best defence is offence.
And bully really really do not like it when their victims do not feel very willing to be victimized.

So the issue is not "the Linux geek are bad people that do not want to make a nice easy to use Linux for meeeee, so I use Windows that sooo much easier to use (well when it is not very slooow for some strange and unexplained reason".

The issue is that the 99% of sheeps are not willing to push the HW makers to have other options beside Windows as a pre-packaged pre-loaded OS, and they are perfectly happy to pay between 20 and 300$ extra to Microsoft (the extra margin enabled by the lack of competition).
And since they are not willing to do this, Linux is "hard" to install (as compared to "it's allready installed).

If there would be a choice RedHat/Novell/Mandriva/Linspire/.... would compete for the Linux Desktop market and spend way more money on a "Super Duper GkNdOeM(e) GUI".
(of coure they would have to demand equal access to music and video and CD Ram cards, ...)

The ONLY real issue about linux is the legal protectin Microsoft gets and Linux doesn't.

    Cheers
            [ps]

Re:The bubble was never there.

[DragonWriter]

There ARE easy alternatives to "apt-get" and things of that nature.

Yeah. Not only do they exist, but the GUI frontends that make installing or uninstalling much (even third-party) software as easy on Linux as adding or removing Windows components that are designed to be option on Windows are standard on many Linux distros.

I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down.

I don't think that's really true; the convenience features that already exist in most distros that often geeky Linux evangelists overlook because they prefer to get down to the metal may need to be emphasized more, but that isn't really dumbing-down the OS. The power is all there, and all still accessible to the user, its just a matter of PR focus.

The dumbed-down side of it is that there is no compiler... But then again, my mom doesn't want, or need, one.

A compiler is, I would argue, a great convenience feature for non-developers that enables (when properly hidden behind a package management system with a GUI front-end) a lot of simplification of software delivery and upgrades that the average user will appreciate once they've experienced it, and never have to think about the underlying machinery if the front-end is decent.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[westlake]

Until the consumer is informed that their hardware purchase includes a hefty charge for a Windows license and is offered Linux as an alternative (presumably at a different price point), they are not going to know or care about Linux or why they would want to consider it. They're already paying for Windows so they have no incentive to care about anything else.

The charge isn't "hefty" when HP and Dell can buy licenses in quantities of one hundred thousand, one million.

The charge isn't "hefty" when you can contract for the entire output of a half-dozen Asian OEMs for the next five years.

There are enormous economies of scale when you build for the Windows market. There is no price point where OEM Linux is competitive. That is why OEM Linux has disappeared from Walmart.com.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[vertinox]

They're not going to switch to some unknown thing they've never heard of without a strong, compelling reason.

My example is where people don't actively care what they have, but expect it to come with the computer. Most persons/customers/clients I have talked with get rather confused when MS Office doesn't come included with the computer.

Those who are familiar or have purchasing power care, but the people I am talking about are Joe 6 pack and have hard enough time figuring out how to make shortcuts on their desktop much less open them.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

>It is not difficult for even a newbie user to accomplish basic tasks in, e.g., Ubuntu.

Yea right...Your statement is a joke. I am not new to computers but even then it took me one whole day to configure my wireless mouse on Ubuntu. Finally it still doesn't work for all 5 buttons and I could never get my WPA enabled router to work.

Ironically, the thing Linux (any flavor) needs is not more technical features (it already has them), it needs some good marketing & common-man ideas.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[JacksBrokenCode]

If I could mod that post funny, sad, and true, I would. It's sad that in the time it took me to write this response it got modded down to 0 points for "Troll".

I've recently installed Fedora Core 5 on a computer to embark on my first real Linux adventure. Some things were fairly easy, some weren't. Downloading the CD images, burning, & starting the install process was easy as pie. Then halfway through the install I got errors. I had checked the images and they passed the test so I turned to Google and searched the error message. The first hits I got said that FC's install image is notoriously unstable and my CD drive was probably too fast. The suggestions were to remove the drive and use a slower drive for the install. Up until this point, the install process was something that could be handled by someone with little computer knowledge. Replacing a CD drive would've stopped them cold in their tracks. I've heard nerds complaining about the Windows installer for years, but I've never had it fail halfway through without giving a descriptive reason for the failure.

After completing the installation I had Gnome running on top of FC5 and everything appeared to be fairly simple. I'd rather use Opera than Firefox so I went to Opera.com and downloaded an installer package for Opera. After downloading it I executed the package and Opera installed somewhere in the depths of the machine with no desktop launcher or applications-menu launcher. My first instinct was to use the file system's search function to look for "opera" but it returned no results. Eventually I found it while browsing /usr/bin/... but, again, this is not something a casual computer user is likely to figure out on their own. Other than that, my major turn-off is that Gnome insists on opening every folder in a new window and I've been unable to find a way to turn off that behavior.

My feeling so far is that Gnome/FC5 is much easier to deal with than I expected (I was prepared for the absolute worst), but still not easy enough for a casual user to migrate without being horribly confused/frustrated. Linux in its current state seems to be a great system for nerds, but not for the general population. Yes, my experience with Linux is somewhat limited and there may be suites out there that are more fully functioning. My choice of FC5 was based on Dell offering Red Hat Linux, going to Red Hat's website and then on to Fedora as the free alternative. I installed FC5 based on a quick Google search about Fedora stability. None of this was the "best" research or the "best" decisions, but expecting the general public to do the "best" reseach and make the "best" decisions is naive.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Nonsense. The real issue here is not that Linux desktops need to progress anywhere. I use both Windows and Linux for hours a day and they both have their share of frustrations and joys.

I think you're trying to divorce two interrelated issues. Linux and Windows both have usability issues. For the average user it i hard to tell which is better. Because of the market situation, however, Linux is at a huge disadvantage. In order to overcome that, they need to not only be as good as Windows, but need to leapfrog Windows and be significantly better in multiple ways. I don't really see Linux as being all that far ahead on the desktop right now.

Mac has a devoted base of people willing to pay a premium price for Apple products, why I'll never know, since Apple's offerings have been an inferior price-to-value proposition since at least the release of Windows 2000.

Just because Apple products are an inferior price-to-value proposition to you, does not mean they are to everyone. The last time I upgraded my mac laptop I plugged in a firewire cable to my old laptop, selected the upgrade from and old machine option, and then walked away. That same task on Linux takes me about five hours of messing around and then an hour or two a day for the next week as I find things that aren't right, and then another hour or two a week for the next month. Add all that up and you get about 20 hours worth of work. My billable rate for contract work these days is $75/an hour. That's $1500 for one feature per upgrade. If I spend $1500 more on a Mac laptop instead of a different one, I've broken even for that one feature, not accounting any other benefits to OS X. It is actually my company's money, but I hope you get the point. Now I have a Linux install and a Windows install running in a VM, instead of needing a separate machine. How much money do I save by not having to dual boot and by having Windows divorced from the hardware and automatically working without wasting a week getting it into shape? How much money is saved by my having one integrated spellchecker for all my applications, including e-mail, terminals, and IM, rather than having to copy and paste text in order to spellcheck or having to train a dozen different spellcheckers to understand all the obscure terminology I use? What about the time saved by having a universal grammar checker? What about the time saved when I IM'd a program that is no longer available for download to a remote worker that needed it and it just worked, without me having to hope I'd archived an installer somewhere?

I'll stop singing OS X's praises now. I just wanted to make my point that unless you've used multiple systems, making assertions about the price-value of the system is pretty naive.

Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else.

Well, some of the guys at Defcon and Blackhat this year were "fashionable" but I don't think you could say most of them are... and there were an awful lot of mac laptops.

For the rest of the world there is only one choice: Windows. Linux isn't on the table.

There are two significant chunks of the desktop OS market. These are pre-installed (OS X and Windows) and large organization-managed. To win the former, Linux needs to leapfrog Windows by enough in some degree that an OEM is willing to bet the farm on it. It's unlikely to happen on a large scale. The real possibility is the latter market. Big companies and organizations and governments can save a lot of money if they move to Linux and gain a lot of flexibility and security. But big organizations are notoriously slow to move and easily influenced by big piles of cash. It is a hard market, but Linux can do it if it gets the right backing.

Until the consumer is informed that their hardware purchase includes a hefty charge for a Windows license and is offered Linux as an alternative (presumably at a different price point), they are not going to know or care about Lin

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bigpat]

The problem with many linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are. Linux CAN succeed but it really needs a set of standards to follow. People don't like inconsistency. They really don't even like choice. They don't want to have to choose one of the 300 active distros.

I'm sorry, but this "linux users... fail to realize.." stuff is really old. Linux users don't fail to realize, but most can't do anything about it. Saying that people don't want choice is all well and good, but... who gets to decide what choices people don't get to make? I am sure that Fedora people wouldn't care if ubuntu and debian went away and vice versa. And the KDE team would be just fine if Gnome decided to fold up shop, though I think we would all miss the stupid arguments like this thread. And if Windows went away then there would certainly be the less choice that you seem to think people want.

"They want "Linux" and they want it to work as easily as Windows does."

Now you are contradicting yourself. Regular users don't want choice, you say, even if there is equivalent functionality, especially if there is equivalent functionality.

As a Linux user, I want Linux to work more easily than windows does. And I believe most current linux users want linux to work at least as easily as windows does, but would expect more in terms of free software and capability than Windows in order to justify the switching costs. But people should be clear, when by "work as easily" we don't mean anything really to do with the desktop layout or what programs are accessible in the menus or how applications actually start or how do you manage your files. All that basic functionality is there and works as well and is possibly easier to use than windows. What we mean by "works as well" really is that we want plug and play capabilities or at least plug and play with a good sub set of peripheral devices to meet all the every day desktop and laptop computing needs.

With Linux on the desktop and laptop it seems like it is always going to be just that one thing. It is the same problem that Mac OS users had all those years. You walk into a store, you have a wall of peripherals certified to work for Windows. Some for Mac and even fewer more basic things like network cards and the like might come with a penguin on it.

But then, especially if you do your homework you can find some web site somewhere that says they got a particular device that you need to work on the distro that you are using. So you go ahead and buy it because it is the cheapest one that still has a decent brand you recognize. These days it seems to be wireless USB 802.11 devices, and PCMCIA cards or the like, at least have cause me the most problems. So you get your device home, cross your fingers, plug it in and then you find you just wasted $30 on something that some guy on some web site thought he got working, but apparently didn't write down the right steps. Oh and you wasted an hour figuring you must have done something wrong yourself. You probably did, or really I probably did, but the point is that it should have been plug and play.

Sure there are plenty of places to go and get hardware lists, and these days wikis are making it easier to get decent information, but these throw away statements about ease of use aren't very helpful to people working on these problems. Linux is easy, probably easier than Windows. But companies aren't making products to meet the demand because Windows is a higher volume market. I'd be willing to pay $5 more for a USB 802.11 dongle if I knew that it would work with my ubuntu install and I could call support if it didn't, but the market isn't big enough for the manufacturers to bother.

So, the army of volunteers making things work is a double edged sword when it comes to newer devices. The server market has been easier to crack precisely because there is a much more limited set of devices that you would want to attach to a server. Also, embe

Re:The bubble was never there.

[OutOnARock]

One thing is for sure. Until, on KDE and GNOME and everybody else, every application installs to whatever the hell you want to call the Start button actually happen in a standard and logic fashion as does 99.999% of the the applications the Joe Gamer, Joe Sixpack, and Grandma and Grampa run and install on Windows, Linux will never compete with Windows whatever at that level.

Linux has to climb the hill. You don't get to change that just because don't like the current king of the hill.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[SyscRAsH]

I just need to add something here.

First, I worked a lot assisting many home users with their computer problems and for a large majority of them, internet and email ranked highest among "Things That Mattered" in terms of computer usage. Second came documents, music, and photos. That was pretty much it. (I rarely dealt with gamers, probably because gamers typically are more familiar with computer usage.)

When it came to software installations, people almost ALWAYS had me perform the installation for them, even if it meant costing them more money (I charged by the hour). People, regular people, just didn't give two shits about installing software on their own, regardless of how easy it might be. They just wanted their PCs to work. When it comes to "Making Things Happen" outside of working with the items noted above, I found that the usual limit of a person's willingness to participate before they begged to have someone else do it for them was double-clicking an icon.

When you consider regular users, the differences in how software is installed between Windows and Linux is irrelevant, because they're not going to touch that shit regardless of difficulty level. Just point them to their browser, email client, media player, photos and documents. That's all they fucking care about. "Make it easy for them" means whatever's easiest for YOU to support without THEM having to do anything beyond the simplest measure of double-clicking an icon on their desktop. Such people without computing needs beyond those cited above could chug along quite happily on Ubuntu. Of this I am certain.

Consider this manner in how Linux is spreading. Currently I dual boot, because I got tired of the bullshit: spyware protection; anti-virus protection; lack of any really decent applications on a default windows install; the amount of time it takes to keep everything on a widows box updated; 3rd party apps needlessly running in the background and treating your desktop like a damn billboard; blah blah blah. I just got tired of it all and decided to make a change. So, I installed Ubuntu... and fell in love.

Well, hell. I am outta time. The office is closing. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bigredradio]

I wish I had mod points to give you. You are right on target in my book.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

That type of screw up is hard to do on the CLI.

You're forgetting the old classic. You want to remove a bunch of hidden folders from a directory. Naturally the first command that comes to mind is "rm -rf .*".
Then you really learn about recursion.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't agree more that Linux isn't ready for prime time desktop and no my mom can't use nor install apps on Linux.

Some apps I had to install on a fresh Ubuntu

1. Flash
2. Skype
3. Google Earth
4. Nvidia Linux (Quadro 1400)
5. VLC

1) install_flash_player_7_linux.tar.gz required me to use "from the command line type ./flashplayer-installer to run the installer (Note: this can only be run from the command line). The installer will instruct you to shut down your browser(s)"
2)Installed easily thanks to its Debian installer. Skype has different installers for different distros. Which is nice ***

3) Had to change permissions on GoogleEarthLinux.bin to make it executable before I could ./GoogleEarthLinux.bin

4)Failed to install on Ubuntu. Red Hat or Suse support only. Unfortunately, this makes Google Earth and many graphics accelerated applications slow. There are forums with long instructions of getting this to work. Don't have time to spend getting Ubuntu to work.

5) sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install vlc vlc-plugin-esd
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package vlc

The GUI instructions for VLC didn't work either. I chose Ubuntu because it is supposed to be Linux ready for the desktop and the latest, most trendy Linux distro of choice these days. Yet, it would seem that support for Red Hat/Fedora with rpm packages would be easier. Ubuntu is quite easy to install and I'll give it credit for that, but I don't buy that...

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Yo_Momma_Loves_Ubuntu

....yet as long as the apps require rolling up your sleeves to get it to work.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bckrispi]

It's hard to screw up on the CLI. You either type it right or you don't. Not typing it right usually ends up in a syntax error and no damage is done.

No damage done??? With one twitch of the space bar, the simple command: rm -r *.tmp becomes: rm -r * .tmp Try this, then tell me 'no damage done'.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bckrispi]

Yeah! Didn't you all see Who Framed Roger Rabbit? :)

Re:The bubble was never there.

[CDarklock]

> most uber-geeks hate non-geeks trying to be geeks...

The primary benefit of open source software is that you can be a geek with it. When it doesn't work, you open up the source and muck around. Geeks love that.

Non-geeks hate it. But since their geek friends tell them how great this is, they try to do it anyway, and they fuck everything up. Then they go to their geek friends, who now hate them because they're non-geeks trying to be geeks.

But this was YOUR IDEA! Honestly, WTF is your problem?!

Re:The bubble was never there.

[cayenne8]

"But here's where things start to go wrong: you are not allowed, for instance, to install CodeWeavers...or Transgaming's Cedega...You are not allowed to do that, because Microsoft has you under a draconian contract. You do that, you're dead meat."

Can you expand on this? If I own my own computer shop, sell 'blank computers'...and sell software separately, for instance, the OS that I will install for them if they buy a system, what draconian terms am I beholden to MS for? Are you saying I have to sign some kind of contract just to sell MS products at my store? This contract says what I can and cannot put on a computer I sell?

I'm assuming that being a small store owner, I'm not entering into a deal like Dell has, that charges them per CPU they sell for Windows.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[It'sYerMam]

The newcomer to either operating system will begin by asking "What the hell is download?" Synaptic/Download.com - they're just names. You tell them to click on the icon that looks like this, or the menu item called synaptic, or type "www.download.com" into the bar in the program they're told to click on. From then, I would say synaptic is simpler than download.com, from what I remember of it - no installation programs, no separate download/install process, and so on. At any rate, synaptic is not more complex than download.com, and has advantages in terms of compatibility, and that all the programs are free, not crippleware.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I disagree with you. The "dumbed-down" environment is pretty much a solved problem. It is not difficult for even a newbie user to accomplish basic tasks in, e.g., Ubuntu."

You're *#$! joking, right?

Firefox 2 on Ubuntu crashes. Flash was only recently made available. Many sites the non-geek go to *rely* on Flash. Interface not as nice as Firefox 1.5.

Evolution, the default mailer, is pretty nice. Except it throws a CPU spike on certain html formatted messages. 100% usage, the user doesn't know what the hell is going on unless they have a CPU monitor *open* already. (Don't try to open one after the fact like the GUI system monitor or command line top.) (Besides that, I am beyond impressed with Evolution and they keep fixing and improving things, not making things worse.)

Gnome default Human theme on Ubuntu is buggy. Icons missing (i.e. torrent), no consistency in icons (default vs. text), no standard icon size (icons versus folders versus thumbnails of pdfs or images which are nearly twice as large). Progress bar bugs, including one where the progress bar is the same color as the window; it ain't orange for everyone, folks. Adjust time with nptdate works on the command line but not through the GUI. This crap has been known since its stable release.

Ubuntu updates? 6.01 (and whatever the update after was, I already forgot beating my head against Edgy 6.10, 6.061 or whatever) was nice. 6.10 is hell. Too many defaults, users don't know the different between the various updates, i.e. recommended, proposed.

Help pages are out of date. Fixes, such es as clearing the documents list, no longer work on 6.10. Updates are not explained as previously noted.

Torrent apps dump core.

Disk management app that WAS useful? Removed in Edgy.

Samba on Ubunutu? Ridiculous piece of crap. Doesn't work. Minor configuring, but surely NOT a dumbed down interface.

Themes? Nice touch. Except doesn't go far enough. Cannot change basic functionality that even Win95 had.

Lack of explanation when it comes to screensaver management. No documentation on how to change the default login (gdm) screensaver. Non-intuitive method of disabling screensaver.

Session management? Lack of documentation, confusing, throws up the window on startup with no explanation of what it is for the newbie.

Conflicting print managers with HP and CUPS.

Ubuntu is NOT dumbed down. Okay, maybe it is, in functionality (oops!) but sure as hell not in usability. I've used 6.01 and 6.10 on 2 different machines each with 1.4ghz and 1.7ghz AMD processors and 1.0gb and 1.5gb RAM respectively and the ONLY reason I stay is because of Evolution. At least 6.01 was usable, you could see the light. 6.10...I don't see IMPROVEMENT in Ubuntu, I see improvement in some software apps updated but certainly not in the OS or Gnome, in fact it's damn worse. I spend more time in the command line to see error messages, I now spend more time on my OpenBSD box than your "user friendly" GUI.

I've run Mac system 7.1 through 8, Mac OS X various versions, Win95, Win98, XP, Irix long ago (I think 5 and 6), some version of NeXT (it was on a slab), and BeOS, and Ubuntu is LAST of all them in terms of usability. In terms of stability, 2nd to last, only due to extension hell that plagued Mac system 7 (not the fault of Apple really given how developers pushed the use of extensions beyond what they were meant to do).

Ubuntu? You're arrogant to think they've even got it remotely solved. Can it be fixed? Yes. Can it be improved? Yes. But it is NOT usable in the way you put it in the slightest.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[galador]

I'm pretty sure I've read that exact comment posted here on /. before...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[slightcrazed]

Why does this *EXACT* post continue to be cut and pasted into every linux article ever started? Can we get a filter for this shit or something? PA-FUCKING-THETIC.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[hdparm]

That's not the problem caused by Linux desktop. Hardware manufacturers are not providing drivers for sometimes pretty weird hardware. Supported hardware works like a charm and easines improves with every new release, regerdless of Linux distro in question.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[lukas84]

Both zsh and bash have options that prevent this.

lb@yuffie:fuu [9|0] % rm * .tmp
zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /home/lb/fuu [yn]?

I really like this. It saved my live more than once :)

Re:The bubble was never there.

[abigor]

1. Slow as molasses.

2. Lacks perfect .doc compatibility.

3. Can only deal with the simplest Excel spreadsheets.

People see it as an alternative to MS Office, using the MS Office file formats. Since it lacks perfect compatibility, it is a non-starter. The only semi-professional place I've seen it in use is the public library.

You can argue all you want, but this is the truth: in the enterprise, OpenOffice is completely absent. And no, a kindergarten teacher is not representative of the needs of business.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bckrispi]

And of course, you can always just alias 'rm' to 'rm -i'. But my point was to counter the argument that the command line is 'safe'. At *best*, if you fatfinger a command, you'll get an error. At worst, it'll do exactly what you told it to.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Zoolander]

Just as difficult as Menu->Applications->Add/Remove..., select 'Games', select 'Neverball', klick 'Ok'.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[cayenne8]

"You don't have to worry about or remember schedules in most European towns either, as most street car and subway lines run on a 5 or 10 minutes interval, sometimes even 24/7 (and you don't have to worry about finding / paying for a parking spot either)."

Well, this only works in small, very densely populated areas...a classical urban city if you will.

Most places in the US...not the layout. It will work in the cities we have like that, but, I'd say the majority of people live much more spread out....and that doesn't give you an excuse to be late for work. Outside of a major urban center, parking isn't that much a problem.

In the US, we have a LOT of land, and that has fostered a feeling in many, that they like 'room' between themselves and their neighbors. Personally, I can't stand living in a traditional 'box' apartment...having to hear other people's noise, having to watch how loud I have my TV/Stereo, etc. That's why home ownership, and land ownership is so important over here. We like our own space, and the country is large enough to allow that easily.

That kind of lifestyle, however, does not bode well for mass transit...mass transit spread wide outside of a compact urban center, doesn't work...you can't depend on the schedule, and it probably won't drop you off right where you need. That last point is a major one, when weather is cold, hot/humid, or rainy. No one wants to show up for work all messed up from walking the last 'mile' from the transit center to the front door of their worksite.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[ArcherB]

No damage done??? With one twitch of the space bar, the simple command: rm -r *.tmp becomes: rm -r * .tmp Try this, then tell me 'no damage done'.

True to a point, but it is much more precise to say, "OK, read that line back to me, letter by letter, space by space" than it is to say, "OK, which button did you press and describe to me what the icon looked like". Another example would be trying to get a customer to move up a folder in explorer vs the command line. "Press the yellow icon that has a green up arrow that looks kinda like it's coming from under the folder at the top, under the title bar, under the menu bar, but just above the address bar, if it exists because it might be turned off." vs. "type in see dee space dot-dot and press enter"

Re:The bubble was never there.

[lukas84]

I wasn't trying to invalidate your statement in any way. Just said that there are more or less intelligent features which help against such stuff.

The rm vs. rm -i thing is another interesting point, though.

When i'm deleting something, and get asked everytime, with time, the keystrokes will get automated. I've got this problem in windows - per default, you will get asked, and then the files will only get moved to the recycle bin. So i automatically hit "Shift-Delete, Enter". Which kinda counters the asking behaviour. I think the rm -i thing will do the same.

Don't warn / popup needlessly. I've seen so many users clicking away the norton prompt, asking them to renew their subscribtion...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bestiarosa]

True, but it won't be the customer who'll need to choose. It'll be the retailer telling the customer which is the best version. Or worse, it'll come bundled with the computer. This is so unlike having to choose the best Linux distro, then choosing the best desktop environment and all the way down to the single apps. And all this out of opinion found in web-forums.
People love to be told "This is the best for you". And they'll get told Windows Vista is the best for them.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[symbolic]

Apple and Microsoft have PAID USABILITY EXPERTS who conduct studies, research- they have resources to figure this out.

Yes, I guess this explains wonderful little joys in the Windows OS like the Start menu, where you choose "Turn off Computer" in order to Restart the thing. A stroke interface brilliance. ...And don't even get me started on Linux on Embedded devices or in Aviation/Military- Horribly Insecure- and irresponsible.

Please do. Explain how embedded Linux is more insecure than Windows. Or, are you talking about how someone might have horribly munged an otherwise secure OS in a particular embedded implementation?

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

"they want it to work as easily as Windows does."

You spelled OSX wrong.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[noewun]

I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down

Problem numero uno with Linux being as accessible as OS X or Windows is right there: "dumbed down". The idea that making an OS easy to use and install for Joe or Jane Average Computer User means sinking to a level of intelligence lower than that worthy of someone running Linux is, IMO, the main reason that Linux remains something for the geeky or curious. For the record, I use OS X as my main OS. For the record, I also run Ubuntu Linux on my old G3 laptop. My experience with Linux has been interesting: I've learned a lot of things about the OS and OSes in general. I have compiled software, hunted down dependencies, edited .conf files and tweaked xorg.conf to get direct rendering going. And, while all of these things have been fun to me because I have learned things I didn't know, none of them would have been interesting to me if I wasn't curious.

For someone who just wants their computer to be a tool, all of the things I had to do would've been a pain in the ass. And the Geek Machismo one sees on Slashdot--the idea that if you aren't willing to edit config files then you shouldn't really be using a computer--rests on twin assumptions, neither of which I believe. The first is that anyone who isn't willing to dive into the internals of their OS doesn't really deserve to use the thing. This idea, that pedantic technical knowledge implies a general superiority, isn't unique to computer geeks; I see it in audiophiles who feel that someone who buys a $199 WalMart stereo shouldn't be allowed to listen to music or foodies who think that olive oil from the supermarket renders a meal inedible. In all aspects it is wrong, elevating a narrow slice of personality above all else. It's really just a fuck you to anyone who doesn't have the knowledge.

The second assumption is that someone with superior technical knowledge will want to use it at all times, and I think it, too, is bullshit. My dad, an aerospace engineer, has been using computers longer than most people posting here have been alive. He is fluent in several computer languages and has written his own finite element analysis software. At home he uses a Dell with Windows on it and doesn't want to mess around it more than he has to, because he's at home and has better things to do. I think both of these assumptions need to be abandoned before Linux really goes mainstream.

In other words, the problem really isn't with the technology. It's with the presentation and the preconception of what people who use the computer value and want to deal with. For Linux to be really successful on the desktop some group needs to really think about marketing and catering to stupid end users who still think it's a cup holder. And, more than that, some group will need to make the decision that the people who think the CD tray is a cup holder are the most important group of computer users out there. Because it's the people who get harshed on Slashdot, the people who don't use IRC or never touch the command line, who really decide success or failure in the marketplace. Simply put, there are many, many, many more of them than there are of those who will ever compile Beryl from source.

I know I've conflated Slashdot and the Linux community somewhat, and I know that although there is some overlap they are not one in the same. My comments about geek machismo are intended more for those here whom I see exhibiting that trait. For the record, the Ubuntu community has been great and has answered a lot of my questions to the best of my ability. However, for Linux to be truly mainstream it's going to have to be "dumbed down" even more. A lot of the tweakability is going to have to be hidden away behind GUIs like the BSD stuff is in OS X. And people who gladly use AOL and think that the computer is a magic box are going to have to

Re:The bubble was never there.

[heroofhyr]

I helped my brother-in-law by a new PC a few months ago. We went to the Cosmos, which is like what people in America call Best Buy or another large, "honey take my wallet and whatever you do don't give it back to me until we leave no matter what I say when we're inside" electronics megastore. They were selling two versions of the same high-end full bells-and-whistles workstation. One version had Windows XP and Nero burning software and one came with Debian with loads of extra applications filling the rest of the second DVD. The Windows version was about 260eu more than the Debian box despite the fact that hardware-wise they were identical and software-wise the Debian discs were about ten times as useful (the Windows box didn't even have any OEM office software like that shitty Works program they sometimes throw at you). The only problems he's had so far was getting his iPod working with Linux, but even Windows can't deal directly with HFS+. Say what you want, but I call that pretty damn competitive. They're even selling cheap Linux-based DVD players here in the LIDL grocery stores now. The days of Windows dominance are definitely numbered.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[jascat]

My wife was so pissed at me when I deleted all of the music/movies/shows we had on the network by accident when I typed "rm -rf /mnt/storage" instead of /mnt/storage/backup like I had meant to. There is just some music we'll never get back.

Now I have an external hard drive backing up EVERYTHING to make recovery from such a mishap possible.

Back to the topic, after I moved from Windows on the desktop to Linux (Gnome) full time, I've actually had less "Honey, make it work!" from my wife. She got a new scanner/printer, hooked it up, went to "Add a printer" and it worked. She asked how to scan stuff and I pointed her to xsane. Opened xsane, it found it. When she needed them in the Windows install we have running in VMWare, she had so much trouble. Not because she had to add the removable devices to the VM, but from the hassle of finding drivers, installing them, but being prompted along the way to install 10 extra programs, etc.

The "Honey, make it work!" tally:
Linux - 1
Windows - at least 5

Re:The bubble was never there.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Seeing as how Final Cut Pro is THE choice for video editing in the professional realm? I wouldn't say that FCP is a bad choice

Re:The bubble was never there.

[btpier]

I don't believe we were talking about the needs of business. We were talking about Joe Dad and his family. The average Windows user, not the enterprise. In that context a kindergarten teacher is exactly representative.

Even Office for the Mac lacks "perfect" .doc compatibility. Does your average home user need perfect .doc compatibility? No.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Rick17JJ]

I use the AMD-64 version of Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux at home and use Windows XP in a small business at work. Both operating systems seem to be about equally easy to use. Installing and properly configuring Ubuntu was much easier than with earlier versions of Linux that I had used a few years ago. It correctly identified all my hardware with the exception for having to use a GUI to select the correct printer driver. It automatically found my DSL modem and automatically connected me to the Internet. Whenever I insert a USB Flash drive or a CD, an icon for that device appears on the screen (like Windows). There are easy to use point and click GUIs for configuring things. It is not only easier to install and use but feels much more polished and refined than the older versions of Linux. So the Linux desktop is getting better.

When downloading new software, I use either Synaptic or Adept which are easy to use GUI front-ends to the apt-get package manager. I then select a program from the the amazing list of available free programs. Then after about a minute or so the free program has been downloaded and installed. To get new software for Windows XP, I typically need to drive to town, pay for the software, agree to the the stern threatening terms of the EULA, perhaps respond to a pop-up warning from my firewall, and then enter the activation code. With Windows software, I frequently also discover that other software I hadn't asked for was also installed. With Ubuntu Linux removing software with Synaptic or Adept is just as quick and easy.

The typical Linux desktop applications have also improved noticeably over the last few year. Five years ago, the typical Linux application had all the necessary essential features but did not seem like full featured commercial quality software. Now most of the major free Linux applications seems mature and full featured and equal to commercial software. Linux has never had a problem with viruses or spyware, so I don't need to bother with downloading virus signatures or scanning for viruses and spyware. When I had to reinstall Windows 2000 on a computer, I had to first spend about 10 hours looking for the original installation CD before I could even get started. With any version of Linux I would have just downloaded the free iso and burned a CD.

I realize that most commercial games are not offered in Linux versions. I am not a gamer so for me that doesn't matter to me. Some popular industry standard programs such as AutoCAD and Microsoft Office do not come in Linux versions but as a home user, I don't really care about that either. Most companies don't bother writing any Linux drivers themselves, so inevitably there is some hardware out there that is not supported in Linux. Perhaps, as the author suggests, KDE and Gnome developers should get moving, but at the moment I am a happy Linux user. Besides, for me, it isn't purely about who has the latest and greatest new features. I don't want to have to deal with Windows product activation or licensing issues. I recently heard a commercial on late-night talk radio where the Business Software Alliance (BSA) was encouraging people to call them to get a reward for reporting the use of unlicensed software by their employeers. They said that each violation could cost a company $150,000 per seat. I have read elsewhere, that just using licensed versions of Windows and Office and the original installation CD is not always enough to be avoid being accused of software piracy. They must also be able to find records showing where and when they purchased the software. I feel much more comfortable just using Linux instead and knowing that I have the freedom to use it however and wherever I please.

Most people have never even heard of Linux, and even if it is free and getting better all the time, I don't expect many people to give it a try anytime soon. There will continue to be a passionately loyal group of Linux desktop users. I value my freedom too much to even consider using Windows on my main home computer.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Skreems]

The counterpoint to your argument is: Apple. Apple is very different from Windows. It won't run any of the same applications (you can buy some of the same apps altered to work on a Mac, but your old CDs won't work). People still buy them. Ubuntu is about as easy to use as a Mac. So give people some legitimate reasons to try it (it's free, it's more secure, it'll work better on an old computer than Vista, it supports community involvement, open standards, and Freedom (tm)), and there's no reason it can't remain a successful niche market, and even grow.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[NorbrookC]

Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop.

That really points up (besides your other excellent points) one of the barriers to Linux as a desktop OS, even in a business environment. There are applications for Linux that are state of the art, best of breed for what they do - but they tend to be directly related to a server task or management. Other applications range from very good to lousy. Some don't exist at all on Linux. I recently worked with one group investigating the opportunity to move to a Linux desktop. There were 5 applications that were mandatory. For two applications, Linux was either the best choice, or an equal choice with any other OS. These just happened to be server related functions. A third application was promising, except for it being in beta and with limited hardware support. The forth application was bloated, inefficient, and a nightmare to customise. The fifth didn't exist on Linux - not as a port, not as an OSS project, nothing on the horizon. As much as they wanted to move to Linux, it simply wasn't feasible.

If I have criticisms of OSS, it's related to that. A shiny, "cool" project that relates to Linux as a server will attract a ton of developers, while some dull, routine desktop function that a clerical person needs will attract no one. The result is that Linux is now an outstanding server OS, but a mediocre desktop.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[duffbeer703]

A two-door Honda Civic/Ford Focus/Toyota Corolla would meet the commuting needs of 90% of suburbanites. Yet they buy SUVs and large sedans.

Needs matter, but so do wants. Microsoft exceeds your needs, exerts anti-competitive pressure, and spends billions on marketing to convince you to want their product.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a computer reseller I've looked at offering Linux to my customers as an alternative. The distro of choice appears to be Ubuntu but even with this I've run into constant problems. This may not relate to my customer once they get their PC home, however if I'm having problems to solve I'm sure they'll be back in my shop the next day with the PC demanding Windows.

What sort of problems I hear you ask? Well for start Ubuntu doesn't like my Netcomm Router. So i need to manually configure my network connection including DNS settings. I've been told by other users that this problem also exists with D-LINK, Dynalink and Netgear routers (pretty much nearly every router issued by an ISP). This is no biggie for me but for my average customer it would be an impossible task and no end of frustration. The second immediate problem is file sharing. Sure the Linux box can see all my Windows PC's across the network and access their shares with some relatively easy configuration. But going the other way? Can my Windows machines access my Ubuntu shares immediately? That can't be done without using terminal and as soon as you start using the terminal you'll lose the customer - they just won't do it, particularly if they are only saving AUD$117 (Windows XP Home OEM).

Let's not forget the last issue of older software. Chances are this isn't the first computer purchase for my customer and they are probably replacing an older PC. What do they do about all their old programs and files? How well will that integrate with Ubuntu? The question then is, where do they go for help? Will their ISP help them? Will their neighbor, brother, uncle be able to help? With Linux? Not a chance.

They would be forced to contact me and have me come out to their place to help them solve their problems. At a rate of $65 per hour it won't take long before the cost of their new PC with a free O/S costs them much more than the alternative. Sure I'll make more money but my customer will be very unhappy with the outcome.

Look, Linux is NOT ready to compete with Windows for the desktop market. That's just the reality of it. Is this really an area that Linux wants to compete for market-share? What will greater market-share bring? More hardware compatibility? More money for development? Once you start on that path there's no going back and your O/S of choice might just end up somewhere where you don't want it to be.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[WilliamSChips]

That's because it has, many times, all the way down to the use of the wrong angle bracket.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[livewire98801]

This is the same argument you used last time. . . you like to use Quake as an example, but it's a bad one because installing Quak3 IS comples.

Lets try word processing software. It comes pre-installed on Linux, but to get it on my Winodws desktop (legally), I would have to go to the store, get my debit card out, hand it to some college kid and spend 400 dollars. Then I have to go home, put a CD in and install. Am I done? No. Now I have to connect to the internet (if not already) and allow "Activation", sending my computer's fingerprint into Microsoft.

If, by some chance, it is not preinstalled on Linux, I can type in "yum install openoffice.org or I can open a program called "add/remove software" from the Applications menu (on Fedora).

How about CD burner software, image editing software (beyond basic drawing), etc. They're all the same. I am constantly facinated by the lack of installation options in Windows, why IS it called Add or Remove programs? You can't get programs from it, there's no repository there. . .

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Columcille]

The fact that the original post was modded -1 troll only helps to prove your point.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Columcille]

And of course, everyone coped when there was no GUI available.

Everyone as in the relatively low percentage of the population that was on computers, compared with the relatively high percentage on computers today?

As for neverball, that looks fun. emerge neverball is running now. :)

Re:The bubble was never there.

[marsu_k]

Linux needs a universal framework for application development

Windows has the Windows API, MFC, .NET and some popular apps are written with QT. Yet I hear no Windows developers crying out for a universal framework.

app installation/uninstallation

I'm not so sure whether this needs to be universal. Most people will install apps through the package manager of their distribution, and some distributions have repositories that cover virtually every FOSS application the user would ever like to install. And there is work being done on distribution-neutral packages as well.

user configuration storage

This, I kind of agree with. Having lots of configuration files in various forms and locations in ~/.* is intimidating to a new user. However, when we're talking about desktop usage, the user rarely if ever has to modify these files directly.

sound and graphics

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. ALSA and SDL/GL?

users won't have to install two entire desktop environments just to run all the apps out there

Funny that, I run KDE on my desktop, but use some GTK+ apps (Firefox and Gimp mainly) as well. I have the GTK+ libraries, not the whole Gnome desktop, installed. And with a few clever hacks, they blend in with the desktop seamlessly.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Until the consumer is informed that their hardware purchase includes a hefty charge for a Windows license

What is hefty? On a typical computer the OS is less than 5% of its cost. XP Home edition costs dell ~$20 and XP Media Center ~$35. That includes OEM technical support. PC business is so low margin that a 30 min customer service call kills all the profit the OEM makes on that PC. The fact is that OEMs support Windows because it's the only OS profitable for them, to date. They have tried Linux and lost money on that.

There's only one company that has made money (and lots of it) by selling only operating system software. And that's Microsoft. Everyone else is either making money on hardware or on customer support. Ever wonder why that is??

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Overly Critical Guy]

What a load of rubbish. If you want to say that you think the command line is awful, go ahead and say it, with reason. My claim is (obviously) that it's not that bad, once you're used to it. Simply asserting things with a poor analogy does not bring about the truth.

My analogy makes perfect sense. It's a fact that a GUI is easier than a command-line for users. You like the command-line and assume people just aren't used to it, but for most people, the command-line is horrible. Hence, for them it's like saying they're not used to being punched in the face for three hours.

You can act all offended if you want, but I'm just going by the majority of users, decades of human-interaction testing, and the fact that GUIs are easier to navigate and visualize data.

Ah, I see, you're one of those people. Fine. Come back when you have something to say.

I acknowledge your lack of a counterargument.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Windows has the Windows API, MFC, .NET and some popular apps are written with QT. Yet I hear no Windows developers crying out for a universal framework.

Those APIs all sit on top of and are different ways of developing for the Win32 framework.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[value_added]

Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop. A few are running a BSD, a couple are running Windows, and the remaining majority are running OS X.

Huh?

So all those *nix admins responsible for a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand systems are doing what? Using their company-provided MacBook or Windows desktop to ssh into the server? Running X remotely? Using Cygwin? Shuffling their chairs around or plugging in VGA cables or serial cables so they can sit at a connected monitor to get some work done? Investing in elaborate KVM setups?

Maybe you need to rethink your conclusion as "not interested in the desktop." I'd suggest the reality is that there is no overwhelming desire to write GUI applications to replicate what is traditionally done in a terminal window so that novice users will find things "easier". Unfortunate for some, maybe, but the reality is that *nix is designed around the concept of a terminal. Gnome, KDE and friends are mostly there to provide wallpaper.

Here's a tip. Many of us do use *nix as a "desktop". At the same time, most of us know there is no real distinction between desktop and server. Except for the wallpaper, perhaps.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[HiThere]

It's conventional to claim that OS/X is a more "user friendly" desktop than Ubuntu ... but I don't think I agree. I've used both, and I've helped my wife with both. Neither of us like OSX, and I like Ubuntu (well, Kubuntu).

The problem is in applications. Animation programs, iMovie, iTunes, etc. Linux just can't compete there as far as the end user is concerned. Worrying about the perfection of the desktop is wasting time. Let it get better as it is improved, but worry more about stability and fixing bugs. Leave added glitz to the applications. (The exception here is that Gnome *REALLY* *REALLY* *REALLY* needs a menu editor. It's unusable to many people without easy customization.)

OTOH, Gnome may be aimed at commercial users who don't want the end user desktop to be customizable. If so, I fee that this is a mistake, but fortunately KDE exists.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[NorbrookC]

ts a shame that those running /. give you extra karma for ignorant totally off the wall remarks that you make. Everyone else.. feast your eyes..

It's pretty clear that you're equating "eye candy" with "functionality". You also don't seem to grasp that in the context I used it, desktop refers to the desktop computer. In general, operating systems originally meant for servers do not necessarily make good general-purpose desktop computer operating systems. Just because they can be used doesn't mean they're great at it - they tend to be mediocre at best.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[YU Nicks NE Way]

There's no such deal: Dell's OEM license only covers the CPUs they sell.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Master of Transhuman]

I think that's the first "Score: 0, Insightful" I've seen here...correctly, I might add.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

If I own my own computer shop, sell 'blank computers'...and sell software separately, for instance, the OS that I will install for them if they buy a system, what draconian terms am I beholden to MS for?

In the (real) scenario I depicted, you already ship machines with the OS installed. Plus, you have them on display, running Windows. Additionally, you have some machines with Linux (and some with Mac OS).

You can't install Microsoft software on a machine with Linux.

Are you saying I have to sign some kind of contract just to sell MS products at my store? This contract says what I can and cannot put on a computer I sell?

Yes, so I'm told. See above.

Note: this refers to MS practices in Brazil, in a major town, in a big shopping mall. I would just love to learn the Microsoft does nothing like that in the U.S. or Europe. Anyone care to share their experiences?

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

simply to get the splash-over benefit of the people using OS X and to tempt a few back. I'd rather be using a GPL OS

I'm totally cool with using Mac OS X. First, because in terms of FOSS, I use FreeBSD too, and not Linux (for a variety of reasons - all technical, and one "political" - the license). Since FreeBSD and Apple exchanged code and Apple hired FreeBSD people, I don't think I'm "betraying" anything or anoyone by buying Apple.

This is a very different view from the GPL crowd. From my standpoint, I _want_ open source code to make into proprietary code. I mean, you have to buy a computer, anyways. Nobody is going to give you the hardware.

Besides, if anyone wants to study the code, they can look at Darwin. To a limit, that'll give you an idea on what was done. The particular solution is left to Apple alone to know. Fair enough.

So, us BSD license lovers are different people than GNU folks. I mean, I don't understand the concept of saying something is free and then have this concept narrowly defined, as in my definition of how you can use the freedom. Either you give people the freedom, or you don't. The inherent values of things are not given by what you tell me, but by the things themselves. If you work on a free software project, you can't complain if your code makes into a proprietary solution. If you envy that, than make proprietary software. Instead, on the GNU camp we see Debian cry babies, complaining that Ubuntu developers are getting paid and they're not (or, more recently, Dunc-Tank). For instance, there's inherent value in the freedom of FreeBSD. The fact that Apple has proprietary code in their machines in a way, devalues them. Mac OS X may be better in many ways, but it's not as free as FOSS.

For instance, KDE is cool, very cool. There's inherent value in there, does somethings better than Mac OS. FreeBSD is great, love it better than Debian (yes, I was a zealot). I think it's better that people take good quality open source code and just merge it with their stuff. OpenSSH is everywhere now. A Good Thing. It makes the world a better, safer place. This is really sharing. Like before all this licensing paranoia we all live in nowadays.

I just mean to say that it's very confortable being somewhere between these two worlds. Because dichotomies cease to exist. The false sense of morality ceases to exist. The anger ceases to exist.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

If I have criticisms of OSS, it's related to that. A shiny, "cool" project that relates to Linux as a server will attract a ton of developers, while some dull, routine desktop function that a clerical person needs will attract no one. The result is that Linux is now an outstanding server OS, but a mediocre desktop.

And how do you suppose you'll get vendors to work on a GPL OS?

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

Really, only $80 ? Well, I'm actually suprised. I haven't used Window since 1995, and I'm not on par with the prices.

However, I believe here in Brazil (where I live), Windows costs more.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

The primary benefit of open source software is that you can be a geek with it. When it doesn't work, you open up the source and muck around. Geeks love that.

No. Adolescents and young adult college students geeks love that.
Once you graduate, you are too busy working on your programming to have the time to fix the stupid little problems that crop up in Linux all the time.
That, BTW, is one factor explaining why BSDs get less press on blogs, etc. Since the systems work in a more consistent manner, their users are not blogging about their workarounds or political problems so much (oh, the GPL3, the Debian vs. Ubuntu, etc.);

Re:The bubble was never there.

[synthespian]

apt-get is not easy. Besides, apt-get sufers from dependency hell. Instead of making things simple, they added yet another layer of complexity (I'm talink about makefiles vs. debs).

PC-BSD, Windows or Macs are easy. You download the package and double-click it to install it. Pronto.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Col. Bloodnok]

This is also why I tell people who are looking at new computers to buy a mac. This way, they get an easy to use computer with all the nice GUI elements that apple provides, and when I have to use their computer, I still have access to the terminal and all the UNIX goodness that is under the hood of OS X.

It's not UNIX. It's barely 10% UNIX. Ask any Mac developer.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't troubleshot Average Joe Non-techie over the phone before.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[pasamio]

I work in local government and we used TCS on an AS/400 until a couple of years ago to manage our entire system. From payroll and rates to the library and animal management, TCS handled it all. TCS was even used to total and handle our election results and recently did the prepoll voting for a referrendum we held a few months back. Not bad for a machine that is nearing 20 years old. The reason we replaced it was two fold: 1) We couldn't get continued support for the platform and 2) because of this, the 15 year sunset clause forced us to move away from the system. In its place we deployed three systems, Civica Sypdus (library management), JD Edwards (assets, finance and HR mostly) and Pathway (animal management, rates/property, planning...basically what ever was left).

Now TCS doesn't look like the most user friendly environment. To begin with it was old school green screens. You keyed everything in and even though we had newer platforms you rarely used a mouse. Almost all of our users after getting over a short and steep learning curve, loved the system. After we deployed JD Edwards in particular, I know of one old woman (she had grandchildren) who had no issues with TCS and being textually driven but hated JDE's web interface. Having to remember "screen numbers", that said, she had a list of screens she went to regularly on her desk. Think book marks but you just key a number in - much faster. It is in a way worse than the CLI because "./quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin" means you can see something, translate that to "type 401 to pull up the screen to install Quake 3 and once its installed head to 508 for the application loader and you're in." She retired from her job quoting the new interface for her job as one of the biggest reasons for leaving the organisation. She had years of experience and was one of the longest serving members of her department (this is a department which appears to replace 90% of its staff every three years).

The problem I have is that people comment that GUI systems are user friendly. A well designed GUI system can be very userfriendly. Conversely a poorly designed GUI system can be far worse for the same reason that makes CLI systems hard: They present too many options. The CLI allows insane amount of flexibility (and for those Windows users who don't believe me, download and install the 'PowerShell' or Monad from Microsoft, Linux and Mac users learn how to user Terminal if you don't already) and for those who know what they're doing and have high typing speed, are far faster than their GUI counterparts as KLM modelling siggests. This is why many Linux users comment they spend lots of time in a shell, it is far faster to do tasks when you know what you're doing - and that is the key. If you do not know what you're doing (e.g. you haven't been trained in the use of the system) then a GUI will usually beat a CLI or other keyboard based system.

As a final note, JDE rated worse out of all of our corporate information systems. It rated worse than the fact that our proxy filtered their web traffic so that they couldn't waste their day on web mail, forums or cricket scores. TCS comparatively didn't have the same level of angst.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[pasamio]

The question I have is do we have the same level of training for all people who use a computer compared with the old days of the mainframes? Compared to this, what is the number today? What is the number of _specialized_ training courses that are offered and supported? And how many people only use a computer as a small part of their job compared to a much larger portion. With the percentage of the population using computers increasing, the amount of training each individual user receives has been reduced. This can be attributed to the fact that the computers are not only smaller but a lot cheaper. If a user did something deadly to a mainframe system, the repairbill would be far more than completely replacing an entire desktop PC and reimaging it.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[pasamio]

alacarte
easy GNOME menu editing tool
Alacarte is an easy-to-use menu editor for GNOME that can add
and edit new entries and menus. It works with the freedesktop.org
menu specification and should work with any desktop environment
that uses the spec.

Added in 2.16; Appears to replace SMEG (Simple Menu Editor for GNOME) which from a bit of Googling was around in 2.10

Re:The bubble was never there.

[HermMunster]

I can't agree and I would not be so kind as to use the word geek. Geek is now sort of an endearing commentary on a person's ability. Anyone can be a geek. There are many kinds of geeks. A jock is a geek about what he does with their own quirks.

The term for those that negatively impact linux acceptance needs to be zealot or even extremist. They try hard but can't keep their head on straight. They are in face very negative to Linux.

Time will purge them and Linux will make it to the desktop.

Apt-get is a utility that demands high speed internet access. Windows installers do not require any sort of internet access. When Linux apps can be installed the same way a Macintosh installs apps then Linux will conquer the desktop, PERIOD!

Re:The bubble was never there.

[pasamio]

Just as GTK, QT, Motif all sit on top of and are different ways of developing for the X Windowing System. But both low level frameworks are relatively hard to get into compared to the layers that are built on them, which is why they were written. The difference is that GTK and QT appear to be portable enough to run on more than just the X windowing System, but also run under Win32 as well. GTK is even flexible enough that there is an engine that uses QT to draw its widgets.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the reasons why I'm willing to pay a couple hundred dollars for MS to do it.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[pasamio]

I always wonder why people complain about stability when the distro they are using was originally copied from a repository better known as "Debian Unstable (Sid)" and quickly released from there. There is a reason Debian isn't on the bleeding edge: the bleeding edge is always broken. This is true of any moderate to large sized project. What do you think the swarms of Debian maintainers do with their packages? Just run the scripts and push it off to their nearest repository? No, they don't. They sit down and make bug fixes, security fixes and all sorts of other fixes on top of this released software. If you're not too worried about 'usability' and having the most up to date applications, grab Debian Etch when it is released as stable. If you want something more up with the times, you can always head to Debian Testing. If you like life on the edge, give Debian Unstable a go.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bollox4]

First I think part of the problem, is your average geek would prefer speed and efficiency over simplicity while non-geeks prefer the opposite.

Absolutely untrue. Your non-geeks expect speed and efficiency even more so from the brand new PC they've just spent a small fortune on. They dislike waiting. Lengthy loading times or pauses in the flow of work/play cause concern. They do not willingly accept being unable to get to a website because it has been Slashdotted.

I'm sure you were trying to be funny but really, geeks don't hate non-geeks, they just don't see the problem and thus no reason to fix something that isn't broken. They would rather focus on developing something cool.

Only that the non-geeks suffer from too many who reply with 'RTFM'. Lets be honest, apart from a few helpful sites there are a lot of smug geek out there who think they hold the keys to some mythical computing holy grail and see lesser mortals as unworthy of such knowledge.

This is also why I tell people who are looking at new computers to buy a mac. This way, they get an easy to use computer with all the nice GUI elements that apple provides, and when I have to use their computer, I still have access to the terminal and all the UNIX goodness that is under the hood of OS X.

Whoops!

Personally I would love for Linux to come up with a GUI that is as easy to use as OS X. (Yes, yes, Ubuntu is easy to use but it's still not on par with OS X... some people can be really dim) However, I think most developers don't really know how to solve the problem.

The desktop is the least of the Linux problems as far as newbies are concerned. KDE3 is fine.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[WindBourne]

And yet, I have yet to have seen any of the hardcore Linux Geeks knock a newbie on stuff. I have seen strangers (who then disappear after a couple of posts) jump in and knock them (in lists), but that is not the same thing. OTH, I have seen some folks be obnoxious about pushing for a response while being rude.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

In france an OEM license of windows is as cheap as that.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[rbanffy]

If you have to do a GUI app, let's call it "foo", I would suggest you spend a some time creating "libfoo" first, to get the bare functionalities in place, its unit-tests (to keep yourself sane), then do "foo", the command line version you will use yourself, and then "gfoo" (or "kfoo", if I were a KDE person), the dumbed-down versions users that can't be "smarted-up" will use.

This way you end-up with three parts - a piece that can be reused and tested in a simple way, a part you can use yourself and another part your users will be happy to use. This way you can mitigate the risk of making the GUI tool do everything you need, because you will have the command-line tool for that.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[FrankieBaby1986]

I'd say what it all comes down to is STANDARDS. If all programs on X operating system used Y procedure to install and provided Z options to do so, it wouldnt much matter if it was GUI or CLI. the power of a CLI is the ease of scripting repetitive processes and development. The power of a GUI is giving the user the ability to see in a graphical, organized way, all the options available to them. a CLI however, can provide GUI-like features, such as more verbose interaction or more human readable commands. rm? chmod? man? what do these mean to an uninformed user? but on a gui: "remove file", "remove folder" (context based) "help" etc.
As an XP user who has tried linux several times, I found the biggest issues to be here. what the heck is XSANE? the GIMP? how bout HP IMAGING? photoedit? photoshop? windows media player vs XINE? which are easier to see for the first time and be able to guess at what they do? XINE or WMP? the GIMP or Microsoft Photo Edit? "Add/Remove Programs" or "apt-get"?
May be nitpicky, but if you are trying to gain users, don't confuse them with random names. More descriptive names.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[MagicAlex84]

See, this is where the problem starts. You'd think they could figure something out by looking at the screen, but some people are actually afraid of computers. They won't read a message that appears on the screen or even try to understand what it means. I've experienced this first hand as a warning or error message pops up and they just click okay and then freak out when something unusual happens.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bky1701]

rm -rf /

OH SHI-

Re:The bubble was never there.

[bky1701]

"1. Slow as molasses."

I've used it on both windows and Linux. On both it was faster or as fast as MS office on windows. How many YEARS has it been since you used it?

"2. Lacks perfect .doc compatibility."

I never noticed it, and export to MS-office type docs all the time. Maybe if you load it up with macros and such, but can you really expect that to work? You may as well complain Firefox doesn't support VBS.

"3. Can only deal with the simplest Excel spreadsheets."

Once again, never noticed it, but I don't import that many excels, so I will give you this one as a chance.

"Since it lacks perfect compatibility, it is a non-starter."

On the OTHER hand, MS office lacks compatibility for most everything other then Microsoft's own document types. What about PDF, for example? And as I said above, I have never seen this. If it's so major an issue, then send me one doc that I would be unable open in open-office.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[mrmeval]

They've dumbed down both Guhnome and KaydeeEee to an annoying level. Something as simple as typing a path to a file in a file dialog is missing. Sheesh.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[rjshields]

Linux is *not* user friendly ... 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".

Sounds like Mr A.C. is a bit out of date ;) In Ubuntu you click on Applications -> Add/Remove, you can add or remove your applications from there. It's a whole load easier than downloading a setup executable, trying to find where you saved it and then double clicking it, clicking through all the options, etc. It also eliminates the chance of downloading something nasty or unwanted.

So this solution is far simpler *and* safer than the windows way of doing things, which is, frankly, retarded.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Ash-Fox]

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

Requesting source of 'marketshare' statistics please.

"How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"

If it isn't easy. I blame the developers/company for this (I don't own a copy of Quake 3).

Installing Unreal Tournament for me is just inserting the CD, double clicking the .run file, then you're given a graphical installer, which just requires you to click "begin install" to get it installed (then you can run it from the menu of your WM/DE).

Re:The bubble was never there.

[CDarklock]

You are describing the difference between a geek and a professional. Most technical professionals have an inner geek the same way adults have an inner child; 90% of the time, it's hidden away because its responses to situations are wholly inappropriate. The other ten percent of the time is when we do things like gather around a PC in the lab playing "Truck Dismount" as a noncompetitive team sport.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[CDarklock]

Oh yeah: or post on Slashdot!

Re:The bubble was never there.

[apathy maybe]

I beg to differ. *Some* non-computer (non-geek that is) people are not dim. (Oh wait you said "NOT JUST DIM", I'll assume you meant "NOT DIM" otherwise my point would be redundant.) Quite a number of non-geeks are actually quite stupid. They don't want to learn anything about computers (no matter how easy it is to learn), they also don't want to learn how to check oil in a car or lawn mower. That is laziness sure, but sometimes you have to teach them how to do something every time.

I used to think that people weren't all stupid, computers were just hard. Now I think it is more likely that some people are stupid, some lazy and some both. When I have to show someone every single time how to do something, well ...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[yoprst]

A classic example of why Linux can never win
Two words: killer app. That's how it worked before, and that's how it will work in foreseeable future. Those customers - surprise, surprise - are asking about windows killer apps. What linux offers them now? Ditch those! Not very good point.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

My mather (and my daughter's grandmother is not geek but a happy Mandriva user for his occasional internet usage needs). Now it seems that my non-geek father will also wan't to try Linux. With his words: "Could I have some viruses in My windows because it is acting so slown. Or should I turn off the virus scanners and firewalls as I have hears from my friends that they are making the system running so slow..."

Oh, yeas and my wife's father is also complaining about the problems in his windows... And as I do not know how to fix windows, I will suggest him trying christian-ubuntu for his writing work...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[l33t_f33t]

Personally I love this copy/paste troll, they all make the mistake of not reading the fundamental typographical error in the first line:

linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Personally I'm very happy about having a greater than one percent market share. And I wouldn't want to move out of this position. And I bet all the other OS companies who currently hold a >1% market share will give the same sentiment.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Weretrout]

Hussle of finding drivers ? How about the hussle of installing them, seeing your X die because for some obscure reason official NVidia drivers and official Ubuntu HowTo on installing those drivers weren't really compatible with each other, reinstalling, finding some 3rd-party HowTo (heck, a howto to install friggin drivers !), spending half an hour in commandline (I have nothing against commandline, heck I would love to have such a versatile tool in Win, but that's not the case in this case (all pun intended)), and than STILL having to modify config files by hand to get the desired screen resolution yada-yada. Is THIS simple ? Is THIS simplier then double-clicking on setup.exe, waiting for a few mins, rebooting (OK, bad part but still) and having it all work ? Please don't start "But Win drivers are the creation of Satan which will hang your PC". Never happened in all those years I use XP (happened with 95 and 98 though) and doubt will happen if you have brains and put them to use while downloading some 4th party tuned, overclocked and rewritten drivers for your mouse wheel or extra mouse buttons (speaking of which they don't work on Linux). Linux was NEVER intended for users and should not be advertised as such. I am yet to see a single user happily sudo make | sudo install an application.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[It'sYerMam]

My analogy makes perfect sense. It's a fact that a GUI is easier than a command-line for users. You like the command-line and assume people just aren't used to it, but for most people, the command-line is horrible. Hence, for them it's like saying they're not used to being punched in the face for three hours.

It is undeniable, except by stubborn morons, that the command line gets easier to use with time, and is easier than the GUI in certain cases. This does not mean it is better in every situation, or even overall.

I acknowledge your lack of a counterargument.

Logical. I acknowledge the lack of an argument to counter.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mount your /usr partition read-only on a production system, for fuck's sake. Even a teabagging Gentoo-luser like you should be able to do this.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

GNOME (since at least 2.16) *has* a menu editor. Quite a fine one too.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[emilper]

yes, fear of computers is in top 10.

Arrogance is in top 5: "kids are supposed to be able to do it, so me, a PhD in *****, should do better ... [5 minutes pass] ... hullo, Help Desk ? I just pressed a key and all my work dissapeared. You bastards, you certainly did something to my computer: come here and fix it".

Most users don't like the mouse training, don't want to listen when you show them how the interface works and what to do first when they use unfamiliar software, just expect it to work by magic. CLI or GUI ? It does not matter. What's important is the attitude of the user.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

They certainly don't do that at my shop in Australia, and I'd be complaining to the ACCC pretty quick if they tried.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

> People are generally happy to pay for "the genuine article"
> rather even if there's a free, similar alternative...

Actually most people I know are not happy to pay for "the genuine article". Unfortunately, the free similar "alternative" is the Windows disk from their geek friend. So geeks...do NOT DO THAT!

As far as everything else goes, I find people reasonably open to new things. I mean even Windows stuff ain't static. And by no means "just working" (I know, cause they call me each time it isn't). A beautiful thing is to *charge* them for support. While I won't do it for very close friends, I will for the dozens of acquaintance's. Will accept barter too, but I am far beyond the point of doing it for free "for the experience". The moment you charge even a lousy 30 bucks people's start to be a lot more interested in alternatives, that won't get bogged down by Spyware or what have you. Linux is not the panacea, but neither is Windows.
So I start them out slowly. When the inevitable reinstall is coming around, guess how many people actually have CD's for, say, MS-Office? Right, about 5 percent if at all. So when they say "Oh, when you fix it I need Office" I say "Sure...don't have MS-Office but I'll put on OpenOffice...almost the same thing." I show them and they'll go OK...fine. Now I can be sure, that at least they will have OpenDocument capability (far more important than the OS right now, AFAIAC). Add Firefox and some other goodies to the mix and before you know it they would hardly notice if the OS changed underneath (the suggestion of which I'll save for the next reinstall). When I give it back to them they have gone from a closed-source, spyware infested wreck to a pretty fast (do some hardware tweaks where possible) Windows machine with almost all open-source apps. This is a good compromise right now as in it works for them and it benefits me too. So for all the people saying that Linux isn't desktop-worthy...you're wrong! It's just that the Linux desktop may ironically be first born on the Windows desktop (Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and all that good stuff wouldn't be here without the insane waves Linux has thrown into the computer landscape just by existing!). And then it'll grow up and mature...along with its users.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[HiThere]

I haven't tried alacarte.
I have tried an earlier Gnome menu editor (don't know the name) and was quite underwhelmed. It was significantly less capable than the one that shipped with Gnome around 1999...before they started dumbing it down. (Sawfish? Sawmill? around that time.)

Whatever. If it requires mono I'm not going to be looking at it...otherwise I'll check it out.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[HiThere]

OK, now I've tried it.

It looks nice, but twice when I tried to add a program from /usr/local/bin it locked up as soon as I tried to get out of /home/~.

Now it wasn't so badly locked up that I couldn't kill it, but this ISN'T what I think of as friendly behavior.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[NDPTAL85]

Proposing that the command line is easier to use than a GUI is the definition of a geek who just utterly does not understand what regular people prefer to use on a computer. You say that everyone coped when there was no GUI available. That would be wrong. Computer usage did not take off until GUI's made them easier to use. Until that point only geeks and folks who HAD to use them used them. After the GUI computers were bought by the rest of the public who merely "wanted" a computer.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% >marketshare.
          Yes it is. And yes, Linux does have >1% market share. I'm guessing you meant to say "below 1%" but the share is well above that. I have read various Linuxes in fact have a greater market share than OSX. Some distros are not friendly, others are. You just don't give a newb or someone who wants a simple distro one of the complicated ones.

>User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
>Zealot:
(bunch of crap deleted)
          Pick "add software" off the menu, choose games, choose quake3. If you have the CD, pop it in when it asks. I run "emerge quake3" with gentoo, but a) I think it has a graphical tool to do this too (I just don't use it...). b) With Ubuntu, Suse, etc., they definitely have graphical package managers, so you just pick the software off a list. You CAN use apt-get, emerge, etc., but almost every distro has a graphical tool to do this now.

>...and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a >retarded operating system!"

          That is retarded. Why should I have to reboot just because I added software?

          I was SHOCKED when I fired up an ubuntu CD. I'm technical and use Gentoo, but Ubuntu looked twice as easy as I thought any distro could be. It's a livecd so the user can wordprocess and surf straight off the disk. Click on the installer on the desktop, and it asks like 6 pages of EASY questions. Language, keyboard type, timezone, pick whcih disk to install to, network setup, setting a default user and password, oh and the obligatory screen listing all that stuff with an "install" button. Realisistcally, here in the states, I click next on it and just set the timezone. Admittedly, the disk setup and network setup COULD be considered technical, but clicking next on them has reasonable defaults. It does allow repartitioning the disk, and setting up static IP, and WEP/WPA info for wireless *if needed*, but there's no way to dumb this down -- if you need to set it, you need to set it. Running it was easy too -- there's easy menus to add new packages, administrate, etc. Openoffice and firefox install straight off. It supports memory sticks, cameras, printers, etc. I think it even has out-of-box TV tuner support.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeas and my wife's father is also complaining about the problems in his windows... And as I do not know how to fix windows, I will suggest him trying christian-ubuntu for his writing work...

Because those parental controls and bible-reading tools are going to be really really handy for him while he's writing.

Why not just get him normal Ubuntu. It's a hell of a lot closer to god than that satanic pile of shit called Windows that he's using now, and he'll get a wider range of packages.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is undeniable, except by stubborn morons, that the command line gets easier to use with time, and is easier than the GUI in certain cases. This does not mean it is better in every situation, or even overall. Until a few months ago, I was a shift-manager at a helpdesk in some huge, old, groggy organization. We used to get some really dim-witted people to work at it - supporting windows users and VMS users.
I spent quite a great deal of my time in creating training schemes and in actually training the staff. It was a great surprise for me that it was a lot easier for most unexperienced people to understand how to use the VMS command line than using the various windows maintenance tools. We ended up being best at supporting the VMS-based applications, while we were constantly struggling with windows support.
This is CLI or VMS fanboyism, it's just that it seems that the GUI creates many ambiguities, which the CLI does not.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[ThePhilips]

Just pay no attention to what people here say about GUI v. CLI. GUI/mouse addicted geeks would never understand that.

I can over phone tell guy to fire up terminal and then letter-by-letter tell him commands - and he would read me their output. It takes only minutes to educate him how to do that.

Trying to do the same in GUI - Windows or GNOME - normally ends up in failure. If VNC/etc isn't available - it is next to impossible. Did anybody in helpdesks actually tried to count all the possible error messages Windows' Computer Management can produce? I lost count long time ago. Or for that matter how often GNOME changes layout of their control panel? Ah... Damm just fire up terminal, type few commands and it's done.

And there is even more to it. It is easier to teach somebody to type verbatim (or copy'n'pase) command into terminal - than to explain precisely how user needs to click his way thru the GUI. You can print command (and their output) for later reference. But to precisely describe what was done in GUI to achieve some particular task - is next to impossible. Especially in modern Windows' dynamic GUI. (Actually several my friends were collecting all CLI tips I were giving them - if not to learn, but at least to have in case if problem arises again). And my experience of working with computer-illiterate people was precisely confirmation of that GUI badness: configuration of open windows on screen can be so confusing that normal people never really are getting used to it. And if you are called on phone, how can you get out of user what's happening with his computer? Maximize button is often seen as panacea (or at least as placebo) but not really a solution. Terminal? It's DUMB. Specifically to avoid all the mess.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[mackyrae]

What about Alacarte Menu Editor?

Re:The bubble was never there.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So, us BSD license lovers are different people than GNU folks.

I'm a pragmatist. I think both GNU style and BSD style licenses are ideal for different circumstances and for different goals. I think Linux's ability to attract developers and gain popularity over FreeBSD is largely due to the licensing. A lot of people want to contribute to something, but they want more in exchange for their contribution than simply credit and getting the code out there. They want to be repaid with the contributions of others and they want to make sure that their contribution is not sold back to them. This makes the GNU style license work very well for end user applications and many other projects.

Sometimes it is more important to an author to get their code used, than it is for them to get contributions back. Implementations of new, standard protocols, for example. For these applications a BSD style license often provides more benefit.

I don't blame Apple for using BSD style code and closing it, nor for not opening their own contributions. So long as they aren't going against the wishes of the authors, more power to them. I merely mention that the code in an OS being GPL'ed as opposed to licensed with a BSD license or even being closed source, provides more benefit to me, the end user, rather than to developers. It is a feature. All things equal, I'd rather be using an OS that is GPL'd than one licensed the other ways. This is self-interest, not ideology.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So all those *nix admins responsible for a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand systems are doing what? Using their company-provided MacBook or Windows desktop to ssh into the server?

This is funny because I daily use my Macbook to SSH into three servers I use. I'm not sure, however, I understand your point.

Maybe you need to rethink your conclusion as "not interested in the desktop." I'd suggest the reality is that there is no overwhelming desire to write GUI applications to replicate what is traditionally done in a terminal window so that novice users will find things "easier".

I'm not talking about replicating CLI programs to make them more accessible to non-power users. I'm talking about everyday applications and functions of the OS that benefit pretty much all users. Using an OS X workstation I can use the same spellchecker on all those SSH sessions, in vi, in Word, in Adobe InDesign, in my mail program and Web browser. I can do the same with my grammar checker, and language translation service, and auto-bibliography citation, and dozens of other useful services. This makes it superior to my Linux and Windows workstations for the same task. It has nothing to do with making it more accessible to novices.

When I upgrade my Mac laptop I use as a workstation, it is basically one step. I plug in a firewire cable to my old laptop and it sucks all my settings, licenses, user accounts, programs, VMs, files, etc onto the new machine. It works across acrhitectures. When I come back from lunch, I can get to work. With a Linux or Windows machine this migration takes me days or weeks to get everything in the right state. This has nothing to do with me being unable to use a command line. It has to do with me having to do things, at all.

Those are just a couple of examples. That functionality could be replicated on another OS, but most people who care have already moved to OS X.

Unfortunate for some, maybe, but the reality is that *nix is designed around the concept of a terminal. Gnome, KDE and friends are mostly there to provide wallpaper.

Your conception of UNIX is pretty limited. Linux is no more UNIX than OS X or IRIX. The GUI provides a better way to accomplish some tasks. Try editing images for a living from the command line.

Many of us do use *nix as a "desktop". At the same time, most of us know there is no real distinction between desktop and server. Except for the wallpaper, perhaps.

While one machine can be both a desktop and a server, they are pretty distinct roles. Desktops provide a user with their interface to do work. Servers talk to other machines, including desktops. Very rarely does a user primarily access a server via the local console. I suspect you're trolling with your wallpaper comments. If so, good job. If not, you need to expand your world view.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[RiotXIX]

Alias rm to move the file/folder to /tmp, and make a backup if one already exists there.
Then have cron '/usr/bin/rm -rf /tmp/*' every so often.

The slashdot lameness filter won't let me post my code, but e-mail riotxix@gmx.net if you want it.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[ichimunki]

The cost of having Windows preinstalled is not zero. Think about it. If Microsoft wasn't raking it in on the sale of Windows licenses, they wouldn't be going to such great lengths to try and prevent piracy of their software. They could easily just charge for support contracts, but they don't.

Re:The bubble was never there.

[linuxrocks123]

OpenOffice.org is that solution. Perhaps you just haven't used it for five years or so...

Re:The bubble was never there.

[linuxrocks123]

> That is why OEM Linux has disappeared from Walmart.com.

Umm ... don't know where you're getting that from...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_ id=3762912

They have at least one other too, with Xandros. Both "In Stock" last I checked...

What laurels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either.

Microsoft doesn't have 'laurels'. Just many large sacks of cash.

Re:What laurels?

[rootofevil]

Microsoft doesn't have 'laurels'. Just many large sacks of cash.

Laurels are pointy a mean, sacks of case are soft and comforting. I know which id rather have.

Re:What laurels?

[xENoLocO]

"Laurels are pointy a mean, sacks of case are soft and comforting. I know which id rather have."

I got this one...

Laurels are pointy and mean, and sacks of cash are soft and comforting. He knows which, between the two, he would rather have.

Desktops?

[gentimjs]

Are gnome and KDE -really- the only choices? XFCE? ICEwm? Hell, CDE even?! ... or dare I suggest ... Bash ?

Re:Desktops?

[Der PC]

Yeah, that's the spirit ! :)

When the user dislikes the GUIs that actually attempt to be (somewhat) user-friendly, just feed him/her a GUI that is stepwise worse and more user-hostile than the last one.

"What's for dinner honey?" - "Caterpillars and worms. And if you don't like it, we have wooden splinters, glass shards and iron filings."

Re:Desktops?

[Anonymous Coward]

blackbox and enlightenment :)

Re:Desktops?

[salgiza]

> Are gnome and KDE -really- the only choices? XFCE? ICEwm? Hell, CDE even?! ... or dare I suggest ... Bash ?

I'm not quite sure whether you were being funny, or you misunderstood the fact that this article was about replacing Windows Desktops with Linux ones. Nevertheless, the thought of offering my boss to migrate our desktops from Windows to Bash (+emacs) made me smile :).

Re:Desktops?

[lanswitch]

Or Looking Glass, perhaps? Looks pretty impressive to me, although I haven't tested it yet.

Re:Desktops?

[Salvance]

They certainly aren't the only options, but for your average non-techie desktop user they are probably the best answers. The problem is that there isn't any plan for creating a better user "experience". Developers typically hate creating non-functional "fluff", or even functional fluff ... but all the fluff that make up Windows and Mac systems is what the average user wants, and what makes it more difficult for them to transition to Linux.

I think it's pretty funny that the article is titled "Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?" When was there a bubble to begin with? Doesn't there have to be rather widespread adoption or growth to constitute a bubble? Has the Linux desktop ever gained more than ~1% of the desktop market?

Re:Desktops?

[that this is not und]

'User friendly' is really a terrible concept. There are so many types of users.

Some users want email, the web browser, maybe access to a spreadsheet and word processor.

You can install a base system with just X and the standard X11 binaries, and edit up a nice 'Tab Window Manager' menu for them, and add shortcuts to .twmrc for all the icons they will use.

This will all comfortably run on a castoff PII or PIII system that can be had for free or a few dollars at a surplus auction.

Other people need tweakyness, multimedia features, etc.

Just because you insist on a 'themeable' GUI desktop with spinning three-dee whizzywhoos does not mean that everybody else is even interested in it. If you told many users 'this system will be so stable that it will NEVER screw up on you and nobody will EVER install spyware or viruses without your permission' they would snap it up.

Re:Desktops?

[ZakuSage]

So that would make Windows what... stinkbeetles?

Re:Desktops?

[that this is not und]

Nevertheless, the thought of offering my boss to migrate our desktops from Windows to Bash (+emacs) made me smile :).

There are days when I would like to have a text-mode desktop machine at work. One that would crush anything 'graphical' it received into generic plain text. If I got a Word document, I could edit it and it would go back to anybody I sent it to crushed flat to .txt with only minimal aspects of it's formatting remaining.

I already do this with Outlook, as you can configure it to filter everything back to 'plain text' in the options, and compose all your mail that way. If I participate in email threads at work my Outlook does that automatically for me, which is a message I like to send to co-workers.

There are text-mode spreadsheets out there, too. Uh, that's how spreadsheets started...

Re:Desktops?

[kfg]

Developers typically hate creating non-functional "fluff", or even functional fluff ...

. . .or even functionality. It's the idea that counts, not . . .getting the right answer.

KFG

Re:Desktops?

[hunterkll]

I fucking WISH there was a free CDE for linux..

Re:Desktops?

[walt-sjc]

First off, I'll say that Linux is and has been my primary desktop OS for the past 9+ years. I have no trouble working with it, and I have no intention of ever moving to OS X or Windows as my primary (I already use all three on a daily basis.)

BUT, IMHO I think there is more behind the scenes that has yet to be done, and it has nothing to do with "themes." What is lacking is a cohesive and comprehensive framework that allow all applications / applets to work together and communicate with each other seamlessly. We have a whole bunch of parts right now that are mostly independent with few exceptions. For example: I have a mail notification applet that pops up a summary new mail, and I can click on the notification to launch my mail client of choice (which happens to be Mutt.) What the applet can't do is launch mutt (or attach to an existing instance) opening the current message that I clicked on. Obviously that is a very minor nit, and there are much bigger problems to tackle... Bonobo on Gnome is a start of that framework. KDE has it's own competing technology.

Take sound for instance... There are many competing frameworks (ecasound, jack, esd, etc.) Many applications only support one or two, and frequently the interface is buggy and doesn't work correctly. Good luck getting sound from Gaim, Mail notification, MPlayer, desktop sound effects, and Amarok all working at the same time. Can it be done? Well, yes, I was able to get it to work but it was Very painful. I seriously doubt the majority of linux users would be successful (newbies would be doomed.)

I guess my point is that we can either pretend that all is fine in the Linux desktop world, or we can look at what the other leaders in the market have done and realize that we have a lot more to do. With all the fractured alternative technologies to solve the same problem, I don't know if it the goal of everything working together seamlessly can ever be reached. That won't stop me, personally, from using Linux however. It will probably stop the enterprise.

Re:Desktops?

[Anonymous Coward]

'User friendly' is really a terrible concept

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I hate pushy characters too, especially those not knowing their place.

Give me 'User obedient' or 'User fearing' any day!

Click "Start->punish OS"
Menu "Help->Insult developers->[Canned insults|New]->send now!"

Re:Desktops?

[Reapman]

"You can install a base system with just X and the standard X11 binaries, and edit up a nice 'Tab Window Manager' menu for them, and add shortcuts to .twmrc for all the icons they will use."

Hmmm that's not a bad idea... I've always thought it good to get away from the "bar" interface (be it a start button, dock, whatever) Having tabs thta say something like "Browse Web" "Read Email" "Write Letter" "Play Games" would be good in situations where "simple is best"

Re:Desktops?

[ThisNukes4u]

Regarding sound, these days we have the dmix plugin for alsa, which happens to be enabled by default, so any program that can use alsa can play sounds all at the same time. And if you enable oss emulation, you don't even need alsa support in the app. Its been at least 2 years since I've messed with audio servers, and I agree, its a mess, but alsa is fixed now and all that should be left in the past.

Re:Desktops?

[Dan Ost]

If you want something that you can make look and feel like CDE ("Oh, God! Why???") take a look
at FVWM.

It's even possible that someone has already built such a config.

Re:Desktops?

[walt-sjc]

You would think so, but that's not the case. Sound is still a mess, even with dmix.

Re:Desktops?

[Terminus32]

In my opinion KDE isn't worth the hype, it's too bloated & slow & takes up memory. I prefer Gnome (even though that too is a hogger) or Window Maker, fvwm, amiwm, Xfce, etc - something lightweight!

Re:Desktops?

[Grishnakh]

If you're going to talk about Linux adoption in the enterprise space, you need to find another example besides sound support. Sound isn't used on business computers, for good reason.

Re:Desktops?

[Ant P.]

Dmix only works as long as you don't have a braindead app that accesses the hardware directly. Flash 7 does this, and it's going through the alsa OSS emulation...

Re:Desktops?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

The problem is that there isn't any plan for creating a better user "experience".

The GNOME devs have one vision/plan, the KDE devs have a different one. And there is plenty of non-functional fluff in both systems.

Re:Desktops?

[sponga]

they had a 200% increase in users.

Thats amazing!!!

Re:Desktops?

[toadlife]

"Sound isn't used on business computers, for good reason." Of course it is. Our employees can listen to their voice-mail on their computers, so sound is a requirement.

Re:Desktops?

[linuxrocks123]

> Has the Linux desktop ever gained more than ~1% of the desktop market?

It's currently around a little more than 3%. Reliable numbers are hard to come by, but IDC said Linux desktop shipments outpaced Macs (then ~2%) back in 2003 and was growing at a healthy rate. No one's made any noise about Linux losing market share (which they certainly would have if it had happened; M$ would have made sure of that).

I've tried very hard to find reliable information on this, and while I've been disappointed with the quality of information available, 3%, +/- 1%, is a good ballpark.

A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to any Linux distro community forum and what do you see?

"How can I make my Linux desktop look and function like this: "

http://images.apple.com/macosx/leopard/images/inde xdesktop20060807.jpg

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Travoltus]

But it already can.

What can OS X do that KDE can't?

The sticking point now isn't even driver support - my jaw drops nowadays at all the stuff that works with Linux, even syncing my Palm works now.

The sticking points are games, and certain hobbyist things like converting AVI/WMV to MPG, and DVD ripping.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many reasons why KDE and Gnome are so bad compared to OS X as desktops.

1. Archaic 'package management' for home user applications. The tech to implement application bundles with the ability to simply drag apps to a /Applications folder/directory is out there right now.

2. Hideous and retarded GUI toolkits. The two major Linux GUI toolkits are FUCKING ABOMINATIONS. They are so bad it would be best to just throw them the fuck away and clone some subset of the OS X application APIs. For years Linux developers have gotten away with the juvenile excuse that it is just different taste in 'skinning' between the various Linux desktops and OS X. The sad fact is that the amount of UI capabilities in OS X are light years beyond anything Linux has to offer. The fact that Linux GUI toolkits are so FUCKING clunky and ugly just hides that deeper problem.

3. No reason for any competent desktop UI graphic artists to devote their time to desktop Linux. Design by committee with no single person being able to enforce an across the board level of quality you see in OS X.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"What can OS X do that KDE can't?"

Someone needs to sitting you down in front of the two desktops and slap the shit out of you as they step by step go through every single detail of OS X...

Drag and drop application installation...
Drag and drop between desktop and application and application to application and both in conjunction with Expose...
Text, fonts, spellchecking(could spend an entire day just on that one vast area alone)...
Even just basic functionality like a standard way for app notifications to the user

An OS X user could sit in front of an OS X and KDE desktop and generate a list thousands of items long in just simple basic functionality that KDE fails at.

KDE is a shitty and amateurish desktop that is barely functional enough to be used in a locked down business environment where users are limited in what they are allowed or need to do.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

OS-X is so wonderful because Otakus like you are completely deluded. Much of the OS-X functionality is actually less user-friendly than KDE.

For instance there was no way to intuitively of setting a printer into draft mode for quick printing. Come on! The more I use the fruit, the more I like KDE.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[thammoud]

>>What can OS X do that KDE can't?

In the hands of a techie or Joe Blow user?

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[McNihil]

You mean DVD::Rip ?

Maybe not the easiest but still...

http://www.exit1.org/dvdrip/

I still can't understand why people even bother with Windows/Mac anymore for anything.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"What can OS X do that KDE can't?"

Good question, but the wrong question.

The answer is probably... very little if anything. But the right question is:

"What can Ms. Average User EASILY do, without tech support, on OS X that she can't do on KDE?"

The answer is probably... almost everything.

I am a rabid Linux fan, a supporter, and Linux-based systems provide the bulk of my salary. But my attempts at evangelizing the non-technical into using Linux over the years have been dissapointing. For the ultra-unsophisticated user, no problem. You set up a desktop with browser, email, and Open Office links and they are done. For the techies, no problem, we love yum and rpm and chasing down dependencies and all the other great adventures that come with Linux, and we are delighted by the fact that we are locked out of NOTHING by the platform. But between those two extremes, it is indeed pretty bleak compared to the competion from OS-X and (choking) Microslop.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[synthespian]

I agree, in part, with you (although I'm sure the Linux fanboy will mod you down).

Mac OS X has a wonderful GUI, there's no point in arguing that. However, it's somewhat overrated. It does have a lot of bells and whistles, but when I first bought my Mac, I didn't really think it was as intuitive as they say. Or functional. For instance, Safari doesn't hava a fullscreen mode (I get around that using Opera). I miss having 4 diffferent desktops I can just switch to using the keyboard, for instance. Etc. (Maybe things I like having in my FreeBSD?)

OTOH, the wide screen definitely helps the usability factor - and this has nothing to do with Aqua vs. KDE. It's a design choice by Apple.

KDE is beautiful and very, very functional. Konqueror simply rocks, I love the way it displays all the documents (like PDFs - although I wish you could actually _read_ a paper's first page by passing the mouse over it). Mac OS X doesn't do that (AFAIK, but I still have to RTFM - but it should do that as default behaviour). KDE is cluttered, but all it takes is some commmon sense in order to provide the user with the "correct minimal."

Now, GNOME is just stupid: outdated human interface guidelines; two bars that just make you waste vertical space; not tweakable enough. And slow (I mean, Object Oriented programming in C has got to be slow, right?). Pretty, but...

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what why not SHOW us?
The code is there GO FOR IT!

Oh yeah I see you probibly don't even code.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[drsmithy]

What can OS X do that KDE can't?

Convince developers they *don't* know better.

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Fahrenheit 450]

For instance there was no way to intuitively of setting a printer into draft mode for quick printing. Come on!

Go to print anything. When the sheet drops down, use the third selection list to set the options the way you want them for draft printing. Once you have what you think is a good combination for drafts, use the second selection list (Presets) and select "Save as..." Choose an appropriate name, like "Draft". Now, whenever you want to print something in draft mode, just select "Draft" from the list of presets (if it wasn't already set as the current mode). And if you want to set up a 2-up draft mode with a hairline border around the subpages, that defaults to 3 collated copies and a cover page, set one of those up as well.

Now then, I suppose I could ask you why it's easier to install gvim on OS X than it is on Ubuntu...

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are most angry posters such bad spellers?

Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux

[klubar]

I believe the answer would be run MS Office. Love it or (more likely) hate it, Office is pretty much a requirement. If you want to take work home, edit school work, Office is pretty much a necessity. Yes, there are functional alternatives like Open Office, but it just isn't the same (fonts shift, line breaks change) and there isn't anything like PowerPoint. Office is so damn cheap (about $130 for the student/teacher version) and about $200 (bundled with new computer) for the Small business versions it's hard to compete with.

Wishful Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You get what you pay for. It's free and no one makes money from it. It is wishful thinking to expect Gnome or KDE to beat the real money that M$ and Apple spends on their systems.

Re:Wishful Thing

[daskinil]

At least with KDE 4, I can finally get truly free software, not - its free if you use our free OS. I love the idea of building a desktop OS that's multiplatform and X11 independant. I plan on compiling standalone apps like kate to run on my Vista computer. Its truly the best of both worlds.

Re:Wishful Thing

[wdnspoon]

"You get what you pay for"? I cannot imagine a bromide that's been refuted more often by people on Slashdot than that one. People do productive work because they're given incentives. Money is a common one. In the case of a desktop environment, there is an incentive to get these systems to work well: the people who are running them are the same people who are programming them. If there's any one force that would counter this incentive, it's that the people who are attracted to Linux are interested in it for other reasons than having a user-friendly desktop; development for the desktop becomes a secondary goal. Therefore, it's a matter of the demands of people who run Linux and not a matter of lack of money. You see the exact same thing on commercial platforms which are geared towards a similar demographic -- notice how little interest there is in 'desktop-Solaris' or 'desktop-AIX'.

Re:Wishful Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's put it this way and see if you agree with me this time. Not enough people get incentives (money) enough to put in the many, many hours of effort required to make Gnome or KDE as good (intuitive, slick, easy to use, attractive) as what you get in OSX and Vista. While the Vista and OSX interfaces have dozens (or hundreds?) of programmers working many hours a day, Gnome/KDE probably get a handful working part time. So there's many times more man-hours put into the Vista/OSX interfaces than in Gnome/KDE. Also, because the people working on Vista/OSX work for the same company and very likely at the same place, there's more coordination and cohesion in the effort. And it all shows up in the final products and that's why most people will prefer the Vista/OSX interfaces to Gnome/KDE. To deny this obvious fact supported by overwhelming evidence would be like saying "Stay the course" and "We are not winning, we are not losing" when when almost everyone else has already given up.

Lord, I hope it hasn't...

[purduephotog]

... as I'm just setting up my first 'official' linux box for someone. This person has never owned a computer and professes to know about 10% on how to use one, so I'm going to toss Ubuntu on it and hope for the best.

Of course, I'm guessing they won't even have 'net connections unless they can leach off their neighbors- doubtful- so who knows for certain how much they'll use it for. Even if I have a winmodem that will still function after 8 years of idle sitting (static bags, yes...) I hear there aren't any drivers for them.

So yes, I hope the linux desktop growing somewhat- there's definately room to improve on Windows and a little competition never hurt anybody.

Re:Lord, I hope it hasn't...

[Enderandrew]

I don't want to start a flame-fest, but I know Ubuntu has become the default distro for so many as the place to start. Many love it, and I'm not here to start a war, but please understand it certainly isn't the only distro out there. In my opinion it is far from the best one either.

My only advice is to look around at least towards the major ones and understand which one is right for you.

Re:Lord, I hope it hasn't...

[aNTwNHs]

... as I'm just setting up my first 'official' linux box for someone. This person has never owned a computer and professes to know about 10% on how to use one, so I'm going to toss Ubuntu on it and hope for the best.

That was exactly the case with my younger sister. We use the same box that dual boots Ubuntu edgy and Windows XP. I reboot in Windows only to use Dreamweaver. She just finds windows desktop too complex compared to linux and never uses it. So, I really think that for people with no previous exprerience, linux is an easy choice.

Overreacting some?

[SumeyDevil]

The voice inside my head tells me that it's wrong to make inferences and predictions on the general trend of desktop Linux based solely on the development of the WINDOW MANAGER.

Re:Overreacting some?

[AKAImBatman]

it's wrong to make inferences and predictions based solely on the WINDOW MANAGER.

No one is talking about Metacity. They're talking about the GNOME Desktop Environment, a complete desktop shell and software bundle.

Re:Overreacting some?

[javilon]

That is absolutely right.

Now we have HAL, DBUS, udev, beagle and xorg composite extension.

If you put all of this things together the desktop experience is much improved.
Also, many of this things result in the same sort of functionalities that have appeared in OSX and Vista, but they dont necessary belong to KDE or GNOME.

Re:Overreacting some?

[hal9000(jr)]

Yeah, but the Window Manager is the fist thing people see. I think the Window paradigm sucks in general and I don't have a suggestion for anything better, but unfortunatly, that is where the market is. It is difficult for most non-techies users to convert from Windows to MacOSX, which are actually pretty similar. The current crop of windows managers fir Linux are sufficiently different to make the transition even more difficult.

Sorry man.

Re:Overreacting some?

[Bastian]

You're right, that is a little bit off. Much better to make inferences on the general trend of desktop Linux based on the sole development being window managers.

Comparing 6 years ago to today, Linux has made just about zero progress on improving user experience when it comes to hardware configuration, software installation, and system maintenance. (You know, the stuff that people who are honestly evaluating Linux as a desktop OS always complain about.) The only thing I've really seen move forward is the desktop environments, and even then the only one I've seen make what I'd personally call a whole lot of valuable progress is Xfce. Every time I take another look at GNOME or KDE my first thought is "Meh, I already have a Windows box."

I can't help but think that the past several years of Linux-on-the-desktop development are best described as "cargo cult OS design." Great strides have been made in making the whole mess look similar to the two most popular OSes, but nobody has grasped the real nature of the problem: It still behaves like Unix.

Re:Overreacting some?

[dpilot]

No, they MUST be right. Because this means Microsoft has WON, and every time Microsoft WINS it means that they have WON FOREVER!! Competition need not apply.

Face it, Linux' opportunity has now been officially pronounced to have come and gone, so now it's Microsoft and ONLY Microsoft.

After all, their street address is One Microsoft Way!

It's more than just a street address, it's a prophecy!

Re:Overreacting some?

[ronanbear]

I don't think OSX is that hard to use or to migrate to. Some things are tricky to find at first but you get used to it very quickly. Sure there are bad habits like putting everything in the dock etc.

I've often wondered why so much development work going into making desktops on Linux work like Windows when there's a fairly broad consensus that OSX does a better job. I know there have been some efforts but they remain relatively small. People have the choice to use windows or linux but you can't install OSX on any computer.

Re:Overreacting some?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite sure what you are talking about. There are more drivers, better drivers, and in several cases hardware meant for windows machines only work in linux(I'm looking at you Logitech, fix your bluetooth driver, and make microsoft fix thiers). It's a ton easier to config the kernel.

There are more easy config systems than before.

Your reason for switching should be exactly that it looks like another windows/similar desktop, then you don't have to pay for the next windows.

How is that it behaves like UNIX a problem? Don't even respond unless you can answer this.

Re:Overreacting some?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is difficult for most non-techies users to convert from Windows to MacOSX, which are actually pretty similar. The current crop of windows managers fir Linux are sufficiently different to make the transition even more difficult.

I would think Linux is easier to transition to than OS X. At least with Gnome and KDE, things are very similar to Windows: the way the "windows" works (menu placement, minimize/maximize, taskbar), the right-click menus, keyboard shortcuts, start menu, etc. On OS X, all these things are very different.

I recently talked to a non-techie about her recent attempt to switch from Windows to Mac. She was having a hard time because it was so different. She cited things that she knew how to do in Windows weren't obvious in OS X. Simple things like copy/paste, the right-click menu, etc she couldn't understand why it was so complicated to in OS X. She said she thought that "Mac's are made for smart people" and that she needed to take classes to learn how to use it. That was surprising considering all the hype that Macs get for being easy to use for non-techies. Not easy for non-techies with a Windows background. I wondered how she would do with Linux desktop running Gnome or KDE. Probably much better than with OS X.

Re:Overreacting some?

[reub2000]

Have you used KDE? It's like a carbon copy of the windows desktop. Except Konqueror is soo much better than Internet Explorer.

Re:Overreacting some?

[businessnerd]

Comparing 6 years ago to today, Linux has made just about zero progress on improving user experience when it comes to hardware configuration, software installation, and system maintenance.

What are you smoking? I started using Linux three years ago and the number of improvements are endless as far as user experience is concerned. When I began with Fedora Core 2, installing software was a pain in the ass. Yum was still frowned upon so it was all up to the RPM. Hunting down the packages on various sites and then hunting once again for their dependencies, and the dependency's dependencies, and so on. Now, in the Fedora realm, not only do you have a very functional Yum that takes care of all of the dependency issues and keeps things up to date, but there are GUI versions. Even still, in FC2, if you double clicked on a RPM file in GNOME, you got an error message. Now, it brings up a GUI RPM installer. When I began with FC2, getting my sound card to work was next to impossible and took hours. Now, thanks to ALSA being built directly into the kernel, it works right out of the box. Then enter Ubuntu, and the entire user experience is even more improved, from driver issues, to critical software updates. If I had started using Linux 6 years ago, I probably would not have gotten too far and gone back to Windows very quickly. I came in at a time where there was the beginnings of usability, and now, only three years later, I almost have the grumpy old man attitude of "In MY day, we didn't have your fancing package management systems that easily installed your software. We had to bother with dependencies, AND WE LIKED IT! You kids have it way to easy!"

Re:Overreacting some?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point.

Another thing I wonder is: what if the whole "development paradigm"
of releasing software in clumps called "major releases" is itself
obsolete?

Consider that major releases of any software system are virtually
guaranteed (in practice) to be incompatible with previous releases;
consider the time between major releases; consider the addition of
new features (that end-users don't understand and didn't ask for)
in each new release -- the new features that are in there just so
that the developers / vendors can pretend that the new release was
worth doing.

An alternative:

Maybe an incremental pattern of development, with small releases
driven by customer feedback, with the software structure emphasizes
modularity and backward-compatibility, would be more cost-effective
for the end-user?

Ultimately, the reason why you make software for someone else to use, [
is so that the someone-else can actually get some utility from it. This
is true whether the software is commercial or not. Some software production
companies / groups think there are primary reasons to make software for
public consumption, but I think time will prove them wrong, in the long run.

Just thinking out loud.

Re:Overreacting some?

[drinkypoo]

Compositing only makes it prettier. So far however it actually decreases the user experience in terms of speed and ease of use. I installed beryl on Ubuntu Edgy on a Compaq nw9440, which is a Core Duo T2600 with a Nvidia QuadroFX 256MB. It's way sexy, but frankly it makes things a bit slower and I tried playing Oolite and it was stuttery and jerky. I am using beryl on a day to day basis (well, as often as I use Linux anyway; I boot into Windows XP for most of my work, so I can run Crystal Reports for example) but if I want to play a game I have to switch sessions and bring up my normal gnome desktop (or something even lighter, but why bother, I have 2GB RAM.)

Re:Overreacting some?

[drinkypoo]

Comparing 6 years ago to today, Linux has made just about zero progress on improving user experience when it comes to hardware configuration, software installation, and system maintenance.

I strongly disagree. I just downloaded an autopackage on Ubuntu and it actually installed autopackage for me, then installed itself, and gave me an icon to manage autopackage with. That's zero progress? Not to mention that Ubuntu has the sexy little update mangler that really does make updating easier.

This isn't to say that there isn't vast room for improvement. As for the OS level packages on Ubuntu, apt needs a lot of help still. It needs a more intelligent downloader, so that it can make use of its ability to download multiple packages at once. It needs to be asynchronous, so that it will install packages as soon as it has downloaded them. And it needs to be able to handle doing multiple installs at once; it will have to know when two packages will collide if you attempt it, so it can defer the second one, perhaps installing some other package for which it has all the files. I know even Windows doesn't really support two installs at once but it's a horrible drag if I'm doing a dist-upgrade and I find I need to install some teeny little utility right now.

Hardware configuration is so much better today, I don't know where to start talking about it. Over the last few years I've gone from having to do something to not having to do anything.

Finally, System maintenance is the area where it needs the least help, although an automatic fsck -y would be a good idea for the average user, so long as there's an easy way to change it. Windows and OSX both need more help here than Linux does.

Re:Overreacting some?

[Macka]

And how many of those technologies are production ready? How many are developed and stable enough to deserve a v1.x moniker?

When they are fully integrated with KDE/Gnome, and are as ubiquitous in the distro's as KDE or Gnome themselves, or Apache, or MySQL; then you can justifiably say "Now we have ....", but not before.

Re:Overreacting some?

[Jesus_666]

It really depends on how ingrained you are in your using habits. I went from the C64 to DOS to every single Windows between 3.11 and XP (except for Me, thankfully). Then I went to Linux and had to relearn pretty much everything, making my first steps really hard.
About a year I got an iBook and had to learn OS X. It was a snap. Most of everything was very intuitive and even the parts that weren't usually made sense, so I could memorize them quickly. However, I was used to anaylzing an OS, finding out how it's supposed to be operated and adapting to that.

OTOH, many people who never used anything before Windows XP only know that and can only use their knowledge of XP to navigate other OSes. Of course they have a hard time doing things when they don't know how to abstract the OS's features and expect things to work like they do in XP. Getting rid of the old habits and learning how to do things differnetly can be quite hard.

That's why I advocate getting people in contact with as many different OSes as possible while they're young. They don't even need to be fluent in all of them, they just need to learn how to do the more common tasks so they're able to treat such problems from a more abstract angle later on.

Re:Overreacting some?

[JonathanBoyd]

I recently talked to a non-techie about her recent attempt to switch from Windows to Mac. She was having a hard time because it was so different. She cited things that she knew how to do in Windows weren't obvious in OS X. Simple things like copy/paste,

She seriously found the transition from CMD-C to CTRL-C hard? If someone can't manage that, I wouldn't want them anywhere near Linux.

the right-click menu,

What's harder about this in Mac OS X? You right-click and up comes a contextual menu... just like in Windows.

Atually a lot of differences you mention come down to using a key in a slightly different position, or window controls on the opposite side of the window. A lot of people manage to get by okay driving in cars with controls in slightly different places, or driving on a different side of the road when they go to another country. If people can manage that okay, what should be so hard about CMD vs. CTRL, window controls on the left instead of the right or menus on the topof the screen instead of the top of the window?

Re:Overreacting some?

[JonathanBoyd]

Finally, System maintenance is the area where it needs the least help, although an automatic fsck -y would be a good idea for the average user, so long as there's an easy way to change it. Windows and OSX both need more help here than Linux does.

I'm curious, what is it you tihnk Linux does better than Mac OS X re: system maintenance? Mac OS X does an automatic fsck on startup if necessary, runs automated maintenance scripts at scheduled times and automatically defrags files when they're accessed.

Re:Overreacting some?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds great.

Let's call it "svn update ./configure make su make install".

Re:Overreacting some?

[Bastian]

Honestly, given my experience, you haven't listed anything that Linux wasn't doing six years ago. Yes, a GUI was thrown on top of package management, but package managers that take care of dependencies for you have been around since the Linux stone age; it's just a relatively new thing for the RPM-based side of the distro world.

Hardware configuration, again, a GUI was thrown on top of it, but that is all.

So I don't really take your list as a counter-argument because, like I said, the only improvements have been in terms of GUI. There are still fundamental issues with the way Linux work that need to be addressed. Some of it is technically easy and we just need to agree to standardize on it. For example, unless distros have changed a lot in the past year (haven't updated to the latest version of anything in about that long; I usually use FreeBSD), then there's still a bit of an issue with handling binary kernel modules; sometimes a module that is compiled for one version of the kernel won't work with others. A year ago I had to compile a module to get my network card working. This isn't a simple case of there not being support - my card isn't too common, but it is supported, so there is no reason why I should _ever_ have to do this, no matter how uncommon the card is.

The arrangement of data on the filesystem is another issue. I don't care how much progress the various desktop environments have made in smoothing over the directory tree, it still manages to show up and confuse my mother (who I have running Ubuntu on her computer) every so often. Linux could take a huge cue from Mac OS X on this front.

Ridiculous...

[garion888]

"Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat..." Ridiculous...It's nothing more than OS X with a new coat...

Re:Ridiculous...

[TheWanderingHermit]

Close.

It's Windows XP with a new OS X coat.

Re:Ridiculous...

[theMerovingian]

Does it look like this?

Re:Ridiculous...

[theMerovingian]

Curses, my link didn't work

Re:Ridiculous...

[sgholt]

"Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat..."

hmmm...who's the fanboy here...???

Re:Ridiculous...

[NickFortune]

I thought it was XP with a new coat of paint, and new and shiny DRM thrown in. And without so much stuff that actually works.

Re:Ridiculous...

[garion888]

Congratulations...you're "Didn't Get The Bit Guy"...I don't even own a mac...

Re:Ridiculous...

[3dr]

Vista: Atrocious licensing extortion, no definite technical benefit, and a glitzy UI. Five years and a rewrite for what? I'd hate to have been working on any part of that (hmm, /me remembering the article about the developer who worked on the shutdown option for a year...).

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This makes it worse than XP which was worse than W2K.

Re:Ridiculous...

[armchair99]

...but the Emperor has no clothes!

Re:Ridiculous...

[Frumious Wombat]

No, it's OS-X with burlap underwear.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Laebshade]

No no, it's more like "OSX with glasses".

XP with a new coat? Nonsense!

[SuperKendall]

Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case,

I absolutley agree - it's a copy of Tiger!

GNOME less random than it appears

[wdnspoon]

On the surface, one may look at GNOMEs development model and believe it to be nothing but random additions by random people. To me, I can see some method in it. When you have such a level of openness taking place, you will end up with a system that's completely reactive to additions in commercial products. GNOME is not stagnant, but simply reactive to changes in the major desktop systems (Windows, OSX). Yes Microsoft has "already" released Vista -- it is a matter of time before those in the GNOME community see things they like in Vista, and incorporate their favorite ideas into GNOME.

Re:GNOME less random than it appears

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget Vista, maybe they can incorporate some basic stuff. Like maybe the difference between hidden and backup files? And how some people might like to see one on their desktop but not the other? I've been waiting *forever* for Gnome to get a clue about that! How many versions and they still can't get it right?

Re:GNOME less random than it appears

[DragonWriter]

Yes Microsoft has "already" released Vista -- it is a matter of time before those in the GNOME community see things they like in Vista, and incorporate their favorite ideas into GNOME.

Yeah. I mean, in a few years, there will be 3D-accelerated desktops for GNOME, following on Vista's lead with Aero, right?

Rename please...

[D-Cypell]

In the interests of continuity, could someone please retitle this story as, "Could 2007 be the year of Linux on the desktop?".

The change in emphasis shouldn't be a problem, by now we are all experienced enough to know the answer.

Re:Rename please...

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Could 2007 be the year of Linux on the desktop?".

No.

Vista and OS X are light years away (as in better).

Re:Rename please...

[Anonymous Coward]

for (year=1997 /* approximately */; year==HELL_FREEZES_OVER; year++) {
        slashdot_article("Could %4.4U be the year of Linux on the desktop?",year) }

Re:Rename please...

[_Sprocket_]

In the interests of continuity, could someone please retitle this story as, "Could 2007 be the year of Linux on the desktop?".

Every year, there's a slew of folks here that like to bandy around the "year of the Linux desktop" line. It always has the air of some sort of criticism. There's some implication that it was supposed to be already, has yet to happen, and never will.

What gets me is... what exactly is the phrase supposed to mean? Are we all supposed to wake up one morning and find Linux running on our desktops; a gift from some Open Source Santa or the result of midnight toiling by Linux elves? And who exactly has set the goal that this will happen in any given year?

This is all appears to be some fantasy strawman constructed for the amusement of Linux critics. Sure - Linux isn't for everyone. But for me, the "year of the Linux Desktop" was somewhere between 1998 when I first started using it as a desktop to 2000 when I realized I just wasn't using my Windows partition and deleted it. Since then I see Linux desktops showing up more often. I'm not alone.

Granted - Linux isn't an immediate threat to Window's traditional stronghold. Just ask Apple and IBM what its like to compete against Microsoft's marketing and network effect. But that hardly means that Linux isn't viable - just as OS X is also a decent choice depending on your needs despite its comparable market share.

So is "Linux on the desktop" going to happen? It already has. But it's not the Big Bang theory that this "question" makes it out to be.

Yes! And I love it!

[harris s newman]

The bubble has burst! Now with compiz/beryl, windoz is an antiquated, patched together qui! If you haven't seen what compiz/beryl offers the desktop, go to youtube and look. It simply blows any other gui away (including MAC).

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[MankyD]

I have both installed. Yes, it blows them away. Its fun, stylish, and some of the features even increase my productivity. However they're both horribly unstable. Lots of blank windows, crashes, freezes, and random quirks. They have a ways to go before they actually surpass windows and mac for production environments.

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[miyako]

I run XGL and the latest SVN build of Beryl and I have had very few stability problems with it over all. There are certainly a few bugs that seem to be related to video, but on the whole I would say that Ubuntu with XGL and Beryl is much more stable and responsive than Tiger (although, to be fair, it's also on a faster machine, which could have a lot to do with the responsiveness).

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[Machitis]

I run Fedora Core 6 with Gnome/Beryl, and I have yet to have ANY problems with Beryl on my new machine -- and the effects don't even tax the CPU, unlike the other OSes.

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[just_another_sean]

They have a ways to go before they actually surpass windows and mac for production environments.

I'm assuming you mean Windows XP here. I've been testing/using Vista since the first beta release all the way up to the retail version. If your recomending it for production then you are probably in support and are looking for some extra job security.

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[ardor]

Try some complex GL demos from Humus (www.humus.ca). Running them in Beryl freezes the machine using the nvidia 9631 drivers (no XGL/AIGLX, they are not needed because the driver handles this by itself).

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[drinkypoo]

I put beryl (1.3something) on my Ubuntu system and it seems very stable, but it DOES have problems. For example if I run an OpenGL game it stutters, meaning that beryl is too aggressive about using the GPU. It should be smart enough to know when the GPU is being utilized and be more gentle. Mind you, I had the game full-screened and it was still choking. This is with the latest greatest nvidia drivers that Ubuntu doesn't install, too, you need a third party repo. But then you need a third party repo just to install beryl/emerald.

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[Jugalator]

My test install of Vista has no problems here, and I have to wonder if you're talking about the driver / third party software immaturity problem? It's been as rock solid as Windows XP get the few weeks I've tried it anyway, but then again, I haven't tried installing third party drivers yet, besides some beta Creative ones. I'll give them to January - February 2007 before starting to seriously mess with those things, because that seems to be the unofficial roadmap of many driver devs.

Re:Yes! And I love it!

[Ant P.]

I had exactly the stability problems you describe... until I replaced my GeForce FX 5200 with a Radeon 9250.

A Few Things

[MankyD]

1) Simple Hardware Support. I know this moves beyond the desktop environment and into kernel type stuff, but I want the desktop to pop up and say "You have new hardware" and then guide me along the correct path towards setting it up. This is really more of a service, perhaps one provided through a closesly monitored and updated website.

2) Better QA for all end products. Most of the time, I'm quite happy with gnome. Its the features and addons and enhancements that I add that don't always play nice. Perhaps a documented UI standard that other developers can adhere to, and a simple set of interface libraries that make desktop environment integration brainless for basic tasks. Maybe this stuff already, but for whatever reason, a lot of OS desktop software seems to be of poor quality and stability (major players excluded.)

Re:A Few Things

[Anonymous Coward]

2000 called. They want their complaint back. Most USB and PCI devices just automatically work not; there's no "correct path towards setting it up" since it's set up within seconds of plugging it in.

Re:A Few Things

[Anonymous Coward]

2000 called. They want their complaint back. Most USB and PCI devices just automatically work not; there's no "correct path towards setting it up" since it's set up within seconds of plugging it in.

Really? Then can you please tell me how I can get anything more than 800 x 600 resolution on my dual core Dell GX620 with GMA950 graphics without having to search all over the Internet and compile XFree86? And snide remarks about how I shouldn't have purchased a Dell in the first place won't change the fact that this is a problem with Linux

Re:A Few Things

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a problem with Windows too. On a fresh install of XP I'm usually stuck at something like 640x480 w/256 color until I can go to the nvidia website and get drivers.
Certainly there are valid complaints against Linux, but in this case you'll have to do better.

Re:A Few Things

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a problem with Windows too. On a fresh install of XP I'm usually stuck at something like 640x480 w/256 color until I can go to the nvidia website and get drivers.

Dell ships the necessary Windows driver with the system. Or I can go and download it from their website. However I cannot find a Linux driver for this system on their support site. Nor can I find one on the Internet...I've looked, and looked, and looked. Then I looked some more. And after that some more. The only thing I've been able to find are references to compiling my own version of X. Sorry...that's not going to cut it with the majority of people.

Certainly there are valid complaints against Linux, but in this case you'll have to do better.

If I don't have a point then you'll be providing a link to where I can download an easy to install Linux driver? I'm using RHEL version 3 update 8. If you can't point me to a driver then my complain is valid.

Re:A Few Things

[krmt]

Xorg is still broken in this regard. Happily, the new randr that's currently being worked on will begin to fix finally. Look for driver support to start appearing for it in the Xorg 7.3 release.

Re:A Few Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Xorg is still broken in this regard. Happily, the new randr that's currently being worked on will begin to fix finally. Look for driver support to start appearing for it in the Xorg 7.3 release.

Thanks for the information. However I fully expected that at some point in the future this would be resolved. Eventually Linux catches up for the most popular hardware. But as of today, at the tail end of 2006, it is a problem. A problem that did not stop back in 2000 as the original parent I responded to indicated. It's a valid concern when running Linux.

Re:A Few Things

[DragonWriter]

If I don't have a point then you'll be providing a link to where I can download an easy to install Linux driver? I'm using RHEL version 3 update 8. If you can't point me to a driver then my complain is valid.

Um, you never said what you wanted a driver for. That's kind of a critical point when making this kind of demand.

Closed doors, trashed windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."

An open what?!

I want to mod the article flamebait...

[testadicazzo]

What a pointless article. It's entirely emotional and opinionated. It has nothing to say besides "Linux Suxxors". What the hell?

I don't think there's any point to responding to this, but I feel compelled to put my two cents in. People like to complain about something being "user friendly". I'm actually really tired of that phrase. I don't think Microsoft's stuff is very user friendly. I keeps making me do stupid repetive tasks that cause me carpal tunnel syndrome (from repetetive mouse clicks), keeps making me answer the same stupid questions over and over again, keeps reinstating the stupid sample photos and subdirectories into the one part of the OS that should ostensible by mine (the "My Documents" folder), keeps forcing onerous, impossible to read EULA's on me, keeps preventing me from doing legal things I want to do because they don't want me violating their copyrights... the list goes on.

What most people mean when they say "user friendly" would be better called "newbie friendly", or "neophyte friendly", or maybe "diletante friendly". I use Linux on my desktop becuase it's more friendly to the stuff that I want to do, and for the most part lets me do thing the way I want to do them.

Oh, and nice job calling linux on the desktop a "bubble". As george orwell statet, a writer mixing their metaphors is a sure sign that they aren't actually thinking about what they are writing.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[Otter]

Oh, and nice job calling linux on the desktop a "bubble". As george orwell statet, a writer mixing their metaphors is a sure sign that they aren't actually thinking about what they are writing.

That's arguably a poor metaphor, but it's not a mixed metaphor. "Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Jumped the Shark?" would be a mixed metaphor.

Hey, I'm the last person still coming to work... Come to think of it, aren't we overdue for a slew of "2007 Is Going To Be The Year Of Linux On The Desktop!" stories?

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[edittard]

Come to think of it, aren't we overdue for a slew of "2007 Is Going To Be The Year Of Linux On The Desktop!" stories?

Surely they'd get rejected. After all, they'd just be duplicates, more or less, of the 2006 stories. And the 2005 ones.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[kjart]

It has nothing to say besides "Linux Suxxors"

About as useful as the 'XXXX: year of the Linux desktop' articles that always crop up, which basically have nothing to say other than "Linux Roxxors". That's what editorials are - someone's opinion.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[marcello_dl]

Not bad for a testadicazzo. Back to topic, most people equate easy with familiar. Moreover, they never experienced other OS and they don't even know where the os is in relation to the apps.

Choose whatever UI usability metrics you want, compare some working with Office and windows with openoffice and most used linux desktop environments. Even if OO's look is not integrated at all with the desktop it works with, Office is far less rewarding in terms of user experience. Yesterday i was asked to do something about an office document containing a form, so with editing locked out. No feedback whatsoever. I fixed that by going around what i thought relevant options were, apparently changing nothing, but something was evidently changed because the doc become editable. Come on.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[abaddononion]

Oh man. I laughed so hard at "Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Jumped the Shark?", that I made it my MSN screenname. Might even make it my Slashdot sig, but I havent decided yet. Man that's awesome.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[pcyrsph]

Maybe El Lobo is trying some reverse psychology.

If all of the past articles stating "x is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop" didn't work, then perhaps asking "is it dead?" will finally make it happen. Somehow I don't think the world works like that.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[synthespian]

Yeah. When people say Microsoft is user friendly, what they mean is "it's the only thing I know how to use." Which is easy to explain, once you achieved monopoly status through dirty business practices, and when you give computers to school kids so they can be "indoctrinated" to your stupid, horrible OS (Ok, so Vista's beautiful, I'm glad).

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[eln]

Whoa...being a duplicate can cause a story to be rejected on Slashdot now? When did that happen?

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[MollyB]

I use Linux on my desktop becuase it's more friendly to the stuff that I want to do, and for the most part lets me do thing the way I want to do them.

Agreed. Having just resurrected my laptop with SuSE 9.1 and KDE 3.2 installed, and even though it is somewhat dated, it is much nicer than my windows desktop. It occasionally freezes up, but I'm sure I haven't tweaked the right "knobs" yet.

Exactly what does development (or simply more bells and whistles) do but supplant but an already workable system? Isn't it possible to appreciate what you currently have versus whatever vaporware is the current buzz?

Another thing: it seems somewhat churlish to knock the linux desktop when it didn't cost you anything; if OS X users want to compare, that's fine, but recall that money changed hands for expensive equipment and software. If the advantage is to your liking then it is worth it. For the rest of us, there's a cheap way to get linux functionality, even if the interface is not cutting-edge.
Happy Festivus

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[ZTiger]

I've been in user support for 10+ years and I've always wondered about the term "user friendly". I think you are on to something there testadicazzo. I think I'm going to start using "neopyhyte friendly" from now one. I have had no problems with KDE or Gnome, save figuring out how they do some common tasks different from Windows or Max OS X. I wish there was more administrative tools besides command line and knowing the documentation for trying to setup a common environment for all users of a computer but Windows isn't much different in that regard.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[jellomizer]

Yet you are part of the reason why Linux is behind Windows and Macintosh for desktop usage. You are ignoring the problems with Linux Desktop systems and just pointing problems with the Windows Systems. You are not proving anything and you are only giving false insight.

Linux has a problem with it UI for Desktop usage. There is a saying "anything is easy after you know how to do it" Guess what most people know how to use Windows so Windows is easy Linux desktop is different so the say it is hard, these people also think OS X Interface is hard too, but less so then Linux because Microsoft tends to copy much of what OS X does so they are more familiar with it.
They can be very smart people, smarter then any one of us possibly. And still have trouble with Linux UI because is is so poorly designed. There are some simple things that can be changed in Linux that can make it more User Friendly, but because they don't want to admit Linux is flawed that called these changes as "Dumbing Down" or say that is why the old way is great.

Here are some simple fixes.
Give good names to the features. Give programs names that anyone know what they are.
for example GIMP -> Graphics Editor or Photo Processor. Most people don't care if the program is GNU or not or if it is a native K application or Gnome application. So Just give the program a name that we know what it is. If they want to know what it actual program is so they can get new versions outside the distribution There is a Help -> About Appname to get the real name and the version.
Which leads to the next problem...
Common Menus. Menus need to be in a familiar order. File, Edit, View, Tools, Help. Are common command to change settings they can go to Tools -> Options to reconfigure the program for user settings. If the program has a GUI interface there should be a GUI front end to editing the configurations.

Easy installation of programs. The tools out there for installing apps are great for server use. But for desktop use they are a big pain. Things like install the application and the Icon to the application is in the GUI menu, with the correct icon. Desktop users shouldn't need to hunt down dependencies to get the application to work nor can you assume your application will be part of the distribution list) People want to go the web site download a program and run it.

Setting up extra hardware. Even if the person does some quick research to see if the hardware is supported by Linux. Plugging it in doesn't mean it will do anything. OS X and Windows when you plug in a camera or other hardware will load a default application which you can change who the default it. Or at the very least pop up an icon for that device. vs. Plugging in a device and gussing what one of my thousand entries in /dev is this device.

Linux has stalled, in the desktop and Linux developers and supporters are failing to see this. Dismissing the problem, or insulting the people who point out the problems doesn't fix it.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[turbofisk]

There is a difference between user friendly and being newbie friendly. Your point of windows is probably on target, however: Windows has a lot of good features, which are not implemented to x11. For one thing, what's up with automatically copying something you mark with the mouse? Maybe I wanted to remove that text, not copy it? "Sorry, that's X11 - the window manager can't do diddle squat about that", is the response I've gotten so far. Oh, and ctrl+c/v, which is supported in some applications don't share the clipboard with the mouse... This alone made me jump ship from linux desktop. Being driven mad when trying to mark a url and remove it from the bar and then paste my new url, just to print the url I just removed from the bar makes me an unhappy being. There are of course a lot of smaller things which make no sense, but this proves my point that while windows and osx are driven from a user-perspective, linux is driven by programmers who have no bloody idea how to make something user friendly. (I do however like mouse-copying when I'm in a terminal)

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[uglyduckling]

I'm not sure whether you're genuine or trolling, but I'll bite...

Yet you are part of the reason why Linux is behind Windows and Macintosh for desktop usage. You are ignoring the problems with Linux Desktop systems and just pointing problems with the Windows Systems. You are not proving anything and you are only giving false insight.

He wasn't just pointing out Windows' problems - he/she was pointing out things that he finds a problem in Windows that aren't a problem in Linux. I happen to agree with the parent - a lot of the 'friendly' features of Windows are, to the intermediate or expert user, simply irritating, limiting and frankly inane. I use Ubuntu on the desktop and it does ask me questions through the GUI but usually only when it's essential and once I've answered once it will remember and not ask again.

Linux has a problem with it UI for Desktop usage. There is a saying "anything is easy after you know how to do it" Guess what most people know how to use Windows so Windows is easy Linux desktop is different so the say it is hard, these people also think OS X Interface is hard too, but less so then Linux because Microsoft tends to copy much of what OS X does so they are more familiar with it. [snip] The saying 'anything is easy after you know how to do it' is rubbish. Sure, it's a bit easier (by definition) but poorly designed UIs are still a pain. I know how to configure Windows machines to share files using SMB/CIFS but it's certainly not easier, and in fact Samba on Linux does a much better job out of the box. The key interface features on OSX are very different to Windows XP - e.g. how to configure networking, how to copy files from the desktop machine onto removable media, even how to eject a disk. In some instances Gnome or KDE copy Windows or OSX, at other times they use a different system because there's no good exaple to copy - or the designers thought of an even better way. For instance, I think the Save diaglog box in Gnome is far better than the Windows equivalent.

Here are some simple fixes. Give good names to the features. Give programs names that anyone know what they are. for example GIMP -> Graphics Editor or Photo Processor. Most people don't care if the program is GNU or not or if it is a native K application or Gnome application. So Just give the program a name that we know what it is. If they want to know what it actual program is so they can get new versions outside the distribution There is a Help -> About Appname to get the real name and the version. Which leads to the next problem... Common Menus. Menus need to be in a familiar order. File, Edit, View, Tools, Help. Are common command to change settings they can go to Tools -> Options to reconfigure the program for user settings. If the program has a GUI interface there should be a GUI front end to editing the configurations.

Well, OK, but that's not a Linux problem per se, that's an application problem. The confusion is that you're used to getting hundreds of applications with a Linux distro, which is a good thing, but expecting every single one to be perfect. If you fill your Windows box up with freeware or shareware of variable quality you will see all sorts of UI problems. Most decent Linux distros will make sure that the key applications that are part of their default install follow the UI guidelines (which I know Gnome publish, not sure about KDE). Even well established commercial applications have problems e.g. why is 'page setup' on the 'file' menu in Word? It should be on the 'format' menu. Maybe this is fixed in the latest release?

As far as naming packages goes, that's something that's down to the distro, and I'm sure each distro would be open to suggestions. Don't forget that 'Excel' doesn't mean anything, nor does 'Powerpoint'. 'Photoshop' is fairly obvious, 'Dreamweaver' not quite so.

Easy installation of programs. The tools out there for installing apps are great for server use. But fo

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[uglyduckling]

For one thing, what's up with automatically copying something you mark with the mouse? Maybe I wanted to remove that text, not copy it?... Oh, and ctrl+c/v, which is supported in some applications don't share the clipboard with the mouse... This alone made me jump ship from linux desktop. Being driven mad when trying to mark a url and remove it from the bar and then paste my new url, just to print the url I just removed from the bar makes me an unhappy being... but this proves my point that while windows and osx are driven from a user-perspective, linux is driven by programmers who have no bloody idea how to make something user friendly.

Actually, that really just proves the point that what you're used to seems to be 'friendly'. I'm very used to select and paste, and I start swearing at the computer for the first few minuutes browsing on Windows before I remember that I can't just highlight some text then middle-click in another app to paste it, and have to waste time with an extra keypress.

BTW, to do what you mentioned, treat it just like Windows - ctrl-c copy the URL, highlight the bit you want to replace, then crtl-v paste. The select-and-paste thing is just a shortcut, if you don't like it, don't use it. Welcome to X11!

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[massysett]

People want to go the web site download a program and run it.

That's what they've been trained to do because with Windows, that's their only option. In my experience, a package manager is a much easier way to install the best software.

But for the sake of argument I'll assume you're right. I still don't see the problem. One can download Linux versions for Skype, Yahoo Messenger, Google Earth, Softmaker, and Moneydance, to name a few. Run the Windows-like installer, and the app is installed and ready to use.

Or at the very least pop up an icon for that device.

KDE and GNOME have done this for awhile now.

Menus need to be in a familiar order.

I agree wholeheartedly. I wish Windows devs would take that advice too. Often they jumble menus around or, in an attempt to be cutesy or innovative, they dump the menus altogether. But that's no excuse for the Linux apps.

Give programs names that anyone know what they are.

A valid point, though diminished somewhat by my GNOME menu. My editor is called gEdit (which actually is a clear name) but my menu says "Text Editor". Bizarre names haven't stopped adoption of apps like Skype, or Quicken. That said, I do think the name of the GIMP should be changed because people waste time arguing about it. NuImage would be nice.

most people know how to use Windows so Windows is easy

No way. If Windows were so easy, there wouldn't be rows of books about it. QVC wouldn't be selling DVDs to teach Windows use. Computers are complex things, and it takes effort to learn how to use them. If people don't want something complex, then they can buy a CD player instead of downloading music off the Net; they can use a typewriter instead of a word processor; they can send a letter rather than email. Combining all these functions into a single box makes it complex, whether it's Windows, Mac or Linux.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[westlake]

easy to explain, once you achieved monopoly status through dirty business practices

The OEM system install sold PCs in numbers no one had imagined before. It was a license to print money. Those who had their arms twisted were crying all the way to the bank. The end.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[testadicazzo]

Yeah, you're right. I clearly wasn't thinking about what I was writing about...

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[richlv]

Give good names to the features. Give programs names that anyone know what they are.

yes, like... excel. the name itself is not important -

for example GIMP -> Graphics Editor or Photo Processor. Most people don't care if the program is GNU or not or if it is a native K application or Gnome application. So Just give the program a name that we know what it is. If they want to know what it actual program is so they can get new versions outside the distribution There is a Help -> About Appname to get the real name and the version.

...which is exactly what some desktop environments do - at least kde (and i am sure gnome does that, too). take a look at a recent kde menu - depending on how it is setup, it can display name and description. description is exactly what you have suggested - for example, "amarok/audio player", "the gimp/image editor", "firefox/web browser".
it is possible to configure k menu to show one of four variants - name only, description only, name (description, description (name).
some distributions even ship with the default set to "name only", so all you get in your menu is "image editor", "video player", "audio player" etc.

Which leads to the next problem...
Common Menus. Menus need to be in a familiar order. File, Edit, View, Tools, Help. Are common command to change settings they can go to Tools -> Options to reconfigure the program for user settings. If the program has a GUI interface there should be a GUI front end to editing the configurations.

uh. that's the way it is in almost all programs i am using. some exceptions are applications for whom 'file' menu is kinda pointless and so on.

as for tools->options... this quite clearly shows that "i am used to it being that way" is stronger than actual logic or user-friendly behaviour/layout. _why_ should application settings un der tools menu ? is it a tool ?
on linux, this is either edit->preferences or there is a top-level menu "settings", which contains options, keyboard shortcuts and so on.
mozilla family apps, for example, have options/preferences in tools menu in their windows versions (for familiarity even though that is a bad choice), while linux versions have that in "edit" menu.
different situation is with openoffice.org, which has 'options' in 'tools' menu, again - mostly to cater to windows users and their habits.
fortunately, openoffice.org has page setup under "format->page", unlike retarted word way of "file->page setup" or how was that called ;) (if we talk about word converts, it usually goes like this : "hey, where is page setup ? it was in the file menu in word !" - "well, where would be the most logical place where you would look ?" - and it takes a dozen of seconds at most to find "format->page".

Easy installation of programs. The tools out there for installing apps are great for server use. But for desktop use they are a big pain. Things like install the application and the Icon to the application is in the GUI menu, with the correct icon. Desktop users shouldn't need to hunt down dependencies to get the application to work nor can you assume your application will be part of the distribution list) People want to go the web site download a program and run it.

you either are trolling or haven't used linux in at least 5 years indeed...
let me tell you - it goes like this : you open your favorite or shipped package manager; you search for the package you are interested; you click a checkbox next to it. package manager resolves all dependancies and installs them after you click on 'accept' or whatever button.
you get icon in your menu. and that's about it. oh, at most you would have to add additional repository if package you are interested in for some reason is not in the default repo - but most distributions have instructions for doing this that your dog could follow. with

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[AntiDragon]

Better yet, "Windows User Friendly".

The reason you'll never satisfy the masses is because the principals of "User Friendly" bare little relation to the expectations of those Windows Users crying out for it.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of PC users are used to doing things the Windows way. We can argue and scream and shout as much as we like about how wrong the Windows way is, but it's what they know. Introducing one of these people to a new system will always result in some pain or disappointment because *it doesn't work like Windows*. Naturally, the sensible/willing to learn types will adjust and probably be better off for it. But the screams will continue unabated in the mean time.

So if we're interested in improving user friendliness, we have but two choices. Follow proper HCI guidelines and do what we feel is right (but if we do no one will thank us for it) or play pass-the-photocopier with Redmond's view which will satisfy the masses but leave us with a hollow victory.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[RAMMS EIN]

``What most people mean when they say "user friendly" would be better called "newbie friendly", or "neophyte friendly", or maybe "diletante friendly".''

I wish. 9 out of 10 times it just means "works exactly like whatever version of Windows I'm used to". I honestly don't believe that, say, Ubuntu is significantly more difficult to learn than Windows XP. It's just that when you're used to one, everything you know how to do on that system appears to be difficult on the other if it doesn't work exactly the same way.

Re:I want to mod the article flamebait...

[entrigant]

You must still be using the linux from 2002... because last I checked every single negative point you have mentioned has been solved. Perhaps you should read the KDE HIG, or visit openusability.org, or actually install a distribution with automatic dependency resolution. When I plug a flash drive in a window pops up asking me what I want to do with it based on the types of files in it.. automatically. Same with a camera. Plugging a scanner in makes it immediately available to any program that needs to use it.. Perhaps you need to stop using slackware. Perhaps you should visit freedesktop.org or learn what HAL and DBus are... all of these technologies you claim linux is missing not only exist, but work, and work well.

You what now?

[Realistic_Dragon]

When I first got my powerbook OS X was a pretty decent improvement over Linux. A few things were more advanced (especially with the nice hardware support) and I could see why people were defecting in large numbers.

In my experience this has now switched around. There have been no big upgrades (except Beryl) but there have been so many little ones it makes my head hurt. Kubuntu 6.10 on a powerbook looks *better* than the latest release of OS X. All the hardware is supported (including the shut-the-lid-and-it-goes-to-sleep-in-0.5-seconds suspend mode). We have more (useful) 3D effects (blur behind transparency is GODLIKE), more desktop widgets, better support for fonts.

There is better support for advanced networking, connectivity, roaming. There is better support for media, both video aand audio. Hell, there is even better support for the iPod than there is in OS X. The desktop (even with integrated KDE/Gnome) looks more consistent and with window shading, katapult app launcher, better virtual desktop support, sensible ways to organise windows and all of the rest of the features is miles ahead of where it was in 2002.

Up until now there has been no need for a big leap. The incremental improvements have given us the desktop Linux we wanted so badly back in 2002. I'm excited to see what the next generation of innovation will bring (a break from the me-too Windows/OSX style desktops) but Linux today is already cutting edge.

Re:You what now?

[nine-times]

Up until now there has been no need for a big leap.

Can you really have a "big leap" with the Linux development model? With Windows, Microsoft can develop an OS for 5 years and keep lots of things under wraps. When it finally hit's people's desktop, if people like the improvements, there's a big "whoa" factor. There are a whole lot of changes.

But if Windows was open-sourced with no secrets, and had a 6 month release schedule, I suspect it would all feel like a whole lot of little incremental upgrades and bug fixes. There wouldn't be much anticipation or many surprises. The upgrades feel more mundane. Like you said, though, there have been substantial improvements to desktop Linux distros since 2002, but when all those improvements are trickling out every 6 months over a 5 year period, they just don't feel that big.

Re:You what now?

[idonthack]

I've always wondered what Katapult did, and when you mentioned it as being useful I decided to look it up.

It allows the user to quickly launch applications or open files by pressing Alt + space and typing the beginning of the file or application name.

I realized that's exactly the same thing I do with Alt+F2 (Run Command), except the Alt+F2 box is built-in and does more stuff. Katapult just launches applications, Run Command can open web addresses or do searches with the syntax you have defined in Konqueror. For example, to look up Katapult, I hit Alt+F2 and typed "wp: Katapult" and then I had a window with Katapult's Wikipedia entry.
 
So unless there's some unmentioned reason that Katapult completely owns the Run Command box, it's redundant.

Re:You what now?

[Realistic_Dragon]

Katapult is better than run command in (some) cases because it also indexes media, documents and bookmarks. It is also very shiny.

Re:You what now?

[shudde]

It's admittedly OT but I'm wondering if other people find the Kubuntu modifications to Vanilla KDE as annoying as I do.

I've tried to like it but every version of Kubuntu I've played with has horribly broken my normal KDE customizations. The last one I noticed was that having konqueror preserve different directories in multiple tabs is broken, after saving the settings and re-running konqueror you're left with multiple tabs with only the first open to a directory.

If it was just that one example I'd submit a bug report and move on but it seems every time I try to customize KDE, Kubuntu has problems with it. Which leaves me wondering why you'd even fork the distro away from Gnome (which is better suited to people who don't customize their desktop extensively).

Re:You what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to burst your bubble, but Linux and KDE and GNOME are not competitive. Neither is the first choice for developer GUI support over Windows or OS/X. Until a developer states that KDE or GNOME is a priori over OS/X or Windows then it will be time to say it is competitive. Linux is not cutting edge in graphics GUIs. Developers are coding to support Direct X 10 and Video Card Manufacturers are coding and developing their products to support Direct X 10 not KDE or GNOME which don't even provide proper driver support and nothing competitive with Direct X. Video Device support in Linux is attrocious and 3D support varies from unsupported to partially supported. Also Video driver support is provided only with the consent of Nvidea and ATI.

The open source people also are opposed to video driver support unless it is open sourced. Which splits the camp into binary drivers and open sourced drivers which can be buggy. It takes more than just a pretty picture to compete with OS/X and Windows and Direct X. I'd like to ask does Ubuntu support World of Warcraft directly? Hell No. I think your letting your bias get in the way of your objectivity.

Re:You what now?

[grcumb]

With Windows, Microsoft can develop an OS for 5 years and keep lots of things under wraps. When it finally hit's people's desktop, if people like the improvements, there's a big "whoa" factor.

Think of it like sex: Would you rather wait for years to get some on the off-chance that it might be mind-blowing (MS), or would you rather get laid regularly with the guarantee that it's going to be better every time (FOSS)?

Wait a minute - this is slashdot! Forget that analogy. Use... I dunno, something about +5 damage and mages... whatever. I'm outie. Got a hot date with my compiler....

Re:You what now?

[pwhysall]

better support for fonts.

How so?

Re:You what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Video Device support in Linux is attrocious

Make that Video Device support by Video Device manufacturers is atrocious. There....fixed that for you.
It ain't Linux' (who is that anyway?) fault, that people put out hardware but refuse to support it properly for their customers. Especially when they don't even have to write things themselves but only hand specifications over to those willing to do it. Imagine a car that drives everywhere but not on Detroit streets. When Detroit'ers complain, they'd get the lax answer "We don't support Detroit". WTF?! Would you say, Car support in Detroit is atrocious or rather car support *for* Detroit is? It's the manufacturer's who are to blame, nobody else.

Beryl

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Beryl count as a significant improvement in the Desktop area? Granted, it isn't KDE or Gnome, per se, but it does for a beautiful environment.

I disagree

[Enderandrew]

Linux played catch-up not only in market share, but in features for a long time. While we can all agree that Linux generally beats down Windows in reliability and is generally a much better server solution, we're talking about the desktop here. On the desktop, Windows has been much easier to pick up and just work out of the box doing everything a person wants it to do.

While the author of the article feels Linux hasn't grown, I believe it has. It is not only fully on par with Windows, but I feel considerably more feature-rich, easier to install (for some distros), easier to maintain, has better performance, and has gained in two major areas.

1 - Windows app compatibility
2 - Gaming

Linux is very much a viable and reasonable desktop alternative to pretty much anyone on the planet today, where as that hasn't always been the case.

If that isn't significant growth, I'm not sure what is.

And let us not forget the strides that are being made in desktop search (programs like Beagle) and the 3D Desktop like Compwiz. Linux is beginning to innovate, and the big boys are trying to follow suit.

Re:I disagree

[patrick24601]

"It is not only fully on par with Windows"

This almost made me wet myself when I laughed.

I try over and over and over and over to install linux and actually be productive with it. And I can't. Heck - even google does not make their tools for linux. The only reason I use windows is because I can be productive in it. That is the only reason I use any OS. And I want to be productive without have to do builds, worry about packages, worry about dependencies. I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time.

Re:I disagree

[Shelled]

"Linux played catch-up not only in market share, but in features for a long time."

And thank the gods for that. I can't be the only one who thinks Windows 'features' are generally a curse, and quite likely more the result of internal departmental politics than demonstrated user benefit.

Re:I disagree

[Enderandrew]

There are several distros that are easier to install than Windows and work better out of the box.

Have fun being productive when your box is overwhelmed with spyware and viruses.

I'm not this huge Microsoft hater. Those are just the facts.

Re:I disagree

[sobachatina]

"This almost made me wet myself when I laughed."
Your incontinence does not make for a good argument. :)

I agree with you that Linux has weaknesses compared to windows but the things you list as weaknesses I find to be its strengths.

1- "have(sic) to do builds"

I have been installing Linux for years and have not had to build anything for the distros I have installed for the last couple years. Everything is available as binaries. But if I wanted to compile them I could.

2- "worry about packages, worry about dependencies"

This is a very old problem that was solved a long long time ago. Sure RPM hell used to be an impossible headache. I once tried to upgrade gcc without an internet connection- it took me a month. However, all distributions now have package management systems that turn that former problem into a strength. I can't remember the last time I had to find the website of a piece of software I wanted, download it, install and configure it as I have to do with windows. Now I just type 'apt-get the-name-of-the-program' and it is all there and works. If you want to make an arguement for windows this would be a very bad area to pick.

3- "I want to have applications to use to be productive"

There isn't a good rebuttal to this because it is entirely dependent on your personal needs. If you program visual basic full-time I would be forced to agree with you 100%. If you are unwilling to learn how to use an alternative app then that would also make your statement true. I will also agree that there are other very specialized apps that only run in windows and don't work under wine yet. These are rare and I have never needed one. Everything I need to be productive I can find an alternative for in Linux. In fact given the free nature of the software on Linux I have learned how to use a variety of applications that I would never have purchased and learned on windows. Audacity, Blender, or Gimp come to mind. Although they are all available on windows they are often installed by default on some Linux distros. Again what you listed as a weakness I consider a strength.

The tone of your post sounds like you couldn't find an application to do something the way you were used to doing it and gave up. That is fair- there are a lot of specialized apps that don't have adequate replacements yet.

However you said "I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time." This statement just isn't true- the apps that most people use have adequate if not superior replacements.

Linux has many weakness of course. For example the weakness that I encounter the most often are inadequate wireless support. I don't recommend Linux to my friends because of the learning curve although I have had many friends switch to Linux after seeing what I can do with it.

If you were trying to say "Linux is difficult for new users because they don't know what applications to use to be productive." you have a good point and I agree with you. However, listing weaknesses that are in reality strengths and making vague inaccurate statements like "And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time." does Linux a disservice and betrays a bias.

Merry Christmas

Re:I disagree

[_Sprocket_]

I try over and over and over and over to install linux and actually be productive with it. And I can't.

I've used a Linux desktop long enough that I find it difficult to be productive using Windows. Seriously. I've gone out of my way to get a Linux desktop working well in a Windows world at work (easier since less and less is all-Microsoft solutions these days). Now I'm much more happy. And its better than trying to force Windows to behave like Linux.

I suspect you're a long-time Windows power-user. You expect Linux to be Windows. It isn't.

Re:I disagree

[urbanradar]

This almost made me wet myself when I laughed.

I try over and over and over and over to install linux and actually be productive with it. And I can't. Heck - even google does not make their tools for linux. The only reason I use windows is because I can be productive in it. That is the only reason I use any OS. And I want to be productive without have to do builds, worry about packages, worry about dependencies. I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time.

Begone, troll!

I use Linux. When I want to install an application, I open Synaptic, type in the name of the programme I want, click install, done. If I want to install the drivers for my nVidia card, I open Synaptic, search for the driver, click install, done. It hasn't failed me in years, and *never* with my current distro. No worrying about packages, dependencies, and without have [sic] to do builds. And to me, KDE is already a far, far more usable desktop environment than the Windows one. I use PCLinuxOS, but it should be just about the same with any modern, up-to-date distro.

Oh, and if you are having trouble controlling your bladder, you may want to look into getting adult diapers.

This is all BullSh**

[tomtom2006]

My Intel Mac Mini dual boots to Ubuntu's Edgy by default (on the HD). OS X is the 2nd OS on the box, the one I run every now and then. If you look at the menu system systems and layout between Ubuntu's Edgy and Mac OS X, you see a ton of similar features. The UI polish and consistency across applications is there yet, but these systems are far more alike than different. I haven't seen Vista, but the guy at my local computer store said that compbiz running on opengl Linux made Vista look like a turd. My $0.02

Let the flame wars begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought everyone realized by now that Linux is not a desktop? It's a barebones box. It's a bargain-bin discounted piece of hardware you have to assemble yourself to save some money and get it to work the way you want.

Linux is as much a desktop as Mac is a development platform. There's an illusion that you can get things done, but it's all a facade. Windows is the only major platform that is both a good desktop AND a good development platform.

I am an open source developer, Linux SSA, etc so if anything i'm a Linux fanboy, but I don't have any illusions about a Linux desktop. MY Linux desktop is windowmaker on slackware, and I love it, except when it comes to playing games or multimedia or running popular productivity suites (and don't forget downloading movies!)

actually

[theMerovingian]

A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision

Actually gnomes have the ability to see in the infrared spectrum, and get +2 to constitution / -2 to strength.

Re:actually

[xarak]

I was going to rate this a -1 Troll, but then I realised trolls were another character class altogether.

Re:actually

[andphi]

To be more specific, they're another type altogether - Giant as opposed to Humanoid. That and they have +5 level adjustment. Gnome: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gnome.htm Troll: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

.... and responding to off-topic posts like this is really a sign of a bad and uncontrollable hobbit.

Yes, no, maybe

[SatanicPuppy]

Nothing like a little pointless speculation to liven up the day.

The desktop gui's that are available are good enough for most users. The thing that slows adoption is most business' dependence on microsoft's office/email suite...Provide that stuff through terminal services, and no one complains about what the desktop looks like, but then you lose the cost savings, so why not go with windows native?

If online ajax services actually start living up to the hype, and start supplanting Office-type software, you'll see linux on the desktop like you've never even imagined.

What bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/Linux on the desktop is going to still be a slow, but ever forward, moving process. No bubble and no wild "take over the world" marketshare either. Some people will continue to move to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X from MS Windows but not overnight and not everyone. Give it another five plus years.

As for Mac OS X marketshare I see it like owning a really dependable Porche: beautiful workmanship in and out, a dream to drive but at a price just a little bit more than the masses are will to pay. Porche isn't going away anytime soon but they've never have a great marketshare either. (Ok, poor analogy but you get the point.)

Re:What bubble?

[Mathiasdm]

Strange. I remember people saying that about the 'browser wars'.

Re:What bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark this down or whatever.. but this comment has just proven you are an idiot.

Re:What bubble?

[CagedBear]

It does solve one problem. Lowering costs. Linux coupled with slightly outdated hardware provides the means to give someone access to a free (as in beer) computer. It's especially true now that flat panels have taken over and used CRT monitors are everywhere.

OTOH, I once heard a business professor say that competing on price alone is not a sound business strategy. If the Linux install base grows enough, MS is going to counter by giving away Windows in certain situations.

Re:What bubble?

[Electric Eye]

Agreed 110% Outside of geek circles and Linux fanboys, no one really knows or cares about Linux. Ask my parents and they'll look at you cross-eyed. Most IT suits won't buy into it either because of their blind MS loyalties.

And yes, OSX is now king and the need for Linux is virtually non-existent at this point.

Re:What bubble?

[NineNine]

OTOH, I once heard a business professor say that competing on price alone is not a sound business strategy.

He's absolutely right. Linux is in no way a perfect replacement for Windows, hence, companies cannot even give Linux away for free. If it's free, and people still don't want it, then I gotta say that the product is a dud. Linux on the desktop was DOA. I own a business, and I gladly buy all of my software (the only OSS thing we use is VNC, and that's in one tiny instance).

It does solve one problem. Lowering costs.

For who? Windows is *cheap*. It's a few hundred bucks. Big deal.

Re:What bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

> For who? Windows is *cheap*.
> It's a few hundred bucks. Big deal.

That's a paycheck for me or for Microsoft. I know, who I'd rather want to have it :-)

Re:What bubble?

[Reservoir Penguin]

I see, actually if you are s small business under BSA radar it's even free. Now stop thinking small and consider a corporation with tens of thousands of desktops. Even with massive discounts the cost of an OS upgrade alone is in the millions of $$. Add actual useful software and Linux is suddenly starting to look damn good.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much on target with this.

Bah, Humbug.

[Noryungi]

"Linux on the Desktop", to me, is like the "Global Domination" slogan that Linus used a few years back. It's a nice slogan, but we are not there yet. Maybe never. But who cares, as long as people are having fun getting there? I have been interested in, and using Linux since, well, something like 1995. It was a perfectly acceptable desktop then, and it has only improved since.

This article is FUD, pure and simple. "Linux is Dying", "Linux is Insecure", "Linux is a Toy", "Linux is for Hobbyists" and "Linux is a Rabid Communist Terrorist Cancer that will steal your money, destroy the economy, kill your cat, burn your house down and crash your car" are all pseudo-ideas that came, were disproved and disappeared.

These days it's "OMG! Linux is Not Ready for the Desktop!!!". This, too, shall pass. Remember: even Mighty Microsoft, the saviour of the American Economy, has a finger in the Linux pie now. Soon, they will stop screaming and throwing feces at Linux and admit the inevitable: they don't stand a chance.

Re:Bah, Humbug.

[Enderandrew]

I don't think Microsoft will ever say they don't have a chance to compete with Linux on the desktop market, because it can be very hard to reverse market share regardless of the quality of the products.

Microsoft is realizing that Linux and all Unix environments keep becoming more popular in the Server environment. They are trying to stop people from complete migrations away by allowing interoperability, to perhaps keep people using some MS products.

They are also trying to stop the development of certain products for which Microsoft has little competition.

I don't think Microsoft will ever, ever bow down to Linux. But I wouldn't be shocked to see something like Exchange Server run on top of Linux.

Re:Bah, Humbug.

[tsa]

Ten years ago the Linux fans also said that. And ten years from now they will still say it. As long as there is no support for office suits and games by big companies on Linux, it will stay a niche OS. And these companies will only make software for Linux if there is a demand. We're in a viscious circle here...

Re:Bah, Humbug.

[marcosdumay]

"Linux is a Rabid Communist Terrorist Cancer that will steal your money, destroy the economy, kill your cat, burn your house down and crash your car"

Wow, that is quite a noce sig :) If only it had less than 120 chars...

Re:Bah, Humbug.

[DragonWriter]

As long as there is no support for office suits and games by big companies on Linux, it will stay a niche OS.

Sun is a big company. As far as I know, OOo/StarOffice is second (though a distant second) to MS Office in market share among office suites.

"Games" is certainly an issue for the home desktop, but certainly less for the corporate desktop.

Re:Bah, Humbug.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been interested in, and using Linux since, well, something like 1995. It was a perfectly acceptable desktop then

That would be FVWM1, I believe. I actually blogged about that recently:

FVWM, as good as graphical environment as it is (still my environment of choice when using Linux), just isn't going to make millions of people want to rush to buy a new computer.

FVWM is fine, if you don't mind not having desktop icons, needing to edit configuration files by hand to change desktop colors or the list of applications in FVWM's laucher (its form of the "start" menu), and having absolutely no standardization for the interface.

As for predictions: I remember Linux fanatics predicting that Windows XP's activation was going to be so bad that users would switch to desktop Linux in droves. Didn't happen.

Re:Bah, Humbug.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will admit to nothing if they don't face competition. This is exactly why this article is relevant. It asks the community to challenge Microsoft on the desktop because the forces that we thought were doing that has burned out. We need a vision that will beat Vista and we need it fast.

The same goes for distributions

[VincenzoRomano]

It seems to me that the same can be told about linux distributions.
A lot of improvements, a bit of cosmetic lift ups, but no plans at all and much less stability.
What is lacking in the world od linux for desktops is a vision, plans and roadmaps.
These things are quite complex and some sort of projection is badly needed.

Re:The same goes for distributions

[nine-times]

Well it may always be a problem with open source that the "community" won't have a single coherent vision. We can all agree with things like "stability" and "improved performance", but to drive the desktop forward, you need some sort of a coherent idea about how people will want to interact with their computers. This, some might argue, has been what has made Apple successful.

Luckily, we have different distributions that can each move forward in their own slightly different directions. Unfortunately, if anyone wants to go in a terribly different direction, they'll have to try to exert disproportionate influence on the community or perhaps fork some software. Either of these moves would be likely to alienate the community, making it difficult to drum up support. Therefore, there's a little bit of a "design by committee" quality to many things. This isn't all bad, since it means that the features and methods are generally sensible, but it might make the whole endeavor less nimble than it would be with top-down management.

What is this? Open source has a flaw?!

[VineyardRay]

How can it be true? I thought open source was going to save the planet and cure diseases and make a Sunni hug a Shi'a. I can't believe that there is no cohesive vision. Sarcasm aside, this is the problem with open source that no one will discuss. The notion that software is better simply because the source is open is intellectually dishonest.

What do users want?

[Anonymous Coward]

Users buy computers to run applications. The purpose of the operating system and the desktop manager is to run applications. Most users never use even a tenth of the capabilities of their os or desktop manager. They do care about some basic things though like cutting and pasting between applications and being able to play any video that they click on.

Based on the above, I think Linux/KDE/Gnome are ready for most desktops. If the features on the desktop are a couple of years behind the times, most users won't care.

There was a bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, when was there even a bubble. Growth sure, but a bubble generally implies lots of hype causing things to expand rapidly (which hasnt happened). Journalists just LOVE to use the "bubble bursting" cliche, kind of like jumping the shark.

Re:XP with a new coat? Nonsense!

[Enderandrew]

I think this is the most ridiculous sentiment that people keep passing around.

Clearly it is a visual upgrade from XP, and people liken the visual style to something Apple would design. And I don't care for most of Vista, but Vista is a huge upgrade, the least of which is the visual style. 99% of what has changed between XP and Vista has nothing to do with Tiger, nor copies Tiger in any way.

Perhaps you should look into what major changes are there rather than look at one desktop screenshot and judge an OS simply by it's visual style.

What bubble?

[NineNine]

What bubble? In order for there to be a "bubble" in the first place, there would have to be widespread acceptance and usage. Linux on the desktop has *never* has anywhere near widespread acceptance and usage. It's never taken off, and won't any time in the forseeable future, because Linux on the desktop isn't solving a problem. Windows works. OSX works. Nobody cares about desktop OS's any more. The "OS wars" have been over for 10 years.

Almost ready for the desktop

[tsa]

When I started using Linux in 1996 it was 'almost ready for the desktop'. And now we're just as close to the desktop as we were then. I got tired of waiting and switched all my desktop work to the Mac. I keep my Linux box as a file server thouch. Linux has always been good at that.

Re:Almost ready for the desktop

[Lorkki]

Perhaps you should come out of the cave again - a lot has happened during the past five years or so. The first distribution I tried was Red Hat 5.2, and to tell the truth you couldn't really do a whole lot with the graphical interface (which was either FVWM2 or Gnome 1.2 by default, I think). Learning the shell was pretty much mandatory.

The current desktop distributions are a completely different game. A lot of what used to be hand-tweaking on the administration side is automated and there's a good collection of graphical tools for configuring things that aren't. The software collections in general are a lot bigger and of higher quality. The desktop environments themselves have come leaps and bounds in terms of usability. I can do most of the stuff I do with Ubuntu, and I do.

That said, I still have to go back to Windows for games and home studio work. I still haven't really looked into the current situation on the latter, so if someone can recommend a nice package to replace the likes of Jeskola Buzz or FL Studio, I'm open to suggestions.

Re:Almost ready for the desktop

[tsa]

I've been using Linux since 1996. Recently I switched from Slackware to Ubuntu and I must say that is an improvement. But I still had to hack my own XF86Config file (or whatever it's called in Ubuntu). That was a bit of a disappointment. But the main problem is still the fact that there are no games for Windows (as there are for Mac) and no office suites that are supported by, and compatible with, big companies like MS. I really hope OpenDocument gains popularity fast, that will hopefully make a difference.

Re:Almost ready for the desktop

[Lorkki]

Yeah, configuring X is still one of the weakest links. I think I've heard about the X.org folks working on creating a better framework for configuration for a few years now, but I don't have a clue as to how they're progressing on it, or if it's already present. In the end it should make it easier to do changes on the fly.

Games are a bit of a tough one - I think the people switching to Linux now generally aren't the sort that consume a lot of games, because there aren't many. On the other hand there's not a huge incentive to port games because there isn't a big market. In technical terms porting should be easier now than it was a few years ago, but for current development teams it would probably mean relearning a lot of things to make good use of portable APIs. The fact that OpenGL is effectively being crippled in Vista doesn't help at all either.

A lot of problems will probably just gradually solve themselves as (or if) desktop Linux gains enough momentum. It would've been quite unheard of ten years ago for Linux to have received support from big commercial vendors such as Adobe or Nvidia, and it's a small miracle that free operating systems have gotten even as far as they currently have. We'll just have to wait and see.

I think you got it

[gentimjs]

You understood perfectly :-)

What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[br00tus]

If you have listened to Linus and his lieutenants (Andrew Morton etc.), they say they are not focused on the desktop. They are focused on the high-end. Which makes sense to me - Microsoft dominates the desktop, the high-end is up for grabs right now. Linux has improved a lot for the high-end, but still needs work done. I just was speaking with someone from Oracle recently who told me how in an environment with a lot of Linuxes connected to a lot of SANs, the 2.4 kernel was complete junk. He did say things were getting better with the 2.6.

Hey here's another example - what if I want a fricking kernel dump when my system crashes? What, I can't dump it to disk like Solaris and every other enterprise UNIX does? I have to send it over the network (which comes to a host of problems which I won't go into here)? Yes, yes, I know about the problems of doing this for a variety of hardware, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about

Linux is not there yet for high-end enterprise, although it is getting there. Linux should concentrate on that, which it has been doing, which is good. Trying to crack Microsoft's desktop monopoly while the high-end is up for grabs is dumb. Take the high-end and then go for the low end. Of course, people are free to work on the Linux desktop if they wish. But I'm glad the core team is concentrating on making Linux a real enterprise UNIX system.

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's another market that Linux is extremely well-suited for at the other end of the spectrum, and it's only a matter of time before it breaks in - corporate environments with standardized desktops, such as call centers and such.

How ridiculously expensive is it to administer machines and maintain licenses in places like that, where all they need is a good email client, browser and connection to a mainframe? A good linux admin, standardized hardware and a caching netboot option _has_ to be drastically cheaper, which is all businesses ultimately care about.

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only I could give you points.

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[fingusernames]

what if I want a fricking kernel dump when my system crashes?

Just a guess, but I believe that you use the diskdumputils package to set up dumping to disk when the system crashes.

# man diskdumpctl
NAME
              diskdumpctl - diskdump controller

SYNOPSIS
              diskdumpctl [ -u ] device

              diskdumpctl -V

DESCRIPTION
              diskdumpctl is a program to register or unregister a dump partition with the system. The device argument must be either a
              block device file or a partition device. If the -u option is specified, the device is unregistered. If the -V option is
              specified, diskdumpctl version information is shown. diskdumpctl returns 1 if it fails due to an error. Otherwise it returns
              0.

OPTIONS
              -u Unregister the device.

              -V Show version information and exit.

FILES /proc/diskdump
                            For kernel-2.4, the /proc filesystem file through which dump partitions are registered with the system. /sys/devices/.../dump
                            For kernel-2.6, the /sys filesystem file through which dump partitions are registered with the system.

SEE ALSO
              diskdumpfmt(8), savecore(8)

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[obi]

Haven't seen Linus say this - he's consistently been saying that while the very big (clusters) and the very small (embedded) can be very interesting, he's mostly interested in off-the-shelf systems where all the volume is, whatever that currently is.

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[_iris]

Linus et al focus on the high end largely because the kernel improvements have a very limited impact on the quality, maturity, etc of a desktop system and the kernel work for the high end usually benefits the desktop (e.g. udev, hotplug, etc re: flash drives). The way desktops really grow up is through application integration and developing resource-sharing technologies (e.g. alsa, arts).

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[ben there...]

I just was speaking with someone from Oracle recently who told me how in an environment with a lot of Linuxes connected to a lot of SANs, the 2.4 kernel was complete junk. He did say things were getting better with the 2.6.

That seems bass ackwards to me. I admit I don't administer linux servers for a living, but every web host I've used is still using 2.4, for reasons of stability and security. If there was a substantial benefit to using the latest 2.6, wouldn't they switch? To me, 2.6 has been about improving the desktop, especially related to media apps, device support, and features related to laptops. Finer grained kernel locking, better responsiveness, lower latency, better wireless support, improving hibernation, improving boot time, etc. are all improvements of the 2.6 kernel (and related userland work) over 2.4.*

That's not to minimize the work done in 2.6 for the enterprise, but I think it makes more sense to assume that work is being done on both fronts.

*As far as this humble n00b knows from occasional reading and usage. Some of that could be userland and also apply to 2.4 for all I know.

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[AaronLawrence]

High end? If that were truly the focus for the whole of "Linux" that would be a risky proposition. Everyone was content to leave the desktop to Microsoft; then they leveraged that with small businesses to get into servers; now they are building on that to get into enterprise systems. Thinking they are totally independent markets which you can ignore is a big mistake.

Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say?

[synthespian]

You have to patch the linux Kernel before it spits out dumps when thing go bump in the night.

I want to pop this blister.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, and nice job calling linux on the desktop a "bubble". "

Better than "blister". "Oh my God! The Linux on the Desktop blister has popped. Eeeewww!"

Re:I want to pop this blister.

[Brandybuck]

At least it was a blister and not a boil!

Dead to me...

[sterno]

I was a big proponent of Linux on the desktop for a while, but these days it's not installed on any of my desktops. Instead, I have a MacPro. The Mac offers me all the Unixy goodness but with a much better interface and overall integration. On Linux I was constantly wrestling to get everything to work, but on the Mac, it just works.

Re:Dead to me...

[molarmass192]

I recently took ownership of a MacBook Pro, cautiously expecting OSX to pry me from Linux, but guess what ... it hasn't. I have to say that OSX is a very nice GUI, but the fact that the underlying OS is closed really rubs me the wrong way (yeah ... I know ... Darwin ... but show me a non-Apple Darwin build that Aqua will run on). As such, I've got a dual boot OSX / Gentoo install on it now, and the only time I'm ever in OSX is for video editing. Is getting Gentoo up on a MBP for the faint of heart? Hell no. It's a friggen pain in the ass to get setup. However, for me at least, the fact that I can now do whatever I want with the underlying OS / drivers beats shiny zoom icons hands down. Besides, KDE really isn't all that bad, it handles all the things a desktop should, just not as prettily as OSX.

Competition is a result

[camcorder]

It's evident that there's a competition. But it's lack of knowledge that GNOME or KDE developers are trying to compete with propriatory software. It's different market. If you don't care about freedom, then you would not care philosophy behind the things. And you would use whatever feasable for you, either with paying for it or not. You can't ignore the development pace of Linux desktop environment, when windows xp released GNOME desktop was really lacking lots of functionality. However currently it's much more better than Windows XP, and will be better than Vista or Tiger with developers get idea of best user experience ideas (call it steal or whatever) and will try to improve them.

Don't forget that developers use the desktop, and they will rely on others feedback about desktop apart from their own use. If users complain about something they will get motivated to fix stuff or add new features. If they were motivated to compete with other desktops they would behave differently and try to mimic stuff from them. But that's not the case with Linux Desktop. It's all about making computer experience better for its users. It all boils down to personas using these environments. Currently, to say, GNOME users are not newbies. Once more adoption takes place you will see that it will be more user friendly -to newbies-.

There're also technical obstacles in front of developers of Desktop environments, and these obstacles are dissepearing by time. Remember you needed to be root to mount cd or usb stick? Thanks to HAL not that's not a necessity. Now desktop developers can eaily use shinny graphics into their applications thanks to cairo and accelerated desktops.

To judge Linux Desktop, you need to check the development pace. Then compare them with time scales. I'm pretty sure anyone doing some research about features and bugs fixed by Microsoft or Apple and Linux Desktop from year 2000 to 2006, will be really amazed with the amount.

Was waiting for KDE 4 also...

[Anonymous Coward]

But after all this time and also reading the core-devel mailing list i realized that they are nowhere near ready.

Even worse is the fact that nextgen desktops from Microsoft and Apple (in '07) will make it almost obsolete before it has been completed.

I was such a big fan of kde (using it since version 0.12, when kfm did not have the gears) however i guess i needed a more functional and easy to use "business" laptop, so last week a went and got a Macbook Pro and thanks to the fact that it is unix under the hood i really will not be looking back.

Best of luck to the KDE team (because it had the potential to broaden the Linux desktop community) but i believe that they have missed the boat !

true

[ErGalvao]

Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case.

Weather Vista is this or that it's not the main issue here. The problem is: Everyone is moving, so why linux desktops aren't?

Re:true

[HermMunster]

You made no sense in your last sentence. You were asking a question? If people are going to move, why not move to linux instead of Vista?

If so, it is the right question. Promote Linux to your family and friends and get them on Linux. The easiest to convert would especially be those that just chat, web browse, and email.

Re:true

[ErGalvao]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I've meant was: Everyone (MS Windows, Mac OS) is moving (evolving, releasing new versions, implementing new features), so why Linux desktops aren't?

I believe that was the point of view that the OP was trying to make.

OSX

[Tom]

Article is right on one thing: OSX was the deathblow to Linux-on-the-desktop.

I've been a fanatical Linux fanboy since about '95.

Today, I own a MacBook Pro and run OSX. My servers run Debian. But for the desktop, OSX is what Linux will never be: A Unix with a state-of-the-art GUI.

Re:OSX

[Realistic_Dragon]

Um, things don't stand still. Right now OS X isn't as good an option for a lot of people.

The biggest thing is that the vast majority of Linux targeted desktop software (of which there is a vast range, even if you just restrict us to high quality and Free) either doesn't work or is horribly clunky. Apple have made no updates to their X server in 4 years and it really shows. It's better than running on top of Cygwin but really not very much and *that means it's not UNIX, it's a pretty, closed bauble that effectively hides all of the good bits*.

So, for the applications I and many other want to run OS X is graphically inconsistent, cut and paste doesn't work right (thanks to the buggy apple X server), and porting to OS X is always an afterthought because there is no convenient way to do a good job.

If you don't believe me go and look at every OO.o release thread and see the Apple users asking for a better native port. Even die hard Apple fans hate how bad the integration is. In the mean time Linux has graphically caught up, application wise is only missing much, and is free. Why bother to switch at this point?

Re:OSX

[dillinger23]

You are very funny.

I curse every time i have to run an X application under OSX
and this is not because of deficiencies in Apple's X server
but because i'm sure that the X application is going to be
braindamaged, poorly written from a usability perspective
and in a sense a mess compared to any other comparable
cocoa OSX application. That is why i try to avoid this kind
of torture.

If your main argument is that OSX is not an option because it
doesn't run X applications perfectly (i havent by the way found
an X application yet that didn't run under OSX Xserver but i obviously
didn't try the mess thats called GNOME and similar braindamaged sw/libs)
i suggest you give up OSX and go back to linux.

The reason a developer goes for OSX is the wealth of up to date documentation,
kick ass development environments and rock solid cutting edge frameworks.
Nothing of the sort exists in Linux and i don't expect them anytime soon.
The linux world seems obsessed with putting out eye-candy solutions that are
all glitz but no substance instead of actually doing the work as far as
solid foundations are concerned...

The latest Xgl and compiz toys are a perfect example of this. Building a castle
on sand is not a good pathway to success....

Re:OSX

[olau]

Try a recent Ubuntu. Things have moved on.

Re:OSX

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Right now OS X isn't as good an option for a lot of people.

Of course it isn't the best solution for everyone. It is just a better workstation than Linux for most people (in my experience).

The biggest thing is that the vast majority of Linux targeted desktop software (of which there is a vast range, even if you just restrict us to high quality and Free) either doesn't work or is horribly clunky.

This is sort of amusing. The vast majority of OS X targeted desktop software doesn't work at all on Linux. So that leaves us in a situation where one OS can run both sets of software (some of it not optimally) and the other OS can only run one set. Not exactly a win for Linux.

It's better than running on top of Cygwin but really not very much and *that means it's not UNIX, it's a pretty, closed bauble that effectively hides all of the good bits*.

You ideas seem pretty slanted. OS X is as much UNIX as Linux is, they're just different, partially incompatible, implementations of it. OS has some ability to run Linux software in a compatibility mode, that is not perfect. Linux can't run OS X software, pretty much at all.

If you don't believe me go and look at every OO.o release thread and see the Apple users asking for a better native port.

OpenOffice has come along way recently, but the important thing is it is almost 100% developed by Sun, which relies upon Xwindows. How well does Omniplan or Word for Mac work on Linux? You don't hear many people asking for it on Linux though, since most people using OS X, just don't care if it works on Linux.

In the mean time Linux has graphically caught up, application wise is only missing much, and is free. Why bother to switch at this point?

I'm a Linux on the desktop user and an OS X on the desktop user. For that matter, I run Windows too. My primary workstation has been OS X for quite a while because it has numerous wins over Linux. For starters, it runs a lot of really good software Linux does not. Photoshop, InDesign, Omnigraffle, iTunes, etc. Second the OS does a better job of handling those applications. The CLI and the GUI are integrated more smoothly than any Linux distro I've ever used. If I move a directory via the GUI, terminals that navigated into that directory update instantly. Applications and the OS share services smoothly. My Web browser, IM client, terminals, e-mail, word-processor, pro layout app, etc. all access the same spellchecker and grammar checker and language translation services and scripts and statistical package, etc. Third, the benefits of OpenStep mean I can use fat binaries that work on different systems and I can IM or e-mail them to friends, or transfer them when we don't have internet access and they work without any hassle. Fourth, with an OS X laptop I can run Linux and Windows in a VM to use any applications that don't have a port, or where the port is of poor quality. This means I have one machine instead of three and I can access all the OS's when I'm using my laptop at the coffee shop because I was too lazy to go to the office. Fifth, upgrading an OS X machine is years ahead of Linux. When I switched from a PPC mac laptop to an Intel mac laptop I plugged in a firewire cable and pushed a button. Then I went to lunch. All my user accounts, settings, authorization keys, applications, files, etc. migrated automagically. Migrating to a new Linux box and getting everything in its proper state usually takes me several days of messing around. And the best part is, since Linux and Windows are now in VMs, I never, ever have to to that again on any platform. When I get a new machine, I'll be taking a full Linux (Kubuntu) and Windows (XP) install with me, pre-configured and divorced from the hardware, with one button press. Until Linux distros duplicate that functionality, they'll have a hard time winning me back.

Now I'm not knocking Linux. It is an excellent server OS and a capable desktop. It beats OS X and Windows on a number of points. I'd lo

Re:OSX

[toogreen]

I've been a fanatical Linux fanboy since about '95.

And since then you've become a fanatical Mac fanboy? Sorry but sounds like that to me... Before I say anything else you should note that I also own a Macbook and I do know what OS X is like and I do love it too!

But I just feel that you're hitting a bit hard on what Linux has become in the last 11 years. Perhaps you should install anything recent such as Ubuntu 6.10 and see where Linux is at now. I am not saying it's perfect but isn't it a bit pretentious to pretend knowing that Linux will NEVER be what OS X is? I think it's already much closer to it that you think it is!

Try it and get a clearer picture, and quit being a whatever fanboy. I'm tired of that whole Slashdot trend that the Mac is so fucking untouchable and that "now that I tried it I think Linux on the desktop sucks"... Geez come on guys I love Macs too but try to be objective and give some credit where it's deserved.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

"But for the desktop, OSX is what Linux will never be"

Non-Free?

Re:OSX

[JonathanBoyd]

Apple have made no updates to their X server in 4 years and it really shows.

They've released several updates, including this year. It probably wasn't mentioned here, but Infinite Loop on Ars Technica had an article or two on it.

Re:OSX

[Tom]

And since then you've become a fanatical Mac fanboy? Yes.

Perhaps you should install anything recent such as Ubuntu 6.10 and see where Linux is at now. Running at work, where I can install the OS of choice but not buy the hardware of choice. Sorry, even though it's a great step forward, and it beats windos every day, it still doesn't compare to OSX. The main difference being that on OSX stuff just works. Installing drivers, messing with /etc/* files? "Plug and Play" is a joke and buzzphrase on windos, on OSX it's reality. I still have to find a piece of hardware that doesn't simply work when I plug it in.

Re:OSX

[Tom]

Try a recent Ubuntu. Things have moved on. Ubuntu is running on my machine at work. Sorry, it's not an equal to OSX. The only thing I miss about OSX is virtual desktops, but hey Leopard is coming...

Re:OSX

[toogreen]

Installing drivers, messing with /etc/* files? "Plug and Play" is a joke and buzzphrase on windos, on OSX it's reality. I still have to find a piece of hardware that doesn't simply work when I plug it in.

Yes, so what? Doesn't mean that Linux will NEVER get there. And even if you do have to edit some /etc/* files, so what? You're not a Grandma, are you? If you really were a Linux fanboy in 1995 then It shouldn't be such a big deal for you. Personally I would even say that I do enjoy messing with config files once in a while, gives me some sense of control, I guess. Sure, it's not for Grandma, but for you and me, we can cope with that, no? At least Linux is a 100% free OS and you're in total control of it, which is something that OSX will definitely NEVER be. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac and there's nothing like it to create iMovies and iDVDs out of the box, but doesn't mean I can't love my Linux box too and see the potential it has, now.

Re:OSX

[Tom]

I like tinkerirng with my servers. I don't like tinkering with X on a notebook while on a plane with limited battery life left and a deadline to meet. And yes, Linux is 100% free and I could in theory write my own hardware drivers (never done it, but I have the code and the skills and even a book about writing kernel modules).

Point still is: For a desktop, I will choose OSX any day. For a server, give me Linux. For special-purpose machine, I'll also prefer Linux most of the times, because I can customize it better. But I much enjoy putting the hours I used to spend on resolving dependencies manually so I can compile this latest release of something into more personal projects instead.

Also, both KDE and Gnome suck. And I mean suck as in "they are almost as bad as windos". Inconsistent in many places, way too much me-too-copying (the K menu. Right. Take the dumbest idea from windos and copy it. I still think the designer of the K menu should be shot, together with the designers of the "Start" menu).

Linux's strengths are also its weaknesses. Yes, I can choose from 20 different window managers and 2 different desktop systems. But that also means not everything works with everything else, and stuff breaks randomly left and right.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is great. But while we (yes, I include myself, I used to be lightly involved with Gnome) tried to put Linux on the desktop, Apple lapped us.

whatever

[archen]

"Show me where the results are."

And why does the KDE team have to show you ANYTHING?

KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies.

Proof?

Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available.

After how many YEARS? Sorry but everyone seems to agree that the Vista development has been a cluster fuck and that with 80% of the targeted features thrown out, it's not the revolution that MS claimed it was going to be.

KDE finally became my desktop some years ago around 3.2, and let me tell you I eagerly await each minor revision, because I'm seeing real results and improvements. KDE works just fine and is improving at a good rate. KDE is also working quite hard in many aspects under the hood, not just wiz bang 3d windows flying around. The adaptation of dbus by both Gnome and KDE is going to show some real results towards bridging the gap between environments. KDE is STILL the only freaking window environment that gives me freaking previews of images that I may overwrite instead of asking me if I want to overwrite the old 001.jpg with the new one. How about the damn simple button to suggest a new name automatically instead of requiring me to make one up in the case of overwriting? If I recall correctly MS and Mac don't allow you to even change the name, they just abort the copy/move operation.

The KDE team has done just fine in my opinion, and I have full confidence that they will continue to make my computer less of a pain in the ass to use in the future.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

And why does the KDE team have to show you ANYTHING?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but as an end user of their product we have a right to question.

While the product is free obviously someone has some monetary interest in it somewhere. That makes us the customer. If KDE doesn't want to support the customer all they have to do is say so and we can go elsewhere just like any other customer.

Sorry but everyone seems to agree that the Vista development has been a cluster fuck and that with 80% of the targeted features thrown out

To quote you; "Proof?"

Frankly it's statements like this that make me think you're little more than a troll. You ask proof from another but turn around and make sweeping statements that are unsubstantiated in your own post. I want written proof and not you're made-up bullshit to support that 80% of the features are gone.

Re:whatever

[archen]

While the product is free obviously someone has some monetary interest in it somewhere. That makes us the customer. If KDE doesn't want to support the customer all they have to do is say so and we can go elsewhere just like any other customer.

Sorry, but the fact that you do not purchase or are required to use a product means you are NOT a customer. A customer is a person who purchases goods or services from another; buyer; patron. This is why the KDE team doesn't have to show anything for their work, BECAUSE of the fact that you are free to go anywhere else but are not poorer because of any transaction.

I want written proof and not you're made-up bullshit to support that 80% of the features are gone.

Too bad, it's a 100% BS claim I have no obligation to substantiate. =)
My point is that with all of it's massive resources MS is having a hard time releasing Vista, I hardly believe that manpower and resources automatically pushes better products out the door, as the author was somehow claiming.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

err, correction. By "resources" I refer to financial backing.

Re:whatever

[electroniceric]

Thank you for answering the only interesting and verifiable assertion in that article. The blathering about "it's good vs. it's not good enough" because it does or doesn't have this or that feature is pointless and long past stale, but the assertion that the development enthusiasm and speed have weakened deserve serious attention.

Your point is true about gradual architectural features and fixes, there's been quite a lot of improvment in those areas, as well as some neat individual projects. But in defense of the article I have definitely been struck by the big gap between the grand rhetoric around KDE4 and the evidently very limited progress. It's pretty hard not to take a dim view when you read that the Appeal and Plasma projects are a UI revolution that will anchor KDE4, and then dig to find out what's going on and discover that all that's been done is a few hacks to Kicker. It's hard to avoid concluding that there's either a resource problem or a discipline problem there.

This assertion is just an assertion, but I think it's worth actually asking some questions about what can be done to get more resources and direction to these projects.

GNOME's model is right on

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

GNOME has the right model. Release early, release often. Users see actual improvements, developers get actual user feedback. And Ubuntu gets the latest GNOME release in the hands of users.

Seems to make sense to me.

Was that even an article?

[Stalyn]

Fuck you Slashdot

whoops

[ErGalvao]

Sorry, wrong blockquote tag ended up in bold :(

WHAT LINUX NEEDS NOW 1, 2, 3

[RationalRoot]

Is it too much to want : 1) To be able to use my wireless lan from out of the box. 2) To be able to print photos on my photoprinter out of the box. 3) To work on a laptop out of the box. If anyone has read the various trilogies written by people trying to get the above done they know why I use Linux on my server and Windows my laptop. For the moment I'll stick with XP for my laptop while the world evaluates Vista. I'm waiting to see what I actually get by upgrading. Oh yes, and for the sound systems to work more often than not would help a lot. Both the speakers _AND_ the microphone ?

Re:WHAT LINUX NEEDS NOW 1, 2, 3

[openldev]

The problem is that it is the luck of the draw. Everything on my laptop including sound, wireless, printing, etc worked out of the box. It will come down to some of the bigger Linux companies pulling their weight and forcing hardware companies to make Linux support a priority. However, it's such a big chicken and the egg problem ...

Re:WHAT LINUX NEEDS NOW 1, 2, 3

[petabyte]

I bought a new Dell Inspiron laptop. I have 1 and 3. I can't comment on 2 as well, I find it cheaper to go to walmart for the 2-3 photos a year I want in hard copy.

Re:WHAT LINUX NEEDS NOW 1, 2, 3

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an ass. I have all 3 out of the box with Etch. Here's an E for you that you might start to form a clue. None of what you want works out of the box with Windows. Get a life.

Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[rbrander]

The Calgary Unix User's Group got a great lecture from Aaron Seigo of KDE last week,

http://www.cuug.ab.ca/past-meetings/meetings.06-07 .html ...during which he either lied through his teeth about easily checkable claims for the near future, or KDE 4 is coming out in 2007 with significant improvements, and not just "chasing the taillights" of Mac and Vista, but leapfrog improvements upon them.

Assuming KDE 4 does come out in 2007, that'll be exactly 5 years behind KDE 3, about the same time from XP to Vista. They're developing as fast as a $100 Billion corporation, exactly how much more do you want?

The headline on this article is certainly senseless - in a "market" overwhelmed by a monopoly provider, there can be no bubbles to start with, at best you can incrementally develop a market share in small fringe areas where the monopoly's hold is weak. Mostly meaning non-US regions concerned about a lock-in by a foreign provider, especially governments. Also, particularly poor customers that can't avoid the $50 MS "tax" by piracy, because they have to play honestly, like educational institutions.

And in those areas at least, there's been slow but encouraging growth through 2006 and prospects for more. That's only a "bubble bursting" if you were deluded into imagining some take-off point of explosive growth was coming.

Re:Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[rbrander]

>"KDE doesn't even come close to Vista in complexity or sheer number of lines of code.."

I really shouldn't reply to a zero-modded flame, but I had to grin, because it reminds me of a documentary where Steve Ballmer laughed at how they just had to break with IBM during the OS/2 project because IBMers were obsessed with "KLOCs" (kilo-Lines-of-Code) and paying MS *less* for contributions where the feature took fewer KLOCs than originally estimated.

You don't measure software by the size of the code or it's "complexity", but by the features presented that are useful to the user, and how productive they are when using the product. (Arguably, you then DIVIDE by the size & "complexity" to rate how good the programmer is...)

Presumbaly, if MS does really stupid architecture on the next OS so that it is infernally complex to do the same thing, and writes it extra-bloated so it's way bigger than it has to be, their glory will only be redoubled!

Re:Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[fotbr]

The biggest problem with your comparison is that KDE is a GUI, where Vista is an entire OS.

I hate Vista, but even I can tell its more than "XP with a shiny new face".

So the KDE group is developing a GUI as fast as a 100 billion dollar company is developing an entire OS.

Then there's the little problem that Vista is out, where KDE4 is not. Maybe you know exactly what features and functionality is going to be in KDE4 -- but for all I know its just a new set of icons. (Note, I don't use KDE, I use blackbox and generally do everything from the command line if at all possible, so while I know my "icon-pack-as-new-major-version-release" is silly, I simply do not know what KDE4 is supposed to provide) A comparison of development time is further complicated when the features and functionality are still unknown for one side.

Re:Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[RAMMS EIN]

``They're developing as fast as a $100 Billion corporation, exactly how much more do you want?''

I want to get their software for free!!

Re:Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming KDE 4 does come out in 2007, that'll be exactly 5 years behind KDE 3, about the same time from XP to Vista. They're developing as fast as a $100 Billion corporation, exactly how much more do you want?

Dude, measuring speed of development doesn't make much sense. Version numbering of open source projects normally is more conservative. If KDE were developed by a commercial company instead of all minor versions v3.1, v3.2, ... v3.5, we would now have v4, v5 ... v2006.

Regards,
nnms cwrd

Re:Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[nutshell42]

And Apple has only made point releases since 2001 (or 1999), too. KDE's point releases aren't less significant than OSX's desktop-wise.

The major number of KDE releases denotes binary compatibility not features.

Re:Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't measure software by the size of the code or it's "complexity", but by the features presented that are useful to the user....

This is about leaving La La Land and waking up to find KDE is competitively inadequate. KDE doesn't compete on features with MS or OS/X. Saying that lines of code is irrelevant it's features is a stupid argument. Comparing an OS with a GUI layer over X is a bad idea. Feature wise KDE doesn't compete with Direct X or the Windows GUI in providing a standard API or to provide widespread graphics driver and game support. Get with it man.... Games are one area where Linux and KDE and X Windows is far behind Windows and OS/X. KDE is still trying to support Open GL and neither X nor KDE provide a Direct X alternative they just use Open GL. If the KDE programmers are so talented why don't they come out with a competitor to Direct X then they might be beating Microsoft in features. KDE can't do a lot of the things that Windows does and if you add Direct X it is uncompetitive and feature poor and not market driving or cutting edge and doesn't provide any notable competition for Windows.

So go flame yourself.

Choice of languages and documentation

[synthespian]

I wonder. Does anyone think this is the effect of huge C/C++ projects crumbling under their own weight?
Also, how about the documentation? Is the GTK+ documentation adequate (or sufficient)?
Wrt GNOME, about a year ago there was a huge brouhaha with ex-OSNews editor Eugenia Loli-Queru when she pointed out that GNOME didn't implement or care about what usability issues put forward by users. Nor patches.
GNOME has had a bad attitude problem for years (witness the brawl with OpenBSD; and FreeBSD developers say GNOME developers don't really care much about anything that isn't Linux). Would this be part of the problem in the shortage of developers?

hopes for linux desktop victory elswhere

[Anonymous Coward]

there are alot of windows only webisites offering video service. I feel discriminated against running linux based on the number of services available to me.

Bubbles bursting here and there

[joto]

Linux: Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?

Ok, so what does it mean that a bubble bursts? Well, first of all, there must have been a bubble. It never was. Linux has slowly gained users. That's all.

For the Linux desktop, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continuously been fed point releases which added bits of functionality and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day. What's going on?

What's going on is that both KDE and Gnome are maturing products that are constantly being refined and improved upon. Since there has been no pressing need to do dramatic changes to the underlying infrastructure, the developers have been able to add new features without creating a new major revision. This is a bonus for most users.

A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision, a goal, for the next big revision. GNOME 3.0 is just that- a name. All GNOME 3.0 has are some random ideas by random people in random places. KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 -- but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies.

I disagree with both notions. There are people heavily involved in the GNOME project with vision, and many of these people even share the same vision. As a result, the improvements in GNOME in recent years have been focused and in tune with other GNOME improvements. I haven't followed KDE closely, but I guarantee you that it's not the same as in 2002. Things have improved.

In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system. Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available.

I'm sorry. Windows and Mac OS X aren't "competition". Linux isn't out there to "compete". It's out there to offer a free unix-like operating system to people who are interested in that. If people prefer to pay for Windows or OS X it's not a big loss for linux. Only when developers prefer Windows or OS X does it become a problem for future linux development. Even then, linux users should worry more about having fun, than dominating the market. Even if every computer on earth ran linux, it wouldn't put a cent in your pocket!

Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."

Oh, I guess I don't have "an open mind" then, whatever that means. Sure, there are some real improvements compared to XP, but as I remember it, most of these improvements were in NT 3.5 too. Basically, it's the latest version of Windows, even if they prefer to name their releases instead of giving them numbers.

Re:Bubbles bursting here and there

[abaddononion]

I'm sorry. Windows and Mac OS X aren't "competition". Linux isn't out there to "compete". It's out there to offer a free unix-like operating system to people who are interested in that. If people prefer to pay for Windows or OS X it's not a big loss for linux. Only when developers prefer Windows or OS X does it become a problem for future linux development. Even then, linux users should worry more about having fun, than dominating the market. Even if every computer on earth ran linux, it wouldn't put a cent in your pocket!

Wow, I really like this post. I think you put a nice perspective on some of this. There's really too much in-fighting between all of us these days, especially here on Slashdot. Not to be all hippy-love-and-peace or anything, but (as long as we're all moving away from Microsoft), cant we just be happy for one another for finding a distribution that fits us personally? Im a Fedora Core person. And Ive taken some flack here on Slashdot for being a Fedora person. And Ive given flack to both Slackware users for one reason, and Ubuntu users for another reason. But like parent said, really, if every person switches to Fedora... I dont gain anything. If every person switches to slackware, slackware users dont gain anything. I mean, at least not anything drastically more than we already have. We have our own communities, we have our own supporters, we really shouldnt be making so much war with each other. The only reason I hate Microsoft is their usual complete ignoring of what users wants/needs are. Bill Gates himself even came out a little while ago saying Microsoft's DRM was getting too much in the user's way, and it needed to change. But if somebody wants to pay for OSX because it fits them better... then good for them! As long as they're not trying to force me to use it as well.

I know this is Slashdot, and this sort of post has probably been made 400 times, and the whole spirit of anything like this well probably be rapidly swept away be swift angst and bitterness, but... c'est la vie.

Re:Bubbles bursting here and there

[Anonymous Coward]

And Ive given flack to both Slackware users for one reason,

So who are these two users ? And what is the reason ?

KDE4

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies.

Hmmm ... agree and disagree, here. Firstly, the activity in KDE's svn is - and has been for a while, now - absolutely white hot, so in a way this belies the "lack of manpower" statement, or perhaps shows that a nucleus of top-notch coders - your Faure's, Rusin's and Montel's - can make progress that outstrips a larger team staffed of mere mortals ;) Having said that, there are many areas where GNOME is strides ahead - e.g. Compiz has been available for - what - about a year now? while KDE has only just starting working on their equivalent a few months ago, and the lead coder didn't even know OpenGL.

The lack of financial backing is certainly a fact of life for KDE, but this has really always been the case - Redhat has been a huge backer of GNOME/ Gtk from the outset; Mandrake, which defaulted to KDE, always wrote its apps in Gtk, etc. The only real change here has been the subsumation (and consequent GNOME-ification) of SuSE, but I'm not sure how many KDE devs lost their jobs over this. KDE has always done very well with meagre resources, and I see no reason why this should change for KDE4.

The level of user-visible output is certainly a worry, and makes Zack and Aaron's hype of yesteryear, frankly, embarrassing. For a recent discussion of this issue, see e.g. http://dot.kde.org/1166224792/ Time will have to tell on this one, but it seems to me that the KDE dev team is currently on fire re-working the backends, although the "Pillars of KDE" may well be pretty uninspiring when they see the light of day.

the future, not the past

[alucinor]

In this article, the author is concerned about FUTURE progress of the Linux desktop, citing an imbalance in both the Gnome and KDE communities as cause for his concern:

1) Gnome: Plenty of money, few developers
2) KDE: Plenty of developers, little money

He also argues that because we're only seeing point releases from Gnome, progress there is slowing down, while in KDE, we no longer have significant point releases because everyone's focused on KDE 4, though there hasn't been any visual results yet out of the Plasma project.

In my opinion, this article is a lot of worry-worting. Sure, Gnome and KDE could *always* use more cash and developers, duh. But are the projects hitting some sort of dead end or breaking point where they'll cease to be effective? Hardly. Will they be able to surpass Vista and/or OSX in functionality? Depends on what you're looking for. Even now, some people prefer Windows, others OSX, and others Linux. Most people just put up with Windows, actually.

Thom is really into OS development, but I'm not sure how technical he is, so I think he may be more interested in what happens in the visual department. KDE 4 has little to show there, but a lot in the libraries that Plasma will sit on top of. I'm especially excited about Kross, which rivals MS's (as yet unreleased) Monad/Powershell.

What's unique about KDE4 (and why we really need it in addition to Gnome) is that it's going to be installable on Linux and BSD as well as Windows and OSX. That's pretty innovative if you ask me.

I don't think Plasma in KDE4 is going to bring about the radical changes some may be hoping for. There have been some interesting posts in discussion boards for both Gnome 3 (Topaz) and KDE4 for radical shifts, but usually these people are directed to look at Symphony OS, since most suggestions seem to revolve around creating a task-oriented desktop or else merging the desktop and browser into one environment.

All in all, I see nothing wrong with Gnome and KDE taking a more evolutionary approach. This is natural for any software so mature. The OSS kernels aren't going to see HUGE gains, just incremental improvements, but over the course of a year, you can see a lot of new innovations, just as you will with Gnome and KDE. An evolutionary approach to software development might not be as exciting for journalists and fans, but it sure makes more sense from a technical perspective: release early, small, and often.

But... but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies."

That's the old propietary closed source way of thinking. Open source solves all of these problems by magic. No, really!

a picture of apps...

[Anonymous Coward]

...open on a screen? As in big deal? That's all a desktop is. Apps open in windows on a screen. With linux you can have what is in that picture, then another desktop with different apps, then another, all a mouse click away. Want them on different monitors as well, do-able. Where's your beef again on that bragger bun?

  Desktop "experience" is way more about what hardware you have now than anything else. Big and widescreen, massive video cards or dual vidcards, fast processor, gobs of RAM, then having a user capable of modifying what they are looking at to suit taste if they want to. Hardware+apps+user experience & skills = "desktop and how functional it is". There's so much variation there now you can't even point at any single "linux desktop" to compare.

You want to see what linux is capable of compared to apple or windows? Load up any of the decent 50 meg run-from-RAM linux OSes like damn small or puppy or austrumi with e17 or slax, etc. Show me where apple or windows can have something like that with only 50 megs, something that good that will still run on ancient hardware and be faster than the best windows or apple can pull off now with their harddrive installs. Show us where you can more or less easily remaster your own complete OS using windows or apple products. Show us where, with a single disk from either apple or windows where you can get hundreds of decent functional applications on default install, where within that same default install you have the ability to call out seamlessly and find even more applications with a few mouse clicks, all of which are automatically updated on demand or with a system call, all for *free* to the user if they choose that option, or for a few dollars snail mailed to you.

The only remaining differences lie solely on applications designed exclusively to run on either apple or MS products, and that is up to the developers/companies to decide, none of that has anything to do with linux or a linux desktop, it is out of their hands for the most part.

Re:a picture of apps...

[RichardMarks]

"As in big deal? That's all a desktop is. "

Oh please...

Linux forums all over the Net have Linux users desperately trying to get their system to look and function as well as OS X - just one example:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=24186 8

Almost every distro has huge threads of people trying to fix their Linux desktop to have at least some imitation of the polish and functionality that OS X does.

So, yeah, I guess it is 'a big deal.'

Re:a picture of apps...

[btpier]

You've totally lost the point already. The discussion centers around normal, non-geek users. None of them are going to care that you can have an OS in 50MB of RAM. While I don't agree with the original article, many of the comments are bang on.

I attempted to launch a start-up of 150 people on linux thin clients (using KDE desktops) 3 years ago. While the system worked almost flawlessly, was infinitely cheaper than windows fat clients, and easier to admin than the windows thin clients we also used, it still didn't work for the users. They were all non-geeks (TV people) and couldn't get past it not working like windows, not running MS Office (plus the compatibility problems of Star Office and MS Office), not being able to play .wmv files, etc. Now consider they had an IT staff to admin the server, add apps, and configure printers. Do you really think these users could have successfully used a linux desktop all on their own??

There was a bubble??

[thanksforthecrabs]

Where was I??

Coordinated Efforts

[SirCyn]

I've thought to myself before that much more progress could be made if fairly standard APIs could be agreed on for more things. Printing for example, how many unix "printing" solutions exist? It's no wonder than the desktop environments don't have the same ease in setting up and using printers as Windows does. A significantly higher level of cooperation, coordination, agreement, and standardization could take the linux/bsd/*nix platforms a long way.

I'm not some crazy saying we need to decide on a single widget set or should merge Qt and Gtk. But a flexable and extensible layer that is stable and mature would make developing easier. I think something generally eqivelent to Visual Basic would help too. The platforms would be much more attractive in general if there was some really "easy" development tool; Windows capitalized on this in the 90s; learn a lesson.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but working together more sure seems like a good start.

Re:Coordinated Efforts

[joto]

I've thought to myself before that much more progress could be made if fairly standard APIs could be agreed on for more things. Printing for example, how many unix "printing" solutions exist?

Sure. Everything would be easier if they were designed right from the start, and we could continue to use that indefinitely.

Originally, unix was designed to be run with dumb terminals, who could just as well be printers. Eventually the need evolved to be able to have a separate printer device to dump ASCII to. So one computer serving many users, with a single line-printer was what the design started with.

Then, as printers became more advanced, unix adopted postscript. But real postscript devices turned out to be quite rare, and the world turned out to instead consist of a myriad of different printer command languages, and even non-standard "windows printer" interfaces.

Another change was that instead of a single computer, there would be a myriad of unix boxes for different purposes (file-storage, computation, backup, development, etc), as well as incompatible mac and windows desktop systems. And not all of these computers were connected to a printer. Instead the printers were shared through the network to all the computers. The printers would exist on the network as separate entities, just like computers did.

Yet another change was that network-aware printers became less common, and instead a cheaper printer would be attached to a single computer, and "shared" with other computers on the network.

And another change was that instead of having a competent admin to handle all of this, people expected to be able to do so themselves, at their own home network.

So basically, what I'm arguing is that there's no way this API could have been "right" from the start. It needed to evolve. Sure, it would be easier for new users if this "evolution" was hidden behind a carpet untill "linux 3.0" was out. On the other hand, having an open process has allowed early adopters that needed the new functionality to start using it before "linux 3.0" was out.

I'm not some crazy saying we need to decide on a single widget set or should merge Qt and Gtk. But a flexable and extensible layer that is stable and mature would make developing easier.

I could go on in the same way. Dumb terminals, smart terminals, expensive workstations, X-terminals, Desktop computers. Or: line-oriented, terminal-oriented, graphic terminals, ad-hoc graphics, Display Postscript, The X Window System, Open Look, Xt, Motif, Tcl/Tk, Qt/Gtk, KDE/Gnome. If we had stopped at Motif, we would have a standard now. Motif was good enough. But so was Open Look. And so was Display Postscript. In fact, things seems to have turned for the worse a lot of the time (for political reasons). But today Gnome and KDE both provide stable and mature layers. There's little to complain about apart from unnecessary choice. Which I agree is annoying, but even you aren't considering merging them, so...

Re:Coordinated Efforts

[SirCyn]

I think you missed my point entirely. I never said anythign about how things "should" have been. I was talking about where we go from here. Too many people get caught in how things have been done, why they were done. Instead we need to focus on where we go from here and how we get there fastest/easiest/take you pick.

I don't need a lesson in unix timesharing advancements. That isn't where we are now. I'm posing the question "How do we get to the next 'level' of computing, where is it, what are the options for getting there?", Questions like "Where did we start, how did we get here, what were designers *sure* of 10, 20, 30 years ago" makes little difference today.

I should be common knowledge that working together we can acheive more than any single person. The open source effot makes that plainly clear. So why do we not work together *more*? As I see it, there is no coordinating body. I'm not talking about a dictatorial type orginization who decices what the right standard is. But rather an orgizination that keeps track of many projects. Highlighting what each project does, what it's stong points are, and weaknesses. A directory that is searchable and flexable could enable programmers, or administrators and users, to find projects that suit thier needs. At the same time a coordinated effort to bring APIs in common projects together. I imagine that in many cases these are already similar.

Perhaps this will happen naturally some day. For now most poeple are too political and self-oriented to fully accomplish this sort of idea. At least somebody read my post. ::sigh::

Sadly, I think integration is the thing :-(

[gentimjs]

Ive tried some linux desktops here at the company I work for, and the single biggest "how do I?" I get is users asking how to drag and drop between disconnected applications.
For example, user using thunderbird for email and KDE desktop... wonders why they cant drag'n'drop the icon in thunderbird which represents an email attachment onto thier desktop and have it copy the file "like outlook does". (Yes, I know that tbird cant even do that on the windows platform.. :-/ )
When I explain that thier desktop is disconnected from thier mail application, or thier IM client, or whatever else I get hit with "but .. drag and drop has been around since the old mac stuff in the 80s? why cant they do it?"
-I- understand the logic of the *nix userland paradigm, but my users dont ... and they dont care ... they just want to drag'n'drop a movie clip into the body of an email, and have it work. It doesnt matter if they really shouldnt be doing that, its what they want.
Until all that BS "works" like they expect it too, the most I expect to get from end users is "yeah its neat, but I dont think I can get used too it"

Re:Sadly, I think integration is the thing :-(

[wes33]

Drag n' drop attachments work just fine in kmail. Maybe TB is just crap (I wouldn't use it). Another *big* plus of kmail is that option to choose which smtp server to use to send a message at the time you want to send it. This is just wonderful for those on the road who are disconnected from their default mail server, or who use different ones at different locations and in a coffee shop use gmail's server.

Bubble burst?

[hey!]

Drat! I missed it.

Well, I'll guess I'll just have to wait for the next bubble to come around.

Never underestimate a stubborn cuss who doesn't know when he's beat. Especially if he works for something other than money. As they say in Klingon, "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

Re:Bubble burst?

[multipartmixed]

Vengeance is a dish which eats itself cold??

What Linux Needs to Succeed

[copponex]

1. Simple, easy to use software for managing program installations. Synaptic is pretty good.
2. Simple, easy to use software for using Windows applications. Crossover office sucks. I haven't tried the Parallels solution for Linux yet.
3. Simple, easy to use software for system management. Linux has no Control Panel/System Preferences. All of that sort of configuration needs to be in one place.
4. Simple, easy to use network wide administration interfaces. I can plug in SBS 2003, babysit the installation for five hours, and have an e-mail server, web server, automatically installed groupware with a web interface, and a unified interface to administer the whole thing. Where is the Linux equivalent?

Command line programs are not simple or easy to use. While they become quicker over time as you learn all of the quirks, simple GUI interfaces for configuration don't require remembering arbitrary --configure-with-pears options. GUI interfaces to the command line interfaces make the most sense -- easy one-time setup, with fully exposed options for scripting.

And no, I will not pick up an editor and get to work. I only had to pay Apple $2000 for a laptop that was preprogrammed with the options I want.

Re:What Linux Needs to Succeed

[CommandNotFound]

For 3 and 4, sounds like Webmin would be good option for you, if the built-in distro tools (RH, SuSe, etc) don't cut it for you.

Show me where the results

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some results:

• French parliament dumping Windows for Linux
  
• Munich breaks with Windows for Linux
  
• City of Vienna Chooses Linux
  
• ...
  

You can easily find a ton of others companies/organizations switching to GNU/Linux. Our company did last year, I'm positng this message from Debian worstation. KDE surely beats the hell out of XP, I wish we would/ve done the switch sooner.

Why is version so important

[rajivvyas]

From the article, the gist I got was that GNOME was still stuck between version 2 and 3 and KDE between 3 and 4. Why is the author so focused on the version number? Most Open Source software aren't big on high version numbers. By his argument, Linux kernel is a has been "server OS" because it is still at version 2.67. Many people would argue that Vista is nothing but Service Pack 3 and not a huge upgrade from XP. And some would even say that in its 25 years of existence, Windows XP was the first true operating system. My2cents: version numbers are not important. The author should compare improvements, new features and stability of GNOME 2.8 vs. version 2 seven years ago.

Who's doing frequent major releases? Not MS!

[norminator]

For the Linux desktop, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continuously been fed point releases which added bits of functionality and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day.

Some people consider Windows XP to be a point release of 2000. But even if XP was a major release, they still went from 2001 until Jan 2007 before making a new release (to consumers, anyhow). Sounds like KDE has until 2008 to make a new release before they're any worse than MS, if you're going strictly by "major" releases.

But even just looking at the point releases... KDE got tons better in 3.2, then again in 3.3 then in 3.4, and now 3.5... It really compares more against OSX's almost yearly "point" releases, which have all had quite a few improvements in functionality and style. Personally, after playing around with KDE for a while and enjoying it's earlier support for compositing, I went back to Gnome, and thoroughly enjoy using it (and now with Beryl/Xgl, the transparency in KDE isn't an exclusive feature in the Linux world anymore). I like Gnome, so I'm not really looking for any major changes to it... I don't want changes to get in the way of how I like to use it. It helps me use and enjoy my computer.

I do have one of the Vista RC's in a dual-boot setup on my laptop, but I only use it for work, where the software is Windows-only. I don't care for Vista. I have a hard time understanding why Vista can't pull off cool effects on the same hardware that Beryl/Xgl work so well on. But even if it could, MS is trying so hard to make an appealing product, when Gnome/KDE/Apple just plain make great products. MS wants to let us all know how hard they're trying to be cool, but in the end, they're just trying. Sure, Microsoft has a new major release coming out right now, but it has actually complicated the experience of using my computer, making me that much happier with Gnome.

re: Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?

[rs232]

Given the fact that it must be bought seperatly and installed it's been pretty sucessful up to now. Until you can go into the high street shop and buy a computer with Desktop Linux preinstalled you won't see it become nearly as ubiquitous as Windows. What the hardware manufactures should do is start something similar to the Apple shops. The same with Dell, SuSE and Lenovo and Sun.

2002 LoL

[Lamity]

Has it burst? I don't think it ever inflated!

2002 was probably Linux's swansong on the desktop. Last chance with OS-X maturing and now Vista now ready to roll. What happened in the intervening four years with KDE and Gnome ... not much. Ubuntu! Pfft. Who really cares. And it has nothing to do with free. In 2007 I want to be able to setup a printer, connect to all my network shares and install my productivity apps in under 3 weeks and avoid having to recompile my kernel.

"Steve Jobs has said that X-Windows is brain-damaged and will disappear in two years. He got it half-right." - Dennis Ritchie

Re:2002 LoL

[Dunbal]

Has it burst?

      I don't think so. After all, netcraft hasn't confirmed it.

drivers

[phrostie]

i don't have a problem with the desktops, but they seem to be losing ground on drivers.
the state of wireless drivers could use some help.
mine works, but it's a pain.
and i have yet to figure out how to get my ATI to do full 3D.
it makes me appreciate my old nVidia harware.

Re:drivers

[AusIV]

I completely disagree. I think the one area Desktop Linux is making the most progress is hardware support. When I first installed Linux on my desktop (barely a year ago), my laptop wasn't even a consideration because there was no support for my ATI graphics card, my wireless card, my SD card reader, etc. When I installed Ubuntu Edgy Eft on my laptop, I had accelerated graphics, my wireless card was automatically recognized, and I had to load one kernel module to get my SD card reader working. In order to run a composite desktop, I had to modify my Xorg.conf and add a few lines to set up the graphics card for Beryl, but overall it worked fairly easily.

This may not be the case with all distros, but Ubuntu has definitely improved hardware support in the Last year. The desktop environment has gotten prettier, but not much more functional.

Re:drivers

[phrostie]

i tried Ubuntu for that very reason.
and it was a very nice install, but in the end the ATI video harware was not accellerated.

A Global Vision Can Be A Handicap

[NickFortune]

What is lacking in the world od linux for desktops is a vision, plans and roadmaps.

Well, there's certainly no shortage of project roadmaps. There isn't a single Plan to which all FOSS developers Must Adhere, granted. I think that's a good thing.

MS chase single visions, not because it's a good idea, but because they have to. They have to put out an integrated system and wealthy as MS are, their resources are finite, and increasingly consumed in the co-ordination of development rather than development itself.

The Free Software world doesn't have this problem. We can pursue lots of ideas in parallel, and let Darwinian selection dictate which ones survive. And we do. That's one reason Linux is evolving faster than Windows.

What the Global Vision thing does give Redmond is fodder for marketing. They can talk up this incredibly glossy vaporware development (Longhorn) and by the time they get to the feeble cut-down reality, everyone seems to have forgotten that all the sound breaking stuff has been dropped along the way.

But again we, we don't need that. People use FOSS not because of the quality of our advertising, but the quality of the software.

A global vision would be nothing but a handicap.

Re:A Global Vision Can Be A Handicap

[OldeTimeGeek]

A global vision would be nothing but a handicap.

If you're talking about desktop Linux in the enterprise, the lack of vision is absolutely a handicap. Management really isn't interesting in hearing "It's free, just as long as someone is interested enough in supporting it" or "Well, it'll have whatever features that it eventually has, as long as someone is interested in developing it" or "It may work with our other systems, if we can hire enough people to do it." A lot of non-IT companies don't have huge development groups any more and really aren't interested in incurring the short- and long-term costs of building one.

As an individual user, I'm perfectly comfortable with a certain lack of direction. When you're trying to get the attention of the folks that will authorize enterprise-wide systems, lack of direction, either perceived or real, can be the difference between "hmmm, that sound's interesting - we should investigate this" and "No".

Re:A Global Vision Can Be A Handicap

[NickFortune]

Management really isn't interesting in hearing "It's free, just as long as someone is interested enough in supporting it"

Now let's not conflate roadmaps and support contracts.

or "Well, it'll have whatever features that it eventually has, as long as someone is interested in developing it" or "It may work with our other systems, if we can hire enough people to do it."

And I don't think I'm happy with the assumption that an open source projects's lack of a roadmap implies huge development costs for the deploying company.

When you're trying to get the attention of the folks that will authorize enterprise-wide systems, lack of direction, either perceived or real, can be the difference between "hmmm, that sound's interesting - we should investigate this" and "No".

I think the line to take is "it already works, it's free, and support is as good or better than you'll get from Microsoft." For added value, talk about the savings competitors are/will soon be/could be making and how your company will be in danger of falling behind if you don't leverage this exciting emergent technological trend. You know - management speak.

And if it's not ready, then wait a year or two, or look to see if there's a project that's a little more mature. Look at the server market; FOSS didn't come to dominate that through having a shiny mission statement. We did it because the Apache devs did a bloody good job.

I'll take working software over glossy vapourware any day of the week

Specialization

[emil]

I think the error here is in trying to develop and deploy a grand, unified graphics environment. This is extremely labor-intensive, and Apple/MS will always outgun us.

Perhaps we should be working on little graphic systems that address specific markets and do so concisely. Was abandoning the old Xt/Xaw/Motif such a good idea?

Maybe even X is too heavyweight for what needs to happen with desktop Unix. The ideas behind it are also pretty old.

What about combining the Gecko rendering code with something along the lines of svgalib or the direct console rendering of mplayer? What about an entire desktop based on XUL?

IMHO, desktop Linux/BSD is being crushed under the weight of legacy code.

Re:Specialization

[Dan Ost]

Maybe even X is too heavyweight for what needs to happen with desktop Unix. The ideas behind it are also pretty old.

X is supremely lightweight. It's the widget libraries (gtk, qt, etc.) that are hefty, but even they aren't all that bad
compared to what Microsoft and Apple are doing.

From where I sit, it looks like the Linux desktop, technically, is doing just fine. It's the inertia of the market
(people don't like learning new things) that needs to be overcome.

Is Linux right for everyone? Of course, not. But it is right for a growing subset of everyone.

Re:Specialization

[Jesus_666]

True. I'd put 2006 as the best year for desktop Linux so far, with a growing number of people in a non-techie community I'm in looking into it (or even outright abandoning Windows).

I'd describe now as a pretty exciting time. Linux adoption and awareness are growing and stuff like KDE 4 and widespread D-Bus adoption is to be expected in the near future. I won't follow the old mistake of assuming that the next year will be The Year Of Desktop Linux, but I expect 2007 to continue the good trend, even though Vista will probably drain away some XP-weary users. Good stuff is to be expected.

Re:XP with a new coat? Nonsense!

[daskinil]

Wow,... most of these comments are by the actual close minded people the topic sugggests. Vista isn't a "new coat" the visual upgrade is there, but i don't see how rewriting most the kernel, a new audio stack and new networking stack from scratch is a coat for anything. I don't mind people bashing an OS. Call it a little slow or unpolished, but don't be an ignorant dick spreading gossip.

But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distros

[HighOrbit]

Have you tried installing those packages that RH and SuSe distribute for those alternate desktops? They are distributed and they install, but they often have empty menus. Rarely do the companies take the effort to really integrate those alternates desktops/WMs into their distro. It's been a while since I've used Redhat (or rather CentOS), but the last time I tried fluxbox, XFCE, or WindowMaker there were a bunch of empty menus or broken links and none of the distro-specific tools were in the menus. The exception being Debian (yes, I know I was down on Debian a few days ago for having too many packages). This is an area where Debian excels. They are absolutely fanatical about getting the stuff properly configured and well integrated. When I installed Fluxbox and WindowMaker on Debian (Sarge and Etch), all the menus were populated with *working* items. Ofcourse, the packages were a little older, but they worked well and were integrated properly into the distro (that's the tradeoff with debian). (I also sometimes find myself coming back to Gnome, because of familiarity or because I'm using GTK/Gnome apps anyway - gEdit is my favorite X editor).

Paradoxically, with Sun, CDE seems to be better supported. I have a few ancient sparc-II systems. They have Solaris 10, but I still use CDE because, even now (or rather 1/2006 edition of Solaris 10), Sun does a better jobs of integrating some of their tools into CDE than their newer Gnome Java Desktop thingy, even though Sun is making a big push to move everthing over to Gnome. (Besides, Gnome runs dog slow on those ancient boxes). I could install fluxbox or WindowMaker on those boxes too, but the menus would be empty.

I'll talk about GNOME

[bogaboga]

Even with it's relatively numerous releases as compared to KDE, GNOME as implemented by the "best" GNOME centric desktop (Ubuntu), sucks in my opinion, and here's why: -

• It will not allow me type into the file dialog! Translation: All files *must* reside on the system. This is absurd considering that we're in the so called internet age.

• I find its colors dull yet GNOME will not allow me change this.

• As implemented by Ubuntu, GNOME has just too many dialog boxes, some of them redundant!

• Fonts are plain ugly. I am beginning to doubt whether clear, crisp fonts are possible on Linux. In all cases beautiful desktops I have seen have been made possible on the font front by Microsoft's help!

• GNOME just too slow!

• GNOME still sucks with its file manager. The developers should look at KDE's Krusader and Konqueror itself for inspiration. Up to now, GNOME lacks the ability to set the default directory and cannot have more than two panes!

Re:I'll talk about GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

It will not allow me type into the file dialog! Translation: All files *must* reside on the system. This is absurd considering that we're in the so called internet age.

Not that I disagree with any of your assessments, really, but CTRL+L may be the answer to this particular problem :)

Re:I'll talk about GNOME

[bogaboga]

Not that I disagree with any of your assessments, really, but CTRL+L may be the answer to this particular problem :)

Yes, that works, but where is it written? Is it possible to have a newbie find this Ctrl+L thing, or does one have to source help from a "geek?" This is one of the biggest problems with GNOME. Everything [useful] is "hidden!"

Re:I'll talk about GNOME

[Tack]

This bug, if you want to call it that, has been fixed. In recent gtk (which is included in FC6), the location bar is again integrated into the file dialog.

I finally get mod points again...

[gdek]

...and this is the first story I see?

I'll pass, thanks.

Another "journalist" pushing his opinion...

[javanree]

The author seems to be quite ill-informed, a-technical and opiniated... I'll only talk about KDE, as that's what I use : KDE's new "under-the-hood" technologies are showing signs of progress. Anybody reading Aaron Seigo's blog, following the blogs of the Amarok developers or visiting Planet KDE regularly have seen how far certain technologies have already evolved. Qt4 is allowing a lot of cool new things, such as different method of shaping text, allowing VNC-like sessions and much more. Developers of apps like KOffice are already hard at work using the advantages from these core technologies... anybody following the Krita developer blogs can see what amazing things await us. The first two alpha's of KDE are very promising, but one has to want to see the changes so far, as most of KDE4 stuff is still in kdebase and kdelibs Most Linux software updates aren't revolutionary, it's the nature of the development model. So you won't see shocking new things, however if you look over time (The KDE 3.x branch has been running for some years now) the results are spectaculair. Any time I need to logon to a stock RHEL 3 desktop system I'm droppped in a KDE 3.0.5 enviroment, which feels so outdated compared to my 3.5.5 desktop setup... that's serious progress. It just comes in little steps.

Why do you care?

[joedoc]

I find it fascinating that anyone would care what a college student from the Netherlands would have to say about this subject. Not like we're talking about some high-and-mighty figure from the IT world proclaiming (again) the death of Linux on the desktop. The holiday season means slow news days, so this becomes "news" around here.

I use Linux all the time. My laptop, desktop and home server all run various versions. I rarely boot Windows on the laptop (I have a nice free Linux VMWare Server installation for that), and it's nowhere to be found on the other machines. At my job, like everyone else, I have to use Windows (even though I'm developing for Solaris and Linux platforms), but that's they way my organization does things.

This idea that Linux was supposed to provide some kind of "challenge" to Windows on the desktop is a figment of a lot of people's imaginations. If you have a use for it, use it. You have a ton of choices in Linux desktops, from the stripped down and fast, to the bloated and slow. Linux is an equal opportunity system that you can use in any way you see fit. I don't see that kind of choice with Windows. Yet, billions use it. They've made their choice as well.

And as long as we "Linux fanboys" find utility and power in this system, we're continue to use it, and people will continue to develop for it, no matter what kind of FUD continues to be spread about it.

Believe me, coming from someone who first used Linux at kernel version 0.12: nothing has changed.

What's up with the lexicon....

[Anonymous Coward]

that so-called journalists use nowadays. Fanboys! Really! Isn't there any other word in the english language that could have made the same point and not made the author look like a 10 yr. old. Just the other days, I saw a PS3 basher article with phrases like "PS3 fanbois are losers". And it was not on some random blog, it was on extremetech.com.

easier to install

[majortom1981]

Linux will not get more mainstreem till it becomes easier to install. there are also still a lot of linux programs that need to be recompiled because there installs dont work correctly. But of course all the linux fanboys will tell me thats not true. i dont care what they say this has been my experience and ihave gone through hell trying to get linux to work and no luck .I finally just gave up. By the way. Many linux users are very unhelpful and very nasty when you try to get help with their almight linux.

Re:easier to install

[majortom1981]

Sorry half my post got cut off. I have tried installing linux on my machine. 3 different distrobutions and 2 of them wont even install right and dont start up and crash my computer and the third screws up the video and the two halves of the screen are switched so the bottom is on the top and visa versa. I finally gave up trying to get linux installed on my desktop.

Re:easier to install

[DaMattster]

Try PCBSD. I have had a nightmare of a time with Linux too. PCBSD uses the FreeBSD distribution of BSD (which is not a linux kernel but a true, independent Operating system) Not only is it easy to install, but installing packages works very similarly to Windows. try this www.pcbsd.org.

Re:easier to install

[DragonWriter]

Linux will not get more mainstreem till it becomes easier to install.

I haven't had worse experience with Linux installs, generally, than Windows installs.

OTOH, most users don't have to install Windows, because it comes pre-installed and tailored to the factory hardware configuration of their box. That is the disadvantage Linux faces.

Ubuntu better than OSX

[Chemicalscum]

Ubuntu is a better desktop than OSX no question case closed don't bother to reply

other incremental improvements

[shis-ka-bob]

I have also noticed a huge improvement in KDE's stability. With the recent Coverity scans, we see that KDE is on and off the 0 defect list. KDE seems to be the most active projects on the Coverity scan, I notice more more week to week change in KDE than in any other project. In 3.4 million lines of code, Coverity has uncovered over 1,200 bugs. All bugs have been identified and all but 10 have been closed. KDE has been on the zero defect list, but there is new development going on so new bugs do appear. Not only is KDE gaining the features you mention, but they are doing it while cleaning up the code base. KDE development seems to have a great deal of momentum, especially in Europe.

Re:other incremental improvements

[Grishnakh]

KDE development seems to have a great deal of momentum, especially in Europe.

But don't forget, if you're talking to a crowd of Americans, that most Americans wouldn't even be able to point out Europe on a world map.

Then again, many Americans couldn't even point out the USA on a map.

Laurels

[Paradise Pete]

Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels

What laurels would those be?

KDE on Ubuntu

[Dirtside]

I've been using KDE on Ubuntu for about five months now, on a Dell P3-850 with 512 MB RAM that's about 7 years old. It's got a lot of neat features, stuff I wish Windows had, but there's still a lack of cohesiveness and fluidity that Windows seems to be a little better at still. Mostly it's little things, like the fact that if I lock my desktop, I can't just tell it to use my desktop background; it uses the screen saver instead, and the only "show a static image" screen savers are kinda gimpy. (No, not GIMPy.) Yeah, it's a little minor thing, but there's a lot of such.

Or stuff like fonts. I realize that the whole font issue is a gigantic, historically-fraught quagmire; but after spending a solid week just trying to get KDE to allow me to use certain bitmapped fonts (and failing), and being unable to find any documentation about how KDE's font system works internally in hope of determining what's wrong, it can get frustrating. I miss how relatively easy and "it just works" (I know, I hate that phrase too, but it applies) Windows fonts were.

Re:KDE on Ubuntu

[vurian]

There's no "KDE" font system. Your problem with bitmapped fonts is with Ubuntu: it disables bitmapped fonts by default (otherwise you're going to see quite a few websites show up in grainy, pixely helvetica). The solution is to drop down to konsole level and run sudo dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig and enable bitmap fonts.

Re:KDE on Ubuntu

[Dirtside]

Except I've never done that before, and there *is* one bitmap font (Terminus) available. If bitmap fonts are disabled on the distro level, then how come that one shows up?

And I'm sure they could figure out a way to enable bitmap fonts by default and yet prevent everything from being in bitmapped Helvetica :)

Besides, that's my whole point: No matter what version of Windows you use, you never have to fiddle around with low-level font settings like this. The Linux desktop domain *in general* needs to have a simpler font system that doesn't ever require me to run dpkg-reconfigure. It's one of the many little things that make Linux desktop usage less optimal. I'd love to put the time and energy into being the one who makes the font system mo' better, but alas, too many other drains on my time already. What bugs me is that clearly SOMEONE has been spending a great deal of time on this; maybe I can persuade them.

Linux Dektop dependant on X11

[bobaferret]

I think you will start to see many new Improvements to the desktop in the next year or two. The main reason being the changes in X11. I think you're going to see head to head competition with OSX and Vista now that X.Org is really allwoing Hardware acceleration. True 3d desktops and all sorts of crazy things. There is no HIG for the 3d world. Compriz and what not will trully open up the desktop to innovation that Apple and MS won't be able to compete with after a while. Things have really settled down and caught up with the other platforms over the past 10 years. We've come along way since fvwm. Now is the time to really push into the future, since we are not bound by the rules of marketing and PHB's. Novell and RedHat won't jump too far ahead, but God only knows what the enlightenment folks will do, or other non-commercial groups of coders. To me the only thing really missing from the desktop is good video card support. I'd really like to run compriz with 4 monitors and Xinerama. But it sure feels like the time is comming. Damn! I sound like an optimist don't I? I've been using Linux regularly since 1993, and the differences and improvements since then have been amazing. I can't but hope they will continue to improve, and at an even fater rate. I haven't been dissipointed so far.

Re:Linux Dektop dependant on X11

[dillinger23]

I think that you greatly overstimate Xgl.
After all it was written by a single person, is buggy,
crashes all the time and not yet _finished_.

On the contrary, osx quartz has been out there for as long
as i can remember, is rock solid and can do everything possible in Xgl
_already_.

I don't think that a bunch of amateur developers doing Xgl work
are going to beat Apple in innovation any time soon...

Re:Linux Dektop dependant on X11

[bobaferret]

I mostly agree. I do think it could take some time, and that it is buggy blah blah blah. However, various groups seem to be getting behind axgl whioch is apparently less buggy.

as for :

I don't think that a bunch of amateur developers doing Xgl work
are going to beat Apple in innovation any time soon... I can't agree with. These are not amature developers, and it's never a good idea to underestimate the speed with which OSS can catchup/pass a commercial company in inovations and development. Examples include: Linux kernel, Apache, Jboss, Postgres. Most of these are backend systems obviously, and not desktop, but Xgl and Axgl are laying a foundation for people experiment with and build on. When it reaches a watershed where all you need to really know is a little OpenGL to start improving the desktop/wm, I think you'll see an exponetial increase in the number of projects.

You have to remember that things pick up speed at an incredible rate in the OSS world. I believe that Xgl/Axgl/Compriz are just the right kind of seed to get people interested.

Re:Linux Dektop dependant on X11

[dillinger23]

>> You have to remember that things pick up speed at an incredible rate in the OSS world. I believe that Xgl/Axgl/Compriz are just the right kind of seed to get people interested.

This usually happens when a corp (read IBM, SUN) throws a bunch of money on an opensoure project.
I don't see that happening with desktop linux.
Since you mentioned JBoss, i'll have to remind you that it was the laughing stock of the entire Java enterprise development
community for a couple of years. Don't know if the acquisition by Redhat improved things...

>> When it reaches a watershed where all you need to really know is a little OpenGL to start improving the desktop/wm, I think you'll see an exponetial increase in the number of projects.

This is exactly the problem with linux. "A little opengl" to start improving the desktop/wm is not going to cut it unfortunately.
If thats all you have, you'll end up in the same mess as before (incosistent applications that do whatever their "amateur" developers
like, no serious usability studies, no professionalism, no COMMON VISION). So how is this going to help the situation ??

The thing you and ever linux fan and advocate needs to realise is that the ordinary user does not care about compiz,beryl,cube animations and so on.
What he wants is _consistency_ and _user-friendly_ expected and predictable behavior. OSX delivers in spades whilst linux doesn't yet know
the meaning of these terms.

Re:Linux Dektop dependant on X11

[bobaferret]

This usually happens when a corp (read IBM, SUN) throws a bunch of money on an opensoure project. I would call this quite common now, so I do see this happening with desktop.

This is exactly the problem with linux. "A little opengl" to start improving the desktop/wm is not going to cut it unfortunately.
If thats all you have, you'll end up in the same mess as before (incosistent applications that do whatever their "amateur" developers
like, no serious usability studies, no professionalism, no COMMON VISION). So how is this going to help the situation ?? I think that this is both a pro and a con with open source. Initialy there is no common vision, just a problem to be solved. People just throwing their ideas into the pile. However, this tends to foster creativity. Groups of developers begin to form, friendly competion etc. Companies began to form around these groups. Money begins to come in etc. Usability studies etc then start happening. Obviously this is almost the exact opposite of the commercial software world. The problems I see I see with this developemnt method are that their is a potentially huge amount of wasted effort and time. But the flip side of this is that developers are not bound to stale ideas from out of date managers/users. One of things I love about Apple is that they have been willing to foster creativity, and try things out. But they also have the benifit of one person in charge to guide them. With a major exception being Appleand possibly Sun and Google, I don't think that most software companies have a common vision, usability studies, or professionalism. I've worked for too many large and small companies, what they have are politics, baggage, and limits.

The thing you and every linux fan and advocate needs to realise is that the ordinary user does not care about compiz,beryl,cube animations and so on. Not anymore. Ubiquitis computing and youth are changing this. The boomers are begining to move out, and people who feel that their lives should be fun and cool are moving in. Cell phones are all flashy functionality for example, and computers are headed that way. How many apple people do you know who are excited by it's upcoming spinning cube? The average user wants a pleasent place to work, not a battle ship.

What he wants is _consistency_ and _user-friendly_ expected and predictable behavior. OSX delivers in spades whilst linux doesn't yet know
the meaning of these terms. _consistency_ is a good thing and yes people like know what to expect. But people also want fresh and new. OSX offers a _little_ freshness but is mostly just paint. Just like Vista, Gnome and KDE. OSX is anything but consistant, if you include all of the 3rd party apps for it, Whereas Linux has more. Gnome and KDE are constantly becoming more and more consistant through all of their apps. Whereas Apple has absolutly now control over 3rd party vendors, and can't get their programs behave like their average.

Sorry to take issue with your use of the word amature, but I guess in my head there are bad or good programmers, with some shading in between. And you just can't really tell who's who out here anymore. I've seen stats that say the number of paid developers (directly or indirectly) on linux outways the number volenteer developers. But I've also seen stats the other way too. Too much FUD to filter through.

no

[blackrim]

simply put, no. the bubble hasn't burst. the community is better than ever (check out ubuntuforums). compatibility is better than ever.

don't post a story just because you want it to be true.

This Article

[Shadyman]

/Mod Article +1 Flamebait

The faults of Linux on the desktop

[dillinger23]

It is nice to view articles like that which although not completely objective raises a number of points which i think are valid. The lack of vision for one. It is obvious that a lot of things happen in "desktop linux" without appropriate coordination and guidance. That is why you have a lot of applications that are not well integrated and don't work well with each other. Comparisons with Vista and OSX are not that far from the truth. The key word being "integration", OSX blows anything that is currently in desktop linux out of the water. Everything works as it should, drag and drop from everything to everything, applications work in the same way, well defined guidelines exist and are followed (mostly). This is something that the development model of desktop linux environments will find hard to achieve. I also find the latest 3d accellerated X technologies to be all candy with no substance or depth. In OSX you have the candy too, but you also have robust frameworks (core image, core video, core animation in leopard), cutting-edge development environment and applications (Xcode, quartz composer, Interface Builder, opengl profiler, shader builder) and extensive documentation for _everything_. This (in combination with cocoa and other osx frameworks) makes it tremendously easy for someone to write an application that follows Apple's human interface guidelines, be easy to use, integrate perfectly with existing OSX applications and innovate in other areas. All of the above are absent or poorly implemented in Linux. It is therefore not surprising that the end result leaves much to be desired. In order for Linux to be competitive with OSX and even Vista some of these factors are going to have to be rectified.

Red-haired child

[Latent Heat]

That's right. Mod the parent post "Troll" because it suggests that the user experience of Unix is out of the mainstream. La-la-la-la I can't hear you!

On one extreme you have Grandma and her computer for doing e-mail; on the other extreme you have a bearded guru; in the middle you have the computing center for the engineering college at a Big-10 university 2-hours drive from the Eastern shore of one of the Great Lakes. We have mainly Windows boxes, a few Unix-y things like Solaris and others for running those Unix-only engineering packages, and some token Linux boxes that are treated like the red-haired child of questionable paternity. No, the folks running the computing center are not Linux-heads, but they are not helpless Grandma either in terms of Linux adoption.

For starters, one cannot plug in one of those USB memory sticks into a Linux PC. Forget about plugging the thing and having it auto-recognized and mounted. Forget even about shell commands to "mount" (that is so DEC 1970's PDP-11) that device. No can do. One is told to log into a Windows station, copy the files to a network share accessible from the Unix side, log out, and then access the files from Linux. No joke.

I mean for crying out loud, a USB memory stick is not like someone's wonder digital camera-scanner-PDA-coffee maker. Everyone is using those memory sticks, and that you can't just plug it into the computer and access it from Linux is completely stupid. Yeah, yeah, our computer center guys are not followers of the True Way or have the Right Distro, but we are not talking about Grandma and her e-mail, we are talking about a bunch of computer admins at the engineering college of a university.

As to the red-headed child effect, there is a dearth of applications on these things. Like why don't they have Open Office/Star Office, Eclipse, and a couple other things on them? Why, because there is no demand, mainly because no one uses these boxes for anything, and we are talking engineering college and university.

So if the failure to adopt Linux indicates stupid people, there are stupid people even in the academic environment by that standard, which suggests Linux has a ways to go in terms of adoption.

Re:Red-haired child

[delire]

For starters, one cannot plug in one of those USB memory sticks into a Linux PC. Forget about plugging the thing and having it auto-recognized and mounted.

Clearly you haven't used Linux in 5 years. I don't know of a desktop Linux distro which doesn't automount USB storage devices, including cameras.

The 90's called, and they want their "I tried Linux but couldn't install it" angst back.

Re:Red-haired child

[businessnerd]

This place must have some really fucked up setup, because I have never had any problem ever connecting a USB memory stick in Linux. Not in Fedora, Ubuntu, VectorLinux, and others. In fact it is the exact same steps as in windows.

1. Plug USB stick into USB port 2. Drive automatically mounts on the Desktop (or in Windows, My Computer, thus necesitating an extra click) 3. Double click drive to open 4. Do your stuff 5. Close Window 6. right click drive's icon and select "Unmount" (or in Windows click the "Safely Remove Hardware Icon and jump through two more hoops) 7. Remove USB stick

Re:Red-haired child

[s4m7]

For starters, one cannot plug in one of those USB memory sticks into a Linux PC. Forget about plugging the thing and having it auto-recognized and mounted. Forget even about shell commands to "mount" (that is so DEC 1970's PDP-11) that device. No can do. One is told to log into a Windows station, copy the files to a network share accessible from the Unix side, log out, and then access the files from Linux. No joke.

Y'all obviously need to do some updating... my mom's three year old Ubuntu machine auto mounts memory sticks, and even her (brand new) digital camera. This isn't a critique of desktop linux from last decade, is it?

Re:Red-haired child

[just_another_sean]

For starters, one cannot plug in one of those USB memory sticks into a Linux PC.

BS. What are you using Red Hat 6?

I use Ubuntu and Debian. But I know, without a doubt, that your BS even if we're talking about RH, SuSE or whatever modern Linux Distro (meant for users, not firewalls or other specialty distros that is).

Anyone of the modern Distros I've tried place an icon on my desktop when I plug in a USB mem stick, hard drive, cdrom drive or camera. Hell I even get a new icon on my desk when I put a CD into the IDE cdrom in my PC. Oh and I use XFCE, not GNOME or KDE. But you know what? This also works in KDE or GNOME.

Yes, I've used Linux for a long time and consider myself somewhat more knowledgable then the average computer user. But my wife, kids and mother are not "geeks, gurus, grizzled" or any other g word that suggests they've been using *nix for decades. And, to quote my daughter - "Dad, I plugged the camera into Ubuntu and it put it on the desktop! I thought cameras on Linux were all hard and stuff?"... My response? "Not anymore honey".

Things work differently on a Linux desktop sometimes and, as with any OS you can name, sometimes things are buggy but if usability on a fresh install of any modern distro is a problem for you guys then I can't help but think that yes, maybe these people you speak of are stupid. But my guess is they are not, probably brighter then most but you're talking about what you and your colleagues experienced 5 years ago. Kind of like people talking about blue screens in a discussion about XP. Yes they still happen, but the people who chime in about them in these discussions are usually describing their experience with 98/ME. Well this discussion is about Linux distros post 2002, not Red Hat 6. The problems you describe simply don't exist in most modern Linux distros anymore.

Re:Red-haired child

[uglyduckling]

or in Windows click the "Safely Remove Hardware Icon and jump through two more hoops

Just in case anyone thinks I'm a Linux zealot based on my previous comments, here's a quick tip.

If you left click on the icon in the tray, then left click on the name of your device, it doesn't pop up the stupid dialog box, it just unmounts. Good eh? It's a rubbish piece of UI design, but is a useful shortcut.

Re:Red-haired child

[t0rkm3]

Dude, I hate to "Me too!" you, but I use "not friendly" distros (Elive{Debian} and Gentoo) and I just so happen to have gotten a freebie USB stick from a vendor. Guess what? The Winders choked on it whilst I merrily move some source files over for covert installation on the vendor platform.

Oh, and my wife's camera? The same...

Linux has all the tools to win this war because the developers write to open and usable standards. IF only the hardware vendors would realize that on a larger scale.

MS will always try to make the right tactical decisions for market share, even if it's technically or strategically wrong. For now, they win because they have been "forcibly offering unwanted advances progressing into unconsenting relations"1 people for years.

1.ass-raping

Re:Red-haired child

[richlv]

you didn't read whole comment, now did you ? :)

Re:Red-haired child

[rkww]

I don't know of a desktop Linux distro which doesn't automount USB storage devices

Not knowing something doesn't make it untrue.

• http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-Ma rch/061483.html
• http://mandrivausers.org/lofiversion/index.php/t 37742.html
• http://www.buberel.org/linux/usb-automounter.php
• http://www.suseforums.net/lofiversion/index.php/ t19223.html

Re:Red-haired child

[GoulDuck]

Sound like you haven't used Windows XP? Or maybe it have been introduced in a service pack - I can't remember.

Windows XP usually pop up with window, where you can choose (like explore it) what to do with the connected USB drive. I think this is much better than just showing an icon on the desktop, where you might have to minimize windows to get to it. I have to admit, that I haven't connect a USB drive to a Linux box for some time, so it might have gotten better.

The other thing with Windows XP is that you don't need to use the "safely remove hardware"-thing. When the connected USB drive is finished writing data, you can unplug it. I believe it's because Windows XP flush the cache right away (or it's turn off?), so when the device is done "blinking", you can remove it. How Linux reacts... I don't know.

So the steps on Windows is more like this:
1. Plug USB stick into USB port 2. Select action (explore it) 3. Do your stuff 4. Remove it, when the USB stick is not blinking anymore.
Are the steps for Linux the same today?

Re:Red-haired child

[makomk]

Windows XP usually pop up with window, where you can choose (like explore it) what to do with the connected USB drive. I think this is much better than just showing an icon on the desktop, where you might have to minimize windows to get to it.

I know. KDE's copied it, and it's really annoying a lot of the time. (I just told it to open the folder in Konqueror and not bug me about it for USB devices...)

Re:Red-haired child

[Sparr0]

"linux distro that happens to run on a desktop computer" != "desktop linux distro"

When I attach a USB storage device to my Kubuntu PC, I get a windows-like "autorun" dialog. It always includes the options "Open in new window" (opens a file browser) and "Do Nothing", and includes contextual options depending on whats in the root of the device. Photos, videos, music, etc, all yield different options. On my work machine I have it set to never ask and always just Open in new window. Attach, automount, autoopen. Bam. Beats the hell out of windows.

first compiling the kernel troll ..

[rs232]

"What happened in the intervening four years with KDE and Gnome ... not much"

Would you call Looking Glass on Ubuntu nothing or Beryl 3D nothing. Both out Vistas Vista which isn't even in the shops yet. Not to mention Novells SLED offering.

"In 2007 I want to be able to setup a printer, connect to all my network shares and install my productivity apps in under 3 weeks and avoid having to recompile my kernel"

You're obviously trolling but I'll bite. What obscure 'productivity apps' that (in all probability googled on) you had to recompile your kernel. Setting up a printer and enabling network shares do not require recompiling your kernel either.

was Re:2002 LoL

Just because you don't have a fancy new number...

[TheSenori]

GNOME 2.0 was released in 2002. Since then, what significant part of the Linux stack below GNOME hasn't been improved to a degree comparable to what has been improved in Vista or OS X? Desktops can be defined with huge sweeping changes, but these often lead to delays and removals (see: Microsoft's Cairo.) By making a lot of little changes to the desktop, GNOME has changed as much in the last few years as have Vista or OS X. It's just hard to notice, because you haven't used GNOME 2.0 since 2.2 came out.

Why a desktop linux anyway?

[oliderid]

when I code server side application and I need a Linux environment, I use KDE.
So I've got a Desktop PC, and it runs fine. I prefer a nice UI over a SSH connection with Emacs under development environment.

But when I need to store my pictures, edit my video or simply browse the web I use Windows XP.
I mainly use free applications like thunderbird, open office, firefox, GIMP, Putty and all these gems on Windows XP. I don't need to install illegal copies. i've got everything I need for free and legally. I've got an all in one scan-printer (brother), I've got an USB external DVD driver. I don't ever bother trying to configure them with SUSE 9.2. Frankly speaking I've got tons of other things to do than playing around and make it work under Linux.

Sure there are "virus", trojans etc...But well I'm advanced enough to avoid most of these threats and for two years and counting I had no infection. Anyway I've got a One touch Maxtor external HD doing all the backups (another not-Linux friendly hardware).

So why should I migrate?

If you don't want to make a political stand, if you haven't fun anymore while openning various config files, reading dozens of FAQs to install such a simple thing like a printer. There is no reason to migrate. And if me as a computer engineer I see no reason to migrate...Why a lambda user who just wants to share pictures with his family, browsing the web, etc would have a reason to migrate? The question is as simple as that. Desktop Linux needs a killer application, Something that you cannot find on another platform. Mac is known for its User Interface and its simplicity. Windows is known for its compatibility with hardware and well known application. Linux is known as a free environment and that is not enough.

I want ease and choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put I want a desktop that suits me. One that is not full of apps and crap I'll never use. Linux gives me that choice. If I want a simple fast lightweight desktop where I can accomplish simple tasks - internet,email,irc,calender,some music in the backround,a game here and there I can choose from half a dozen offerings or customise my own. If I want bells and whistles I can also do that till I go deaf and my eyes water. Neither Windows or OSX gives me that option to my way of thinking.

This works fine until...

[Anonymous Coward]

They ask you "So and so told me about doodad x" and they can't get it to work because it's for windows, or they complain that their computer doesn't do all the things their friend's computer does, or worse, they buy some software. NOw they're annoyed at you, and you have to explain why... Next thing you know windows is installed on the computer and that's the end of Linux on that computer. This is the usual scenario for me, at which point all I can say to them is "Don't ask me to fix it when it breaks"

Re:This works fine until...

[t0rkm3]

For me...

My wife has been happily Winders free for 7yrs now. My brothers, 2yrs. I very carefully explained that some things they won't be able to do the same way (similar to the diff between Mac & Winders) but they'll never have to worry about inexplicable crashing, adware, viruses, or wack-ass weirdness.

If they have questions about an app, they find out about it and then ask me.

Final outcome: They accept the downsides for the glorious feeling they get when they can say "Crash? Adware? what are these you speak of?"

Re:This works fine until...

[WhatDoIKnow]

Hey, what OS do they use? I've used Windows, Mac, and Linux, and I sure haven't found any version of those 3 that doesn't crash from time to time.

:wq

Re:This works fine until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux isn't free of that. My latest "inexplicable" crash is X complete locking up at when I'm watching a video/recording in MythTV, but only when I have my USB DVB-T stick connected, which is weird. It seems to be a graphics driver problem as it seems to have stopped now that I've put an old PCI Geforce4 MX 420 in, but I'm still using the onboard for a second screen so I can't be sure.

Re:This works fine until...

[Anonymous Coward]

reality: that does not happen. 99% of all computers stay with what was on it when they got it. They dont buy "doodads" or software. they use their computer and that is it.

Huh?

[Junta]

If you think 2002 was the end of it all, install a distribution that was current in 2002, or hell, half way into 2003. That ought to refresh your memory as to how things changed. I still support systems running that stuff.

The problem is the author is one of these people that are the cause of marketers demanding n+1.0 releases to give the perception of great advancement. In Gnome 2.0, I think they reached the fundamental model that to me seems to be pretty much where they want to be, but that hasn't meant it didn't change drastically since then. Some of those 'bits of functionality improvements' have been fairly significant, and critical to a desktop platform, and keeping pace with OSX and Windows visual effects capabilities (i.e. Cairo and working toward Metacity compositing). From things as basic as a persistent clipboard, to things like numerous overhauls of nautilus, the mime-type systems, menu editing, embracing the freedesktop standards, new file chooser dialogs, and extending their platform to include more system administration standardization and various necessities (i.e. a screensaver consistant with the desktop).

Though there are some significant differences between gnome 2.0 basic layout and gnome 1.x basic layout, keep in mind that at least to this point Gnome major version is tied to the basic toolkit, which has essentially achieved the basic functionality they needed. Gtk 1.x was ass ugly, and not flexible enough to cleanly adopt new rendering strategies, and gtk 2.x corrected it and improved flexibility that has so far avoided the need for gtk 3.x.

Same for KDE, though IMHO, gnome spent more time struggling with what they wanted their vision to be, while KDE early on were content with their results. When I went from KDE 2.x to 3.0, it didn't feel significantly different. Again, they tie their major releases to their toolkit, QT. If QT never released 4.0, the 'revolutionary' 4.0 features for the most part would be in a KDE 3.n+1.

All this assumes also that all desktop 'innovation' can only come from the main progression of the GNOME/KDE projects. Compiz and Beryl have shown the way to advanced compositing with AIGLX/Xgl/nVidia-specific calls, for those OSX/Vista effects (and more). Ubuntu ties its release closely to the Gnome schedule, but the focus and integration of things in and out of gnome is critical to a good desktop system. Thanks to all the work in Gnome, the kernel, and other people and distros like Ubuntu doing the work to pull it all together,my desktop is as functional and nice looking as OSX or Windows. I can insert and remove media, and have it mounted and unmounted with ease, I can put my laptop to sleep and have it reliably wake up. I never want for a Windows desktop.

My only regret about the linux desktop is that GNUstep is not progressing more quickly. There are things about the NeXT/OSX interface strategy I really like, but GNUstep, despite some strides, progresses slowly overall and even with theming (Nesedah looks fairly nice), it is hard to get it to look nice yet clean.

Re:Huh?

[ChristTrekker]

I agree about GNUstep. I'd like to see more options and more innovation in the Unix desktop scene. I'd be thrilled if the toolkits simply supported an option to hand off the application menus to the wm in a standardized way, so that a Mac-like menubar could be done.

Re:Huh?

[Junta]

I would also add that lack of major releases is not an indication of the death of the linux desktop. As an example, WinXP released in 2002, and in 2006 they hadn't had any "major updates", and only 2 "minor updates" (the service packs weren't necessarily minor, but by this guys definition...) We can therefore rejoice, as Windows is a dead platform by that measure!

Re:Desktop Linux is a bad joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I must disagree on this one...

I've been using an accelerated desktop for a while now (compiz for that matter), with most of the features disabled (I get sick of wobbling and flashing screens). But features like the OSX expose clone do increase productivity. So, it's not just all eyecandy. There is still a lot of stupid bells and whissles going on but that's because the technology is for the most part experimental (read: let's see what we can pull off). But some features are making a difference.

As said before, gnome lags behind because it incorporates the best features of OSX and probably vista in the near future. Something vista couldn't do because copying the expose or other feature would be all to obvious. So now your stuck with the flip (3d) lame cookoff of expose (slowing things down because you still have to scroll thrue windows one by one).

So I think these accelerated desktops will make a difference... As far as I know the next Ubuntu release will come standard with either compiz or beryl (to activate and customize to your own liking).

Interesting...

[DragonWriter]

It is interesting, I guess, that the summary is nothing but a bunch of sentences excerpted from TFA (I supposed that's one solution to no one reading the linked article).

But KDE and Gnome are not the whole Linux desktop experience. Things like AIGLX/Xgl/Compiz/Ruby are part of that experience. Things like the availability of functionality that supports popular Windows-centric formats and service is part of that experience. There are many ways the Linux desktop experience has been advancing, recently, and it will continue to do so.

Plus, there never was a Linux desktop bubble. Linux is as competitive now, if not moreso, than it ever was in the past.

Re:Desktop Linux is a bad joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"When there is no central
coordination to provide this "vision" all you are left with
is a mess of non-integrated applications, poorly written "standards",
no sense of usability (gnome usability study: stick a pc in a conference
and get comments from geeks that already use linux) etc etc"

When there is central coordination you have an OS missing very important features than many (though a minority) people want. There are so many problems with OS X that people just have to live with because Steve Jobs doesn't give a shit. Finder sucking is just one of them. You also get an OS which forces its "vision" of how things should work on you.

With an open source desktop, people can add the features they want. Or at least if enough people complain about something missing or not working correctly, the developers may listen.

Both approaches have their problems. Open source requires a certain kind of momentum (in the right direction) to be successful and most OSS software is missing that. Closed source with a centralized vision has the possibility that the vision will ignore what users really need.

Why would the Linux desktop UI be a priority?

[HangingChad]

It would seem like hardware compatibility and applications would be where you want to focus if you're trying to build a Windows or OS X alternative. Not to slight anyone working on either project or start a KDE/Gnome flame fest, but I'm not using Linux for the UI. I'm using it for easy of licensing, because it doesn't phone home to momma every time I connect to the internet, because I don't have to activate it and because all the really interesting developments in IT seem to be happening in OSS. A lot of reasons that don't have anything to do with the desktop UI.

This discussion is overlooking that both the KDE and GNOME desktops are to the point a reasonably competent person can pick it up and start working. Both teams have done an amazing job and the improvements happen in big steps. Though I still support Windows development at customer sites, my own business runs on Linux. I have one cold and lonely XP box on my network that doesn't get to see the internet unless I'm running updates. That you can set up and run a business network without any software from MSFT or Apple is really quite amazing.

Re:Why would the Linux desktop UI be a priority?

[npsimons]

That you can set up and run a business network without any software from MSFT or Apple is really quite amazing.

Not really. People had been using "business" networks in the scientific world for decades before MSFT and Apple even heard of the Internet. And you know what they were running? The precursors of Linux, all those UNIXes. Sure, I suppose if the only thing you're used to is the sh*t you have to put up with to get a network working with Macs or Windows, then, yeah, Linux does seem pretty amazing. But to those of us who have been using Linux for years (and not longer only because of our DOB), it isn't anything special. It's just business as usual. Stick that in your TCO and smoke it.

OOB?

[pedestrian crossing]

None of that works in Windows "out of the box". Try formatting your disk, take a stock XP disk, load it up and see what you can do with it. All you get is a fucking OS, crappy drivers, and minimal functionality.

You've got to chase down a bunch of proprietary drivers if you want your laptop to work. Yes, the sound as well. Out of the box, XP sucks.

The only reason you percieve that the "OOB" experience is better is becuase the manufacturer of your laptop has added a ton of stuff to the OOB Windows install to make it work.

Put that much work into say, an etch install, and not only will you have just as good functionality, you will have a buttload of useful apps as well. XP can't touch that.

Re:OOB?

[jmorris42]

> Try formatting your disk, take a stock XP disk, load it up and see what you can do with it.

Gotta call ya on this one. I don't 'do' Windows but I have taken advantage of some of their free test releases. Can't criticize what you haven't seen and all that jazz. The freebie XP-64 I tried on my machine saw everything except the 3D part of my video card. The test release of Vista even sees that. But after seeing Aero Glass I have to say "Where's the beef?" It just isn't all that impressive, especially when compared to the 3D eyecandy in FC6. FC6 is available now and Vista is coming "Real soon now". (The release of the business edition now was because they know no business will actually deploy yet, rather it is to allow them to start working with a 'really final beta' in preparation for rollouts next year.

Now if you are talking laptops you are 100% correct about the driver hell problem and you have a better chance for a positive experience with Linux as far as what will work right after the initial install.

Re:OOB?

[RationalRoot]

Show me a place where I can buy a laptop for about 1000 with Linux pre installed and everything working properly.

Sound (including micraphone)
WPA on my wireless network
3d acceleration on my graphics card
My built in Web cam
My DVD+RW and CD drives
My Card reader
Power management

I don't really care why it works or does not work. I just want it to work.

Until then I have more to do with my time than play hunt the solution through the linux forums.

Hey Acer ? You listening ? I'd buy a Linux installed Laptop if the thing worked.

Re:OOB?

[pedestrian crossing]

I don't really care why it works or does not work. I just want it to work.

Fair enough, you are in the majority.

But I think people put too much emphasis on this aspect. Getting everything to work is a one-time task, especially on a laptop.

Personally, if it takes a couple of days of futzing around and *learning* to get my system working, that's fine, it's a one-time cost. Once it's working, you forget about the relatively short amount of time it took to get it working. A couple of days of learning about my system is a pretty small investment when I'm going to be using the system for years. It's a matter of perspective.

I prefer the long-term stability and the fact that I am never going to have to do a full re-install on my system because it is getting bloated, or there is just no other way of keeping it working.

A system like debian is very deterministic. If something doesn't work, there is an identifiable reason and a way to fix it.

I think the overwhelming desire for instant gratification is the root of a lot of problems in our society, but again, you are in the majority, no question about it.

Re:OOB?

[RationalRoot]

Been there. Done that. Spent years writing device drivers and ISRs in 8086 assembly. Now I consider a laptop a tool to do things with, like say big sums. If I want to spend serious time doing something, then I'll build a boat. Dave

Re:OOB?

[pedestrian crossing]

If I want to spend serious time doing something, then I'll build a boat.

I guess you didn't bother to actually read my post.

My point is that the time it takes to get a laptop working with something like debian is a single, fixed investment in time that pales in comparison to the total amount of time that you are going to use the laptop, and once you've made that investment, the payoff is less time spent keeping the system working in the long-term.

I'm not talking about "serious time" along the lines of "building a boat", and that comparison shows that you are completely missing the point.

I'm pretty sure that over the time that you have the laptop, you will spend more time fucking around dealing with the shortcomings of your Windows pre-install than the initial investment of time in getting Linux to work with your laptop.

The time investment is just more noticeable because it is all at once, up front, when you just want it to work - NOW.

Like I said before, the culture of insisting on instant gratification over long-term gain is the root of a lot of problems in our society. Not that I expect that you will actually invest a few minutes into considering the point I am trying to get across...

Damn Mod Point System!

[Petersko]

On the rare occasion that I actually want to moderate a comment, I never have the mod points. Usually I had them the day before.

You've been modded "Troll" and "Flamebait", and I was hoping to put a +1 in there to keep you above 0. There have been at least a dozen times in the last two years where I have experienced an installation procedure like you've described above.

I can't in good conscience recommend linux to family because that kind of thing is still pretty common. Since I clearly can't recommned Windows either, I've been suggesting my family buy Macs.

There will be no 'Bubble'.

[Qbertino]

Linux Desktop has not yet reached international critical mass. That's a fact. In Germany critical mass is closest I'd presume and it's still a bit away. The barriers for mass adoption yet are falling one by one. We finally have an frontline OSS enduser distro that isn't subject to the whims of a single corporation - Ubuntu - and that needs to break the "Linux == SuSE" notion in Germany at least. Add in "Winmodem support" and simular end-user issues, zero-fuss USB for the get-go and rid linux of some other quirks and Linux is ready for primetime.
Windows screwing up their customerbase with Vista might help, but generally it's the Linuxquirks itself still holding it back. It's only a handfull now, but they are still showstoppers. Once all of them are gone Linux will fly. And it won't be a bubble. Linux will simply take over as the lead plattform. Since there's no money involved there's no economic bubble that can burst.

Open vs. Closed

[sterno]

I have to say, I'd prefer that it were open, but really I'm rather pragmatic about it. At one point I like to play with the OS more, and then Linux was good. Today I find I'm more in a mood to just get stuff done. I want to just edit photos, or play a game, or send an e-mail, or write some code. It does that well.

Then there's the little touches. I love dashboard, something I never quite got until I accidentally triggered it by pressing my scroll button. Then I was like, "my god, that's so useful". Then there's expose which makes finding things on my desktop or in a myriad of windows so much easier. It's things like that which could, of course, be added to Linux, or even Windows, but it's there in OSX today and it just works nicely.

I will say I do find the hardware quirkiness a bit annoying. That is, I've got the basic vid card for my pro, and if I want a better one I only have one option really. I want to upgrade the memory, but the memory for it is crazy expensive. It's that whiff of propietariness that I've never liked, but it does work well aside from that.

Re:Open vs. Closed

[walt-sjc]

I do enough funky things requiring lots of open source tools that just are very difficult to get working correctly on the mac. I too really wanted to be able to use the mac as a replacement for Linux, but it just wasn't meant to be. Apple has tried really hard to "GUIfy" unix and hide all the underlying parts, but for those that need to work with those underlying parts, the work done during "guification" makes non-gui work very difficult for us non-gui people (I'm sure I'll get flamed for this... Some fanatics can't grasp that not everything apple does is perfect, or "the one true way." Heretic!!!)

I also find it difficult to navigate from the keyboard on the mac - Squigglydoo-Tab versus Squigglydoo-backtick. On Linux and Windows, I can easily alt-tab between my top two windows no matter if they are the same application or different applications. I also can't just click on an application icon to get a new window (instance), I have to activate the application and Squigglydoo-N or use the menus. I'm sure if I ONLY used the mac all day, everyday, I would get used to it - but I don't. I use Mac, Windows, and Linux, and have to switch back and forth between them. ("Heritic! The mac way is better, you are a l00zer if you don't agree...")

huh?

[oohshiny]

In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system. Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available. Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."

OS X's major new pieces of functionality, Dashboard, Spotlight, Time Machine, translucency, hardware acceleration, scalable icons, and new themes, have simply been rip-offs of smaller competitors, open source, and research. Vista indeed hasn't been "standing still", but its major new features, .NET and Avalon are rip-offs of Java and XUL; the rest are rip-offs of OS X. So, you're right, OS X and Vista haven't been standing still, they have been catching up and ripping off other systems.

Gnome and KDE are cutting edge desktop systems, in many areas significantly ahead of OS X and Vista. The fact that both of them are trying to stay close to OS X and Windows even when they are innovating has a simple reason: it's what the market demands. Gnome and KDE's ability to realize a vision are limited by market realities. But within those limits, Gnome and KDE are quite innovative.

If you disagree, I challenge you to name some features that you think OS X or Vista innovated compared to Gnome and KDE.

Until and unless Linux...

[sheepoo]

...does exactly what Windows does, everyday PC users will not be sold. This is a bitter fact (even more so when you tell a diehard Linux fan that he has to mimic Microsoft!) but this is the truth.
I have read quite a few responses in this thread and most of the people have complained about some common things lacking in Linux distirbutions: Fonts, Drag and Drop, lack of integration between Applications, and some of the stuff which PC users take for granted: WebCam working on your IM client, 3D hardware support etc. I agree with all of them since I have confronted the same problems, even on the most well-known distributions (SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu).
However the one best thing which the Linux Community/Open Source delivering companies can do (and again this is also suggested by someone else in one of the replies to this thread) is to set up a shop where people can walk in and play around with Linux loaded PCs. I think its a great idea that I can walk in an Apple store and tinker around with all the stuff they are offering; I do not know much about Apple computers but having spent sometime in their store has really got me sold for the iMac and the iPod.
Overall, I would say that Linux has come a long way, but the road ahead is still longer!
Best of luck to the Mighty Penguin!

Ubuntu

[Colin Smith]

Linux is ready for the desktop. It has been for a while. Ubuntu is elegant and easy to use, all of the admin a user would need is available through easy to use GUI apps in System -> Administration and installing anything you need is as trivial as Applications -> Add/remove.

It is really clearer and easier to use than Windows.

Re:Ubuntu

[gauauu]

Until you try to get your laptop's built-in wireless card working, or hook up your digital camera that Ubuntu isn't familiar with. (I tried this about 6 months ago, and still had no luck) Or try to do anything but use the 27 applications that come with it.

Linux is fine for the desktop for grandma who only wants a web-browser and email. It's fine for us geeks. It's not fine for windows users who want to do quite a number of things with their computer, but aren't smart enough to edit text files and dig through forums to figure out how to configure kernel modules.

Re:Ubuntu

[Sparr0]

Built-in wireless has worked on every laptop I have tried [k]ubuntu on. Including an iBook (powerpc mac), and that's pretty out there.

gphoto, the library used by digikam, supports over 90% of cameras on the market. about 70% specifically, and 20% with a generic *STANDARD* usb camera driver. And the remaining 10% still work as usb storage devices, so digikam can load photos from them anyways. (any cameras that dont work as usb storage devices are broken and not counted here).

I gave (and am giving) out Kubuntu 6.10 CDs for Christmas this year. Mostly i386, but some powerpc for Mac-using friends. My roommate has it running on his iBook right now, from the CD that I gave him.

Re:Ubuntu

[__aawbkb6799]

All of the benefits that [K]Ubuntu offers regarding hardware support spring tautologously from Debian. The installer and the support libraries. If you want to give out ossos's for the holidays; thats grand. Consider offering a mature and stable distro as well. After all, *nix and oss is all about choice :)

Re:Ubuntu

[Colin Smith]

I'm writing this on a laptop, using the wireless card. My camera and MP3 player just worked as well. And the package manager says there are 20244 applications available completely free and at the click of a button, it couldn't be easier, not even on Windows or a Mac.

You're basically talking FUD. It isn't necessary any longer to compile a kernel, it hasn't been necessary for years and there is as I said, free software available at the click of a button to do anything you can imagine with a computer.

You're out of date mate.

The bubble was killed by two things...

[Qwavel]

In my opinion, it was killed by (1) the fight between KDE and Gnome, and (2) the iPod which led to the Apple resurgence. Now, many who a non-MS, or more unix-esque desktop OS looks to OS X instead of Linux. Politically, there couldn't be more difference then between Linux and OS X, but I do think that OS X has taken users and attention away from desktop Linux.

Re:The bubble was killed by two things...

[s_p_oneil]

It was more like a small bump being sanded away than a bubble popping, but here's two more:

1) Terrible "out of the box" wifi support. How many years is it going to take for the developers to add WEP/WPA configuration to the install? A lot of people use protected wireless networks at home now, and once you install the OS, you're dead in the water because you can't get online to figure out how to configure the interface for WEP/WPA. It would be awesome if the install wouldn't LET the average user attempt to format/partition the drive until AFTER it managed to connect to the Internet.

2) Terrible "out of the box" game support, which is caused by a number of things. Not allowing Linux distros to ship with binary drivers is pretty high on the list. The average desktop user doesn't want to try installing drivers. Every time I've done it, I've been forced to find and manually edit xorg.conf (even in Ubuntu 6.10). However, most desktop users do want to be able to play the latest games. For this reason alone, I think the open source community should ditch Linux and focus on a BSD (or similar) derivative that's written solely for games and that always ships with the latest binary drivers. Other apps will port easily enough, but good game support should be built in from the ground up.

Linux Desktop is not GNOME and KDE

[Jacek Poplawski]

The problem is that someone who is not using Linux (but Windows) knows only KDE and GNOME and thinks, that this is Linux Desktop. It is not.

Linux desktop is build on xorg. That's the most important thing.

Probably most important high-level parts of Linux desktop are Mozilla Firefox and players like mplayer, xmms or audacious/amarok.
Just think how much time you spend in your browser (you are using it right now).

And what is between xorg and applications? It may be big desktop manager like xfce or just a window manager like icewm, Window Maker or fluxbox.

There is also another layer - access to devices. And here we have brand new udev, plus some stuff like hal/dbus. Is it Linux Desktop for you? No? Then how do you connect your mp3 player to Linux machine?

GNOME and KDE can both die. That's not the problem. We just need gtk/QT and maybe some libs from GNOME and KDE to support the applications. Other things are not critical for the system. Person who can't live without KDE/GNOME is probably just an Windows user.

send the joke too

[tacokill]

They also want their joke back. I suggest you take them up on their offer...

The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[DakotaSmith]

The reason that Linux hasn't hit the desktop in any major way is twofold, and I can explain it by explaining why I (a Linux advocate and user since the days of Caldera 1.0, pre-SCO) don't run it.

It's the user interface.

Now, I'm not talking about Linux's achievements in the UI in recent years. Clearly, major strides have been made and in many ways the UI has moved well past both OSX and WinV.

But it's not enough. There's no compelling reason for the end user to move to Linux, and several compelling reasons not to, such as integration with corporate networking services, availability of mainstream games, and so on.

The real problem is that the conventional GUI -- windows, mice, pointing-and-clicking -- is now thirty years old. It has reached the end of its development lifecycle. From here on out, it's just tweaks, nothing innovative.

If Linux really wants to hit the desktop, it needs to abandon the GUI except for backward compatibility and instead embrace a totally different user interface paradigm.

I am convinced -- and the recent success of the Wii, whose sole differentiating characteristic from other consoles is the WiiMote as an input device backs me up -- that the first OS that makes the leap to the next great interface paridigm will become the "killer OS" -- the one all the others copy.

What's the next OS paradigm? It's simple: virtual reality.

Get rid of the keyboard, monitor, and mouse. Replace them with stereoscopic datashades that have attached headphones and a microphone; multi-axis datagloves; and a HUD keyboard display manipulated by the gloves if necessary.

For that matter, get rid of the computer itself as we know it. High-capacity flash drives are getting cheaper every day while CPUs become more and more microminiaturized. Imagine your computer as something the size and appearance of an 8-port USB hub.

That's just for starters, of course. I'm unclear what a virtual landscape for control of the computer would look like, but I'm guided by the novel Head Crash by Bruce Bethke. In it, Bethke's main character is a software engineer for a near-future multinational corporation. He doesn't write code: instead, he essentially drives a virtual forklift, moving around and connecting virtual objects to create virtual programs for users to interact with.

Imagine system administration in which user security is handled not by error messages, but by the user seeing prison bars around items they don't have rights to. Or perhaps simply a blank wall where administrative users see a door.

Have you noticed the Web and instant messaging as one of the major driving forces in the last ten years? Now marry that to virtual reality interfaces where a chat room is a bar -- only built and maintained by users themselves, where users are completely free to customize their own appearance and interact with their surroundings. Web sites not as semi-interactive pages in a book, but fully-interactive virtual destinations built and maintained by their webmasters.

Read Head Crash. Bethke's got it figured out.

If Linux were to marry the stability of the underlying OS with open-source implementations of a virtual reality user interface (VRUI?), it would absolutely become the killer OS. The processing power is there now on the high end, and with mega-multi-core CPUs and embedded CPU/GPU combinations on the horizon, it won't be too many years before the processing power is commonplace.

It's time to ditch X, Gnome, and KDE except for backward compatibility. The future belongs not to the GUI but the VRUI.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[aix tom]

Well, in about the same way the GUI has "replaced" the command line.

I would imagine there are tasks that could be easier to do in a "VRUI", the same way there are task that are easier to do in a GUI than on CL these days. But there are still tasks that are faster and easier to do on the CL.

I also could imagine typing on a "real" keyboard you can feel will keep being faster than on a "virtual" keyboard.

But the same way the CL has never "gone away" I could imagine the GUI will never go away either. It's just easier to use if you have to switch between computer and (the real) reality fast for doing the job, for example.

Of course Linux, with the applications already supporting different window managers and different X-Servers on different platforms could already have a foot in the door for supporting VRUI interfaces to programs that would benefit from them, and integrate the CL/GUI/VRUI in some way

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[thaig]

I agree that the current GUI paradigm is old. It presents a model of the computer and the world. Users need to know this model to be able to plan what they want to achieve.

I have noticed that people seem to start with a very simple mental model and then when they notice some inadequacy they expand it to cope with the new needs. To begin with one doesn't tell one's granny that she can run out of disc space when "saving files" - because it's too much detail and unlikely to happen immediately on her new computer. For a beginning she can imagine her 100GB hard disc to be infinite in size.

This is just like learning to drive - you don't get into a car for the first time and drive it down the M25 (subtitute name of favorite big motorway/highway/autobahn/autostrada).

I think that the problem with computer UIs is that they have no understanding of the person who is using them so they don't know how much detail to offer them today and how much more to offer tomorrow. They aren't really conversing with the user so they can't become truly effective for that particular user.

It's a one size-fits everyone UI at the moment.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[arevos]

That's just for starters, of course. I'm unclear what a virtual landscape for control of the computer would look like, but I'm guided by the novel Head Crash by Bruce Bethke. In it, Bethke's main character is a software engineer for a near-future multinational corporation. He doesn't write code: instead, he essentially drives a virtual forklift, moving around and connecting virtual objects to create virtual programs for users to interact with.

Whilst it may sound cool on paper, the system you describe is not a good environment in which to program. Driving a forklift truck around has visual appeal, but stringing together a line of text is both more efficient, and easier to evaluate at a single glance.

I don't know whether idea of a VRUI is more effective an interface for other types of software; but I do know that there is little benefit to using such a system to program in.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[aix tom]

Oh, and ...

one interesting thing to notice about MS products :

When you see the W95 -> W2K -> XP changes, and also the changes from SQL Server 2000 to 2005 you can't help but notice that there are major improvements to the COMMAND LINE there as well. There are even some SQL Server 2005 features that can only be accessed from the command line / SQL Commands. For example some security settings can only be relaxed through the CL, so that they avoid the "I don't know what that is exactly, but I just try switching it off and see what happens" effect that GUIs tend to have.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[DakotaSmith]

I dunno ... maybe, maybe not. I've never tried to "write" code in a VR environment. For that matter, I'm not a programmer, I'm a sysadmin. I can imagine many, many ways in which a VRUI would make my life much simpler as an admin. I'd still want the command line -- we'll never lose it for low-level admin tasks. But there are many things I could imagine being much simpler in VR.

I can say that the last time I wrote a brand new program of an significance was ten years ago using Matrix Layout. You essentially dropped pre-made user interface objects and logical constructs into what amounted to a flowchart of the program. It was amazing, for a non-coder with a background in IT. I wrote some beautiful apps that I could never have otherwise done because I lack the skill. I've never seen an IDE that came close, before or since

Real programmers apparently didn't like it, because the product died shortly after being ported from DOS to Windows. But as a non-programmer, I loved it. I still wish it were here, because there would be a lot of GUI admin tools today written by sysadmins.

My original point stands, however: there is no compelling reason for a user to choose Linux over Vista or OSX. The time is ripe for a new UI, and from the success of the WiiMote (a quasi-VRUI device), I'm certain that the VRUI is the way to go. If a true VRUI is developed on Linux, people will trample each other to install it.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[DakotaSmith]

I would imagine that a GUI would be available as a two-dimensional virtual screen in an otherwise three-dimensional VRUI. No reason it couldn't, after all -- the same way you can run KDE apps under Gnome if you have the KDE libraries installed.

Same with the CLI. I don't see it ever going away, because there are tasks for which it's suited (scripting repetitive actions, OS installs on bare metal, etc).

I see the adoption of the VRUI over the GUI as the same kind of transition from pure-CLI to primarily GUI some ten or fifteen years ago. The time is ripe for the development of the VRUI as the primary user interface the same as the time was ripe for the introduction of the GUI in the 1980s.

Linux should be doing it now, getting in on the ground floor and leading the way. If there isn't a Gnome- or KDE-level project to do so in the very near future, Jobs or Gates will end up doing it first -- and in the process, do a lot of damage to Linux in all its spaces.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[arevos]

Real programmers apparently didn't like it, because the product died shortly after being ported from DOS to Windows. But as a non-programmer, I loved it. I still wish it were here, because there would be a lot of GUI admin tools today written by sysadmins.

That's something I hadn't considered. One of the advantages of code is that it's informationally very dense, making it the perfect medium for professional programmers. But for non-programmers, perhaps a system that displaying information more sparsely, though in an easier to visualize fashion, would be more suitable for their needs.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[DakotaSmith]

Oh, and regarding a "real" keyboard ...

There was a time when I would have detested the laptop keyboard I'm using now. I grew up when typwriters were still in use -- lugged a portable around my college campus, in fact. For a long time, I hated keyboards that didn't have the same kind of tactile feedback as my typewriter.

But I got used to it. The conversion from real to virtual keyboard would probably be even more seamless, because there's really no reason one's datagloves couldn't have a "rumble" feature like that found in modern gamepads. I.e., hit a virtual key, feel a slight jolt.

Though to be honest, given the conversion from typewriter keyboards to modern ones, I'm unclear that it would be necessary. You might include configuration options for they virtual keyboard that would allow the rumble to be turned on or off, or include configurable visual cues, such as a key lighting up slightly when struck.

Regardless, I would imagine that a VRUI-based computer, not bound by the design constraints of monitor/keyboard/mouse, would be very small and basically have a lot of inputs -- for size and speed reasons, probably 1394 interfaces. No reason there couldn't be 1394 keyboards or even a couple of legacy USB ports for physical keyboards or mice.

Re:The GUI Itself Has Reached the End Of the Line

[vadim_t]

That's because actual programs are complex.

Yes, it's neat that you can drag and drop, and link a few things, and make a calculator or something like that. But there's no market for applications made this way, because as soon as you try to do something complex you'll bump into a wall. Try to make a web browser or a text editor in it and see how far you get.

Too Heavy. Try XFCE.

[GodWasAnAlien]

KDE and GNOME have gotten too heavy.

In KDE, you can't just install a kde app.
It's part of kdebasekitchensink.
And there are odd dependencies all over.

$ konsole
Link points to "/tmp/ksocket-dmahurin"
Link points to "/tmp/kde-dmahurin"
kbuildsycoca running...
Reusing existing ksycoca

? klauncher,kdeinit,kded launched just to run a terminal ??

I recommend XFCE, and running GTK apps. Qt apps are ok too I guess.
But I try to stay away from GNOME and KDE apps.

If there is a need for daemons running for, printing, sound, mounting or whatever, these should all be started at boot time, not as part of running the desktop.

Re:Too Heavy. Try XFCE.

[Ash-Fox]

In KDE, you can't just install a kde app.
It's part of kdebasekitchensink.
And there are odd dependencies all over.

Not really. Just dependencies on KDE libraries that can be shared memory wise. My old Pentium 3 laptop is faster using KDE 3.5.5 and KDE apps than using XFCE4 and a bunch of GTK applications (I notice redrawing on GTK applications for one, and they respond slower).

? klauncher,kdeinit,kded launched just to run a terminal ??

Yes, the beauty of it, is that everything is almost reusable in KDE which helps create applications that take less memory and develop them faster.

If there is a need for daemons running for, printing, sound, mounting or whatever, these should all be started at boot time, not as part of running the desktop.

Provided they're actually used outside of the desktop, yes. Otherwise that's just bloat in my opinion.

The Way I See It...

[eno2001]

...there aren't many things that can be done to the Windows+Icons+Mouse+Pointer (WIMP) paradigm. Even with all the eye candy that Mac OS X has had for the past few years and that has recently been added to Windows Vista, there isn't a whole lot new under the sun in terms of user interaction. The Dashboard (which MS mercilessly and poorly apes in Vista) from Apple was about the only interesting thing above pre Mac OS X Mac OSes. And it's not so much a new way of doing things as it is a revisiting of the old "Desktop apps" from the 80s. I remember on my Atari I used to load desktop apps that I could pull to the foreground that did various interesting things in the background for me. Since they were memory resident, wasn't "running" them each time I interacted. They were already there. Dashboard is just a really jazzed up way of doing that. Expose is the same deal. It's a pretty app manager, and that's all. I was using similar features in Enlightment in the late 90s. And now with XGL, Compiz and Beryl for *nix, you'll see the same things happening in *nix distros fairly soon. The 3Dness of Vista, Sun JavaOS and Compiz really still doesn't change user interaction much other than making it "cooler" in some opinions. It's still, "look at a list of apps in some visual fashion, and switch tasks" or "set up a group of apps on one virtual desktop, do the same on a few others, then switch between the deskstop to change your workmode".

Until there is actually a change in user interaction with the machines themselves, we're stuck with uninspiring WIMPs on all platforms. They might have better tailfins, but I am hard pressed to find anything that increases efficiency in workflow that doesn't already exist on nearly all the platforms (with Windows being notably behind a bit). Really accurate and non-training-based voice recognition could enhance the end user experience a bit. But we've been promised this stuff for some time and it's not yet come to pass on the desktop. I remember when IBM was touting it for a version of OS2 and nothing happened. I played around with DragonDictate on Windows XP a few years back and it was usable but the training portion seemed a bit ridiculous. I also played with some speech recognition in Linux and was able to launch apps by saying things like "netscape" or "realplay" back in the 90s, but that was largely pointless. My cell phone coupled with the bluetooth headset and it's voice recognition is far more useful and accurate sadly... But, for a media center I think voice commands would be awesome. Imagine, "Tune BBC America", or "Schedule a recording for Saturday night at nine PM on the Discover channel". The computer asks, "Program duration"? You reply, "Two hours and five minutes. Start it about two minutes early". The computer then asks, "Program to be scheduled for 8:58PM on Saturday December 23rd 2006 on the Discovery Channel for two hours and five minutes. Recording will end at 11:03PM. Please Confirm or wait sixty seconds for program to automatically add to recording schedule". Now THAT would be very useful. Hands free scheduling of your shows with fuzzy input and confirmation prompts. The same could be applied to listening /managing a music library.

Other changes that would be useful would be largely based on the development of new input devices beyond mouse and keyboard. Motion tracking would be somewhat useful. Tracking where a user is in a building would also be useful. (Imagine walking up to any machine in a building and it brings your desktop in it's persistent state to you based on your beacon) Predictive interfaces would be very good too where the OS makes assumptions based on your previous usage history combined with standard cues. Until that happens, it's just going to be more tailfins.

Why can't we all just get along? No really?

[hummdinger02]

It seems to me that much of the conversation about Operation Systems and software in general centers on this versus that. . . Think automobiles! Maybe there is not a perfect solution because there is not just one problem. Different Lniux distributions do exactly what no one company can. They provide a diverse audience with solutions to diverse problems.

Conquest aside. . . I love the fact that for the different wants and needs I have options. Driving Linux as a whole into a single line or driving the desktop options into a Microsoft like model is misguided. Sure maybe some distros and desktops should work to meet the needs of the majority of average desktop users but should they all? I sure hope not. The Linux community, Microsoft Community, Mac OS X community, Sun Solaris Community and so on can all be very happy with their product and can all be right. We do not have to impress them and they do not have to impress us (whoever they and us are). But the minute we all try to impress everyone then we become a colorless, flavorless mass and that would be terribly disappointing. No one has to dethrown anyone else to succeed. KDE = Good / Windows = Good / Mac OS = Good / Unix (All Flavors) = Good. . .

Gnome has a vision

[ubuwalker31]

The main complaint of the article is that GNOME has no vision. I disagree. GNOME is supposed to be a Free, Usable, Accessible, International, Developer-friendly, Organized, Supported community desktop environment. GNOME also has very detailed Human Interface Guidelines: http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/ . If this is not a vision, I don't know what one is!!

The problems I have with the linux desktop...

[Kjella]

...are almost never related to the desktop as such. For example, two of my headaches right now on my dad's machine is Flash and embedded WMV, there's a lot of news clips and other stuff he'd like to watch.

My experience: Flash 7 is mostly unusable (what good is an upgrade button when you end up at a 7.0 download page), and Flash 9 beta who noone but a geek would find will constantly hang the browser so it needs to be killed. I've installed the mozilla-mplayer plugin which is supposed to handle WMVs, and it pretends to play but never does.

Same goes for almost every piece of proprietary crap I have to deal with, Linux isn't second tier it's third tier or no tier at all. Opera is one of few exceptions, but beyond that it's slim. Everything that's RMS/free is working great by comparison. 80% of what's wrong with the Linux desktop is out of the community's hands.

Am I complaining? Nope. They're making huge progress. Improve whatever you're doing, let the rest tend to itself. Eventually the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. I mean, are there any good examples where free software has really lost major ground? All I see is software that is doing more and more in a world that's rather hard limited by what people want in a word processor or spreadsheet or e-mail client. I don't care where the competition is going, the Linux desktop is closing in on what the users want.

Re:The problems I have with the linux desktop...

[Ash-Fox]

...are almost never related to the desktop as such. For example, two of my headaches right now on my dad's machine is Flash

This is a annoyance for me too. Right now I'm using Codeweaver's crossover to run the Windows Flash plugin (it actually uses ALSA then, and I can set which soundcard to use in winecfg).

and embedded WMV, there's a lot of news clips and other stuff he'd like to watch.

Recently the support in mplayer and VLC for wmv9 and MMS streaming have been improved greatly thanks to the ffmpeg project. You might want to try the latest VLC and it's plugin.

Same goes for almost every piece of proprietary crap I have to deal with

I have to agree that there seem to be continuous problems with all this proprietary crap.

Just say no to dumbing down the UI.

[MikeFM]

You assume that we want to sell Linux to the masses. I'm content to let the masses of idiots use Windows so long as my computer works the way I need it to work. If people want something consistant, that doesn't work very well or offer any choices, them let them use Windows or Mac OS. What do I gain by dumbing down my OS/DE to the same level of the competition? Then I have to go and create yet another OS/DE so that I can have something that actually works. Just buy an etch-s-sketch for each of the people that want their computer to be a toy instead of a tool - it'll serve them better.

For companies that want to spend their own money dumbing things down I guess it's fine but I'd rather not see all their stupidity forced on the rest of us. If their customers really want their dumbed down product then they'll have no trouble selling it. If they can't then maybe they need to figure out that their market niche isn't significant enough.

Windows and Mac OS have created a curse in computing. Instead of actually making it easier to do complex work, interfaces are now designed so that complete idiots with no experience can sit down and play Minesweeper and look at porn. It's all about eye candy and not about usability or managing complex workflow and processes. It's incredibly stupid to emphasis keeping users trapped at a newbie level.

If anything, Linux needs a complete new direction in the desktop - one that doesn't copy every stupid idea from Windows and Mac OS but instead places the emphasis on making experienced users more productive. Why is it that experienced users still need to drop to the command-line to do real work? Because nobody has innovated in accomplishing complex tasks in a graphical enviroment since the creation of the stupid desktop metaphor. Instead of spending time cloning other environments I'd suggest spending more time on the parts of Linux that can be really annoying - make devices and services work better. These are usually better than their Windows counterparts already but they are still the most frustrating aspect of using the computer.

If you build something different but better THEN you have a killer app people will switch to Linux for. You think people are dumb but in my experience this is a lie people have been convinced of by Microsoft and Apple. I know many people that easily used DOS or even older, and harder systems, like punch cards or typing in cryptic commands on their C64. These people are now confussed by their desktop and no longer think they can manage to use their computer for anything more than the web, email, and games. They could use their computer just fine except they've been convinced otherwise and everything has been dumbed down so much that none of it has any meaning. Stop being so condescending - most people are smart enough to use a real computer.

Re:Just say no to dumbing down the UI.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Windows and Mac OS have created a curse in computing. Instead of actually making it easier to do complex work, interfaces are now designed so that complete idiots with no experience can sit down and play Minesweeper and look at porn. It's all about eye candy and not about usability or managing complex workflow and processes. It's incredibly stupid to emphasis keeping users trapped at a newbie level.

"Curse in computing," ROFL. I love how you claim interfaces aren't designed to make work easier...and then you mention that even complete idiots can use them easily. Then you claim it's all about eye candy and not usability or workflow despite the human interaction research done at companies like Apple. When you say it's stupid to keep users "trapped" at a newbie level, what you're really saying is you think you're way too cool to use the Aqua interface of OS X, and you need something complicated and horrible that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside like a true hacker because you figured out how to use it. This kind of condescension toward the public that many Linux users maintain is ridiculous.

Re:Just say no to dumbing down the UI.

[MikeFM]

Being easy to do nothing and being easy to do something are quite a bit different. Aqua is fine for doing a couple simple tasks in such as looking at the web or email but it quickly begins to fall apart as you try to do more, more complex, tasks. Not that most users know the difference since they just take it for granted that those limitations are just the way working with a computer has to be.

The research companies like Apple does are based more on making things easier for newbies, and easier to sell to newbies, and not for experts. Apple doesn't even use a consistant interface between it's different applications. So much for all their research into user interfaces. Can't make up their mind can they? Most people spend a very short part of their entire life of using a product as a newbie and quite a bit of time as a progressingly advanced user. Making it difficult for advanced users to use the system any more effectively than a newbie isn't very smart. That would be a large part as to why companies find that moving their workplace to be more computerized doesn't greatly benefit employee effeciency and that effeciency doesn't greatly improve with time.

I'm not to cool to use an Aqua interface and in fact I use it quite often - I just have to much work to get done to leave myself trapped in Mac OS. Keep your cutsie toy interface that doesn't even make it easy to get to more than a few applications let alone files. Nor does it make it easy to manage more than a few windows. It's like trying to work with your hands tied behind your back. Aqua is a horrible interface for working and when the shit really hits the fan you can't even fix your problems without dropping to the good old command-line. So much for making everything easy enough that even an idiot can do it.

The one thing Apple has right is that simplicity is a good thing. The major thing that they have wrong is that they try to simplify tasks to such a degree that you can often no longer do the task without figuring out how to jump through hoops. Sure a 10-key phone pad is a simpler interface for entering data than a full-sized keyboard - but it isn't an easier interface except for very targeted uses. If you send very many text messages from your phone you'll understand what I mean. An interface should neither be complicated or simple - it should be elegant. An elegant interface is one that keeps things as simple as possible but no simpler. It needs to be reasonably easy to get started in and easy to figure out how to do more complex tasks in. It needs to adapt neatly so that as tasks grow more complex they don't grow exponentially harder to do.

I'm sure I'm very condescending - people who give other people credit for being intelligent are often considered that way. As opposed to people that think everyone else is stupid and therefore need to be protected from thinking or being able to get work done.

Re:Just say no to dumbing down the UI.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Being easy to do nothing and being easy to do something are quite a bit different. Aqua is fine for doing a couple simple tasks in such as looking at the web or email but it quickly begins to fall apart as you try to do more, more complex, tasks. Not that most users know the difference since they just take it for granted that those limitations are just the way working with a computer has to be.

And with all the specific examples you cite, it's so difficult to refute your claims that Aqua "quickly begins to fall apart" at complex tasks! Oh, wait, you don't offer any examples at all.

Apple doesn't even use a consistant interface between it's different applications. So much for all their research into user interfaces.

The only thing that changes is the look, and it's more consistent than you imply. They had Aqua and Brushed Metal, and they're currently transitioning Brushed Metal to something new. The alternatives--Windows and Linux--are abortions of consistent interface design.

Keep your cutsie toy interface that doesn't even make it easy to get to more than a few applications let alone files. Nor does it make it easy to manage more than a few windows. It's like trying to work with your hands tied behind your back. Aqua is a horrible interface for working and when the shit really hits the fan you can't even fix your problems without dropping to the good old command-line. So much for making everything easy enough that even an idiot can do it

I can sense your heart pounding as you type out your fury against Apple (again without any specific examples). When you mention a "cutsie toy interface" (what makes it a toy interface? Colored window buttons?), it's clear you're just an anti-Apple troll. You don't even cite an example of when "shit hits the fan," as it often does in Linux and Windows.

I'm sure I'm very condescending - people who give other people credit for being intelligent are often considered that way.

You come off as condescending because you treat your personal reactions as universal gospel, as if the fact you don't like something means it's broken. The fact remains that OS X is revered as the best GUI out there, and you are a tiny minority voice. I don't know what makes you hate Apple so much (as you clearly hate them and their users), but enjoy spending hours configuring Linux or fixing a broken Windows registry. I'm busy getting my fucking working done on my Mac, in an interface that gives me more joy to use than any other ever has as a developer. See you in line for a MacBook Pro.

Next.

Where's the demand?

[cryfreedomlove]

You won't get a steady supply of improvements without natural market demand for them. The main motivator I perceive for demand for Linux desktop is hostility towards Windows from software developers who don't like the way Windows is implemented. Well folks, that argument does not mean much to most consumers. You'll have to in their hearts and minds to create demand outside the software developer community.

Linux desktop is a hobby system for enthusiasts. That's what the market share numbers tell me.

Woah! OSes vs Windows managers?

[Elsan]

He's comparing completely different ways of releasing OPERATING SYSTEMS and WINDOWS MANAGERS.

Microsoft releases Vista FIVE years after XP

Mac OS X has a version released at certain intervals(1 year or 6 months? Whatever.)

Those 2 WINDOWS MANAGERS are release with small updates at certain intervals. Compare the original release of KDE 3 to the release right now: BIG difference. Speed, usability and lots of stuff have been improved over time, it's numbered the same but is NOT the same.
Will Vista release small upgrades like that over time? No. They'll release security upgrades but that's about it.

GNOME 3.0 won't be on your desktop until at least 2009, which will mean that by then, GNOME will not have seen a major revision in 7 years. And where was this information taken? From his mind? GNOME is still upgrading, it's NOT DEAD, upgrades to the interface and such are still being released.

Not only is this article pure shit because of points people have raised before, it's pure shit because it views Linux WINDOWS MANAGERS releasing from a commercial OS point of view.

Oh, and if KDE is releasing a major upgrade within 5 years, why should it be wrong? Microsoft has done so with Vista. The difference is, KDE is still releasing small upgrades while XP hasn't changed one bit(except for Media Center).

Re:But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distro

[JoeCommodore]

Sorry, but is the GNU/Linux world only RedHat and SuSE?

What about Damn Small Linux or Morphix? And Those distros
(RH and SuSE) also offer the smaller display managers as alternatives.

mhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?

I really hope it did. I'm tired of those zealots...

Actually they admit now Linux is ready.

[Anonymous Coward]

They used to say "Linux is not ready for the desktop" (TM).

By suggesting that the Linux desktop is a burst bubble, they implicitly admit it existed.

This is the "Intermediate value theorem": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_th eorem

So, at least, we can be free from their eternal "Linux is not ready" troll. No matter what they say, even they don't believe it anymore.

Vista is like an onion

[SuperKendall]

Clearly it is a visual upgrade from XP, and people liken the visual style to something Apple would design. And I don't care for most of Vista, but Vista is a huge upgrade, the least of which is the visual style. 99% of what has changed between XP and Vista has nothing to do with Tiger, nor copies Tiger in any way.

You mean like the Spolight clone desktop search API? Or the PDF clone metro? Or the Sudo clone UAC? Or the Smart folder clone Virtual folders? Or the Quarz Extreme clone Aero? Or the Drag-n-Drop install clone ClickOnce? Or the Dashboard clone Sidebar? Or the myriad of bundled apps like Windows iPhoto Gallery?

Now I'll grant you they didn't copy Windows Defender from OS X. And they have some pretty complex DRM in there that I don't recall Tiger or even Leopard having. Innovation at its finest.

Vista is like an onion - you peel away a layer, and there's still more OS X underneath.

Re:Vista is like an onion

[Enderandrew]

You mean like the Spolight clone desktop search API?

Given that this is a feature that has been in development since pre NT4, clearly this was stolen from the Mac world. And given that the Linux world had a tool like this before Mac, clearly this was stolen from Mac.

Or the PDF clone metro?

Since when was then PDF format something that Apple invented? Oh wait, they didn't! And you're suggesting that any document standard is now a rip off on PDF? You're just stretching. And again, since you have no clue what you're talking about, I'd like to point out that the feature is actually named XPS, not Metro.

Or the Sudo clone UAC?

Windows is the last OS to get something like UAC, but again, Mac was late to this party as well. You sure love to give Mac credit for all these inventions that come from the Unix/Linux world while claiming that MS is ripping off Apple.

Or the Smart folder clone Virtual folders?

Again, this is a feature that MS has been talking about as part of WinFS since the NT4 days. But please try again. Not to mention that it was a promised feature of Windows 2000 and then XP, but got yanked at the last moment both times.

Or the Quarz Extreme clone Aero?

For the record, I don't believe that all shiny GUI's copy Apple. I do believe that Aero actually looks better than anything Mac is currently offering. And either way this was the one point I conceded that people seem convinced Microsoft stole, but a visual style does not make an OS. When you ignore hundreds of new features and focus your argument on visual styles it proves you don't really know what you're talking about.

Or the Drag-n-Drop install clone ClickOnce?

I'm not an avid Mac user, so I'm not sure when they got this feature, but MS was talking about this feature as part of Longhorn over three years ago. I can't say one way or another where they got the idea from, but again, it could easily have come from the Linux world. In fact, once again I wouldn't be surprised if Apple took it from the Linux world.

Or the Dashboard clone Sidebar?

There have been third-party sidebars in Windows for ages, and again in Linux. And didn't really early OSes like OS/2 and GeoWorks have them as well? But clearly, Vista is nothing more than a Mac OS rip off, even though it operates nothing like OS X, doesn't use a microkernel, has no basis on BSD, and isn't a GUI thrown over a command-line driven OS.

Or the myriad of bundled apps like Windows iPhoto Gallery?

Now you're clearly talking out of your ass. XP has photo folders built in, and Microsoft has had photo gallery software available for free for years and years. I especially get irate when I see those Mac commercials that say that Macs come with gallery and movie making software but Windows doesn't. It is a flat out lie. I guess Windows Movie Maker, free bundled software ceases to exist in the eyes of Mac users.

OS X is built on Linux/BSD code, and took a great deal of improvements from Linux/BSD code. My favorite moment was the press conference where Steve Jobs was claiming to have invented the virtual desktop.

If you want to point fingers at an OS stealing features perhaps you need to take a serious look at Apple.

Re:Vista is like an onion

[drinkypoo]

Now I'll grant you they didn't copy Windows Defender from OS X.

No, they bought it, back when it was called GIANT Antispyware.

Re:Vista is like an onion

[miach]

Or the Drag-n-Drop install clone ClickOnce?

I'm not an avid Mac user, so I'm not sure when they got this feature, but MS was talking about this feature as part of Longhorn over three years ago.

How about Acorn's RISCOS fifteen years ago? What's more the app and all it's resources were self contained, uninstalling was as simple as deleting the application folder.

Re:But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distro

[logicassasin]

"Have you tried installing those packages that RH and SuSe distribute for those alternate desktops? They are distributed and they install, but they often have empty menus. Rarely do the companies take the effort to really integrate those alternates desktops/WMs into their distro."

Which is why I love Mandrake/Mandriva so much. Sometimes I forget to install Fluxbox or WM when I do a fresh install on a PC. From Mandrake 7 to Mandriva 2006, if I go back and install a windowmanager after the fact, it gets it's menus properly populated. I've NEVER had an issue with it. In fact, I've been rather loyal to it because Mandrake was the first distro I used that gave me more than 2 desktop choices by default. I've always been dogged out when I tell someone I use Mandrake, especially on IRC (Efnet/#linux), but by and large things simply work on it. It's easy as hell for a newbie to use and, no matter what you think, it's still linux; ubergeeks can still use it as they wish.

Unstable? Do you mean OSX or XP?

[Anonymous Coward]

they're both horribly unstable

Yes, I agree, both XP and OSX are both horribly unstable. If you want stability and ease of use, you should try something different, like, for instance, Gnome or KDE.

Re:Unstable? Do you mean OSX or XP?

[MankyD]

I run gnome actually. It's great. The comment in particular was towards Compiz & Beryl, however. They suffer from many shortcomings which I am sure are being worked on as speak.

Bitchslapping an AC troll

[jmorris42]

> User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
> Zealot: "Oh that's easy! .....

Hey AC troll, you cut/paste that same drivel every week or two. Repetition doesn't make it any more true. Q3 came with the Loki installer and it 'just worked.' assuming you already had a working GL installation. But then I doubt the Windows Q3 installer would sort out your GL driver problems either. As for obscure LD_* fixups, nope. The only fixup I have ever needed was having to run the installer under "setarch 1386" to get it to install a 64-bit install. Because when Q3 was released bi-arch 64bit installs hadn't been conceived yet.

You are adding about as much to the conversation as the netcraft troll in every BSD thread, i.e. nothing. It isn't even a joke anymore, just lame.

Re:Bitchslapping an AC troll

[bckrispi]

His example may be dated, but the point is still valid. I ran into a similar problem last year when I tried upgrading some MySql tools. First, I got stuck in RPM hell. After about two hours of resolving dependancies and clearing out conflicting libraries, my application got just far enough to core dump when I tried running it. After tracing through Google for another 1/2 hour, I found a KDE patch I needed to apply. I downloaded the patch, only to see compilation fail because, you guessed it, I had missing dependancies. Another 1/2 hour tracking those down, And I got it to compile. At this point, I restarted X, only to have KDE 'Die and Not Come Back'.

It's issues like this that frustrate the hell out of geeks. It's issues like this that will keep non-geeks the hell away from Linux.

Re:Bitchslapping an AC troll

[jmorris42]

> It's issues like this that will keep non-geeks the hell away from Linux.

No it won't. Non-geeks won't be trying to shoehorn a version of MySql in that wasn't packaged for their OS. And only a poser would try to do it and then complain when they got in over their head. A real geek would know to try something that risky in a way that would be safe, like on a backup system or in a VM.

> First, I got stuck in RPM hell.

You can only get stuck in rpm dependency hell if you are manually installing things at the command line. This isn't something non-geeks will be doing much of unless they are trying to learn how to BE a geek. Learning experiences can sometimes be painful, we all went through em.

Re:Bitchslapping an AC troll

[bckrispi]

No it won't. Non-geeks won't be trying to shoehorn a version of MySql in that wasn't packaged for their OS

Yes! Gods forbid you try installing or upgrading software that wasn't included with your distribution. What kind of idiot would want to do that?

And only a poser would try to do it and then complain when they got in over their head. A real geek would know to try something that risky in a way that would be safe, like on a backup system or in a VM.

You're assuming that all 'geeks' are 'Operating System geeks'. They are not. I'm an 'Application development geek'. The more time I spend fsking around with getting my tools to install and play nicely with my OS is time pulled away from me building my software. The fact that you can not easily upgrade between major releases of software without dependancy hell is a weakness, no matter which way you slice it.

My take on this

[spitzak]

Definatly agree that there has been zero progress. Although I disagree about Vista, I don't think there has been progress their, and probably for the same reasons.

The biggest problem is that people complain that Linux does not "innovate" and copies Microsoft, but when anything comes out that is slightly different than Windows in even the most trivial way, those exact same people immediately claim it is not "user friendly". This is not just trolls, but actually people working on the systems. I also suspect this same problem is why Vista, or even OS/X, is not much different, they also have to be compatable with Windows, "user friendly" trumps innovation everywhere.

The second problem is the insane complex mess of libraries you must use to get anything done. This is not the Unix way. In some ways it is even worse than Windows.

Concrete suggestions, from most important downward, for actually improving and "innovating" the Linux desktop:

1. STOP RAISING WINDOWS ON CLICK! Change ALL window managers so that BY DEFAULT you can click in a window, move it, and resize it, iconize and reopen it, without raising it. This will instantly give Linux the ability to work with more than one application window at the same time, something that was easy in 1995 but is impossible now due to the slavish copying of Windows. This would make a huge distinctive advantage between Linux and the other systems. And to all the dimwits who will whine "that's not user friendly": it is TRIVIAL for the program itself to raise the window in response to the click, so this is an api problem, not a gui one!

2. Put the "big GUI chunks" into executables, following the Unix design. Lots of complaints about "inconsistent user interface" but too many think that means that all the pixels in the buttons have to match. That is NOT the problem, what people want is the FILE CHOOSERS to match. Everybody seems to think the file chooser is part of the toolkit, but it is not, it is just that they have no imagination of any other way to call it. What I want to see is an executable file that programs run to pop up the file chooser (or the print panel or font selector or all the popup yes/no and warnings, and a far better "dialog" program for most control panels). Then it can be replaced, and people with good ideas can try them out without joining the KDE/Gnome team. As people are freely able to replace their file choosers, I think within months Linux will switch from having the worst file choosers to having the best ones. Also give these programs good names, I don't care if they are the same as some obsolete Unix utility like "open", and I should be a simple "exec". Note that this will also allow shell scripts to have a "gui".

3. Some stuff people think is "gui" is actually basic system operations and should be part of the kernel and libc. Reproducing the effect of a double-click on a file icon should be a simple call (probably exec of that file), not require a huge gui-specific library. GnomeFS/KFS should be part of the system (use Fuse?) so that I can open() any url without thinking about it, and use cat and other Unix utilities. It should be possible to execute a program, wait till it is certain it is running and showing a window, then fork it. Locating an already-running copy of the same executable and communicating with it should be built in.

4. As much as possible, configuration should be controlled by the existence and contents of text files, NOT from any daemon! For a very short time applications were appearing on the desktop menus when they were installed, this was because the installer could cause a file to exist in the gnome hieararchy and the item would appear. This is no longer true, officially you are supposed to use a library call with 30 pages of complex rules, but they did add back-compatability but you have to log out/in to make it appear. The result is we are back again at where no installers create the menu item. Try learning something from this.

Depends on what you're used to eating.

[WebCowboy]

"What's for dinner honey?" - "Caterpillars and worms...

Hey there is hope for the Linux desktop yet! For a few years now Microsoft Windows users have been fed a very steady diet of worms. Lots and lots of worms. Thousands of different kinds of worms. And Windows has been able to serve them up faster than McDoe's could ever hope to serve up a Big Mac!

Really, MS and the Linux desktop are simply leapfrogging over each other...in 2001 we got a prettied up desktop in XP, in 2002 GNOME and KDE leapfrogged over them with a major version, in 2007 MS will bring Vista to the unwashed masses and I imagine in 2008/2009 Linux will get more greatness from GNOME and KDE.

This is a pretty lame indictment of the Free software community if you ask me. The author of the article makes a great deal of noise about there being six or seven years between major releases of GNOME and KDE, and seems to have glossed over the fact that MS went over five years themselves, despite having thousands of developers and billions of dollars to throw at it. Furthermore, calling XP a major release is questionable...it was by and large window-dressing to Win2000 (and technically it WAS a point-release from 5.0 to 5.1 wasn't it? I think the SP2 upgrade was probably almost as significant as 2k-to-XP too...). Really, MS will have gone almost EIGHT years between major releases.

Besides, I question the focus on the numbering system as a measure of progress--I've found that historically Free software products progress faster and have more significant changes between major releases. Nobody would say that from kernel 2.0.x to kernel 2.6.x there has been a lack of progress due to the fact it'll be something over a decade after 2.0 before a 3.x.x release. Projects like the kernel and Apache (and, yes, the desktop environments) have reserved the major release number for very fundamental, architectural overhauls. If Windows was a Free software project I do not think it would be numbered like it was--Windows 2.x would've been 1.x releases, 3.0 through Me would've been 2.x and NT 3.1 through XP would've been 3.x releases. For what its worth, I think that although Apple has been the pacesetter that Linux is still easily out-pacing Microsoft in terms of modernising the desktop overall, despite the whining about lack of "major releases".

Re:Depends on what you're used to eating.

[ZakuSage]

Isn't Vista also from the NT5 tree? Wouldn't that make it non-major if XP can't be considered as such?

Re:Depends on what you're used to eating.

[sarathmenon]

It is based on the tree, but the version says 6.0. Also there has been architectural changes and a lot of background changes. I usually bash microsoft, but credit goes to them for a major release.

Re:Depends on what you're used to eating.

[abradsn]

As much as I agree, I have to point out that you are glossing over the lack of acheivements by desktop environment makers in general.

Let's face it... over the last 10..15 years there has been almost no marked improvement in User Interface design across free and proprietary software. It has taken this long to make the GUI as useful as the cmd line used to be. My hope is that 10 years from now user interface design will begin to truly include other aspects of interfacing with our hardware and software.

ie.) speech, sound and other kinestetic devices are needed.

And, before some of you jump on this and say "Hey moron, look at this invariably incorrect link where what you talk about already exists." I ask that you only point out that link if it is not a crappy junk toy that doesn't work very well. (Dragon Naturally speaking, and crummy little keyboard knockoffs -- I'm talking about you.)

Here is the unfortunate part. Basically as that shift in design occurs, everyone starts to ignore the GUI model (in favor of the new paradigm) which will just then become usable from a highly productive standpoint.

Again, we will basically be set back around a decade, while we try to work out the new paradigm.

Open source, closed source, I don't care... both will emulate a major design improvement anyways. Its a big plagarism fest on both sides of the fence.

But.. open source allows for this evolution to occur quickly and unhindered by the baggage of the previous paradigm. (Open source developers typically don't care much about backwards compatibility -- just use the old code if that is what you need)

Personally, I'll be glad for the shift forward that a new paradigm will bring. I'm just saddened to read complaints about how bad the current state of affairs are -- especially when it is not paired with people calling out for paradigm shifts that could truly make a large impact on the overall user experience.

XFCE: Still too heavy.

[srobert]

For my clunky old machines even XFCE is heavy and bloated.
I'm using FVWM with TkDesk as a Desktop system.

Re:XFCE: Still too heavy.

[ChristTrekker]

Ever tried EDE? In my (limited) experience it is even lighter than Xfce, but there aren't many apps using its toolkit, so you don't get the benefit of shared libs like you do with gtk apps in Xfce. But building an environment piece-wise like you're doing is another option.

Re:But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distro

[just_another_sean]

Well if you like properly configured desktop environments and would like to see less packages (mainstream, well tested only) then Ubunutu is where it's at. (U|K|X|Edu)buntu all install easily. Each uses a different desktop but they all Just Work(TM) once install is completed. And, although you can get access easily to vast repositories of software, the stuff on the CD and available for LTS* users is limited to the best and brightest. Being a Debian fan makes it easy for me to also like Ubunutu, but seriously, anyone who needs a decent desktop for the basics (email, surf, office suite) will have pretty much everything they need once install is completed. Going beyond the basics is also made much easier in Ubuntu thanks to the Synaptic, broader repositories, the helpful community and support Wiki that has grown up around it.

*LTS = Long Term Support

Speed Issues

[linux pickle]

I used Linux for a while and loved it, except for a two major factors: speed and compatibility. I cannot stand interfaces that aren't 'snappy', no matter how nice they look. GTK+ 2 just wasn't snappy enough. My hardware is a P3 900mhz and 320MB of RAM - that should definitely be enough for basic tasks such as word processing and web design. So I bought a copy of Windows XP and did a fresh install. In this area, XP outperforms my old Debian install fivefold - my XP install boots up about twice as fast as my Debian install, and starting up outlook express takes about 1 second vs. about 5 to start Evolution. As for compatibility, to my surprise, devices work much better right out of the box on Windows. My next computer will be either a Linux box or a Mac. There are many things I miss in Linux, and these two issues are the only things stopping me from going back. If they have been improved upon enough within a few years, I will definitely be switching back. There's no way I'll be getting Vista, because Microsoft seems to also be sacrificing snappy interfaces for fancy visual effects. I think that the biggest problem in Desktop Linux is speed, and this problem needs attention sooner than anything else.

saving the kernel dump ..

[rs232]

"If you have listened to Linus and his lieutenants (Andrew Morton etc.), they say they are not focused on the desktop"

I can't actually recall reading anything Torvalds said regarding their focus. Do you have a link to what they actually said regarding the Desktop.

"They are focused on the high-end. Which makes sense to me - Microsoft dominates the desktop, the high-end is up for grabs right now"

The Desktop gets more visibility which is why when the average PHB decides to buy a server he chooses what he's already familar with, Windows. Ignoring the desktop would be a massive error.

"Linux has improved a lot for the high-end, but still needs work done. I just was speaking with someone from Oracle recently who told me how in an environment with a lot of Linuxes connected to a lot of SANs, the 2.4 kernel was complete junk. He did say things were getting better with the 2.6"

Has this been refered to on the kernel mailing list linux.kernel. Do other users of Oracle have this problem. You don't provide a lot of technical details. Is there a reference you can provide for such issues. Running a database is relativly trivial compared to calculating nuclear reactions or doing the graphics on 'Lord of the Ring' and would require very high-end equipment. What I don't understand how CERN and Weta Digital were able to get any work on the 'still needs work done' Linux OS.

"Hey here's another example - what if I want a fricking kernel dump when my system crashes? What, I can't dump it to disk like Solaris and every other enterprise UNIX does?"

You do seem to be unfortunate in your choice of OS. I don't know what use a kernel dump is unless you're actually compiling the kernel ;) . Something I've never been called on to do. Doesn't Linux have the Kdump utility that dumps its data to disk.

"I have to send it over the network (which comes to a host of problems which I won't go into here)? Yes, yes, I know about the problems of doing this for a variety of hardware, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about"

Yet more problems. I don't understand, I thought the kernel dump was a standard file saved locally and what's the difficulty in sending it over the network.

You paint a complete horror story of maintaining a Linux network. If I was reading this and had no first hand experience of using Linux I would run straight back to the nice safe OS that comes with training wheels attached. Kernel dump!! ... :)

was What do Linus and his lieutenants say? (Score:5, AstroT~1)

OSNews has become anti-FOSS

[desNotes]

I recently stopped visiting OSNews due to the MS astro-turfers ruining any hope of a decent discssion whenever a topic turned to Windows or Linux. The owners/admins of the site insist they have no control and are not anti-Linux but if you look at any of the comments you will see it is not the case.

A few months ago one could actually discuss the technical aspects of operating systems, all of them, but no more.

RIP OSNews

You mean linux destop or wondows rip-off's

[Anonymous Coward]

Well till now what you call Desktop is a rippoff of a ripoff of a ripoff of something that was designed by XeroX at PARC.

Now most of the idiots that have joined Linux have no clue about UNIX philosophy and are just blindly ripping off features from Winblows and MacOS. So these are not linux desktops, just cheap imitations of another really really crappy and old-school user interface.

OpenoOffice is suffering from the same thing. We are coopying a really really crappy and old office suite with million of limitations. For gods sake if you are going to copy something copy the one with better functionality. I was actually trying to make a drawing in OO and realized that all idiosyncracies have been inheretid from F****G Word, why?. I cannot write on bottom right hand corner og the page without doing Enter Enter Enter... Tab Tab Tab. Why not just click there are start typing, remeber WordPerfect?, too bad none of you had a chance to use it before MS killed it.

We will have to unlearn WinBlows desktop to progress, no matter how great you think it is. You will laugh at yourself 20 years from now.

It's fine if Linux remains niche but

[the Gray Mouser]

don't complain when hardware companies don't bother to release drivers, or other software manufacturers don't port their products over to Linux.

You can't have it both ways. If you want stuff to "work" on Linux, you need to get a large enough user base to make it worth developers while. Of course, in order to get that user base, you need to start making stuff work on Linux.

Example: Office software

The standard for office document formats is Microsoft Office. It doesn't matter what any ISO or RFC claims. To the extent that software cannot open, view, and save a document or spreadsheet from Office and to Office, it is not compliant with the standard. In layman's terms, that means it's broke.

Another example: software installation

Any time a command line is required for a standard install of software, the installer is broken. The process should be double-click, next, I Agree, next, next, finish(maybe one or two more or fewer nexts as required).

Another news flash: Windows is free (as in beer) for 90% of its users. It comes pre-installed on your computer. And the computer may actually be cheaper than a similar model with Linux installed, which means that Linux is actually (*gasp*) more expensive than Windows.

I believe the "free software" community is truly on the verge of becoming systematically self-destructive (if it's not there already). Consider the latest Debian drama where people were actually paid to do some work. The Horror!!

Re:It's fine if Linux remains niche but

[Ash-Fox]

don't complain when hardware companies don't bother to release drivers, or other software manufacturers don't port their products over to Linux.

Mac users do this more than Linux users actually.

You can't have it both ways. If you want stuff to "work" on Linux, you need to get a large enough user base to make it worth developers while. Of course, in order to get that user base, you need to start making stuff work on Linux.

Example: Office software

Working fine here.

The standard for office document formats is Microsoft Office. It doesn't matter what any ISO or RFC claims. To the extent that software cannot open, view, and save a document or spreadsheet from Office and to Office, it is not compliant with the standard. In layman's terms, that means it's broke.

Huh? The software I have installed can open, view, save a document and a spreadsheet to and from Microsoft office. Why are you spreading FUD?

Another example: software installation

Any time a command line is required for a standard install of software, the installer is broken. The process should be double-click, next, I Agree, next, next, finish(maybe one or two more or fewer nexts as required).

We have this already on Linux. Why are you spreading FUD?

Another news flash: Windows is free (as in beer) for 90% of its users. It comes pre-installed on your computer. And the computer may actually be cheaper than a similar model with Linux installed, which means that Linux is actually (*gasp*) more expensive than Windows.

I've only noticed such schemes from Dell. I don't buy from them for other reasons. However if you want a Linux system, try a real Linux vendor like System76.

I believe the "free software" community is truly on the verge of becoming systematically self-destructive (if it's not there already).

I consider this more FUD.

Consider the latest Debian drama where people were actually paid to do some work. The Horror!!

Debian isn't really a distribution you would see average Joe using. I also don't see how people falling out over issues is unique to the "free software community" either. Nor do I see how this means the "free software community" is self-destructive.

There are plenty of examples of free software developers who are getting paid which isn't being argued over.

Re:It's fine if Linux remains niche but

[Anonymous Coward]

> Another news flash: Windows is free (as in beer) for 90% of its users.
> It comes pre-installed on your computer.

Actually that would make it as free as the first "free beer" that you get with your $25 cover charge that gets you into the place...

No, it hasn't burst

[NSIM]

For something burst there has to be significant pressure, the LINIX Desktop market has never been more than wishful thinking to begin with. So, no burst, more of a small gentle fart.

It's the software, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that makes or breaks an OS is the software available for it. Eye candy desktops don't mean squat, even to grandmothers (in fact, eye candy means way, way less to grandmothers than most of the dweebs/nerds/geeks who salivate over OMG! BLUR BEHIND TRANSPARENT WINDOWS!! I THINK I JUST CAME IN MY PANTS!!). Who gives a rat's ass?

The one and only thing that makes an OS acceptable to anyone except a hobbyist is the availability of major software titles such as Photoshop or MS Office. Even Mac OS X would be a failure (and Apple would almost certainly be a distant memory as a shut down company years ago) if it weren't for just these two software titles alone.

Mainstream people don't care about their OS. Linux, Windows, OS X, those things mean absolutely nothing to 95% of the computer users out there, and that's what Linux fanatics (or Mac fanatics, etc.) never seem to have understood. Until Adobe releases Photoshop for Linux, Linux will never be widely accepted. Until you see MS release Office for Linux, Linux will always remain in the realm of the hobbyist.

Amen!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have used Linux from the first widely available distributions a gazillion years ago,originally set up by others and talked to via a real VT100 terminal! I needed a good editor then to write LaTeX (emacs) and have stuck with Linux throughout. Kile is a godsend for LaTeX authors--but not as good as the Windows setup (ProTeX?--I only used it briefly). I have missed a spreadsheet and dumb textwriter for simple letters and notes, etc. I don't do very much programming, but I have on occasion put together a couple thousand lines of code (I am a physicist). I am writing this from a new MacBook Pro as I simply got fed up with trying to get tthings to work right with every upgrade, like getting the sound to work right on my Linux desktop--you get spoiled after getting XMMS and Ogg-Vorbis of a hundred CD' sor so on your desktop. There are just too many aggravations with Linux anymore as they try to have all the bells and whistles and they keep breaking things--like KDE's calendar which worked for years until they tried to make it MS compliant and talk nice with Exchange. It stayed broke and I moved on to a Mac. I have a 3 year old desktop at the office, and they decided to quit supporting floppies--yes I know they are old hat, but I had a lot of ancient crud stored on them and it wasted a day of my time figuring out how to get them mounted and copied and stored elsewhere (I have a USB floppy reader for the Mac just in case.) I have been told that all Linux kernels now shun MP3's by default so you have to build custom kernels if you stored your music as MP3's and want to listen to it. I don't know how many hours I wasted getting sound back on my Linx box after an upgrade. The first--and I mean the very damn first, no offense to many who have labored long and hard on many many spreadsheets/office packages, but you ain't there yet--vestiges of a useable spreadsheet on Linux I have seen came with the latest beta update of NeoOffice (carbonized OpenOffice for those of you who are not Mac fanboys). I haven't tried all the bells and whistles, but it is finally looking fairly complete, is capable of decent graphs, etc. (i.e., getting competitive with MS Office 2.2 or thereabouts). I wouldn't put MS Office on my MacBook Pro anyway (no sensecompletely undoing the Unix security model!!!), but everything Linux has for free I have too on my Mac. I loved the KDE desktop setup and will probably insall something like Kubuntu or Fedora (or Suse?--don't know about them now) under Parallels or the VM coming with the next OSX upgrade in the spring. But that is for play mostly--nostalgia?--and not going to be my primary working environment. Even working with reliable distributions (RedHat, then Fedora, Suse I have all used in one way or another over the years), as the features have crept into Linux the aggravation and time wastage has increased exponentially. I got tired of wasting time and getting my bloodpressure up because oops things don't work that used to work. I don't see the Linux programming model changing, and this will only get worse unless and until one of the distros makes an expensive effort to change things.

Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[AHumbleOpinion]

Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else.

That is untrue, that is a stereotype that is about as accurate as Linux serving the nerd in "Mom's basement". Sure it happens, but it is the exception not the rule. A minor point that you seem to miss is that Apple works pretty hard at functionality in addition to being fashionable. Some may think the iMac is cool looking, but many like the functionality of an all-in-one design. Especially now that flat panels are ubiquitous and you get back an amazing amount of deskspace. The Mini, what is fashionable there? It is small box with rounded corner, what I love about it is it's size.

A far more important point with respect to Linux is that Apple is a more viable "UNIX" environment. Not only do I get easy access to traditional unix tools, apps, and most open source software but I also get (1) some off-the-shelf software like MS Office, some games, etc; (2) a very polished, consistent, and approachable user interface; (3) comprehensive driver support (sure I can get wireless to work with my Dell laptop under Linux but it is a pain, Mac users don't have to deal with such "costs"); and (4) better support for running Windows apps I've seen various chem/bio environments that are traditionally unix move from Sun/SGI to Linux to Mac OS X. As Linux blunted Microsoft's advance into server space, Apple has blunted Linux's advance into end user space, the desktop.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[drinkypoo]

WRT your second paragraph:

• There are workalikes available for linux; the games are a soft point, I admit. Most of the off-the-shelf software's functionality IS available today. Some of the most important windows programs run on wine, as well.
• If you stick with GNOME or KDE you actually get a more consistent user interface than you do on that mac. Apple themselves has three different widget/window schemes that they are using in currently-shipping products - the rogue apps being Mail and iTunes. Context windows are inconsistent; in some of them they behave precisely like they do on windows. In some cases however they do not stay open or in general respond to clicks the way the other menus do. No, there is no consistency in Apple land. You just happen to have drunk the kool-aid. (This is the statement I am most likely to be modded down for, in spite of the ample proof of what I am saying.)
• Driver support? MacOSX supports less hardware than either Windows or Linux. Period. This is not disputable. Now, they do have more stable video driver support - that's not really disputable either. Incidentally, I hate this argument. You don't have this problem with a mac because less hardware is supported and you buy supported platforms. You don't have this problem with windows because everything you buy is windows certified, or it's the reference design for something that is. If you buy hardware that is linux certified, you won't have this problem there either. For example the centrino wireless hardware is well-supported. If you were going to buy a laptop to run linux, you would be a fool to get anything else, especially right now what with the fact that intel is stomping AMD for the first time in a long time.
• Support for running Windows apps? You can run Windows in a VM, or you can run Windows on the hardware, or you can run wine. Precisely the same level of support for running Windows apps that you find in Linux. There is no difference.

Look, it's very simple. There are basically three reasons to buy a mac. One of them is the applications. Apple gives you several very nifty applications that only run on OSX. The second one is the style. Whether you believe it or not, Apple has sold countless machines simply because they looked sexier. The final reason is the idiot factor. It's slightly easier to use than Windows or Linux. Any of these reasons are sufficient if they're important enough to you. But that doesn't mean the fashion factor doesn't sell Macintoshes and other Apple hardware, because it quite simply does. Otherwise they wouldn't spend the money on making them look sexy.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[Frumious Wombat]

In a way, Macs succeed because they're the Anti-Perl; There is one way to do it. (alternately, since I haven't seen a soviet russia joke in this thread yet, it's a Soviet Cafeteria approach. They put it in front of you, and say, "That's all you can eat".) However, that results in a clean, seamless, experience. The inconsistencies that the Gnomes always bring up about Mail.app and iTunes don't really register. Are the interfaces inconsistent? In some manner, yes, but not in any way that's visually jarring or detracting from their ease of use. Overall, it's just a less obtrusive environment than the alternatives. It doesn't pop dialogue boxes continually like a certain program from Redmond does, just in case you forgot it's there, and it doesn't fight back during daily use. After a while, the OS becomes white noise while you quietly go about your business.

Basically, the Mac is for when you've decided that you need to get work done, but you aren't willing to trust your livelihood to Windows sercurity or your blood pressure to WinLix user interfaces.

Btw, you forgot the other reason for owning a Mini; silence. Mine is hooked to a wide-screen monitor via digital input, sitting on the back of the desk taking up about as much space as a page-a-day calendar, and neither it nor the external firewire drive are emitting enough noise to matter. It's little touches like that that make people move to Mac.

Mac, for when you've had enough of computer judo.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[AHumbleOpinion]

There are workalikes available for linux; the games are a soft point, I admit. Most of the off-the-shelf software's functionality IS available today. Some of the most important windows programs run on wine, as well.

Largely irrelevant since many of those workalikes are also available for Mac OS X, for example OpenOffice.

Driver support? MacOSX supports less hardware than either Windows or Linux. Period. This is not disputable.

Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple. The wireless on an iBook works out-of-the-box. The wireless on my Dell D610 requires much jumping through hoops after installing Linux. This is the upside of all-in-one sole-source configurations, Apple laptops, iMac, Mini, ...

Support for running Windows apps? You can run Windows in a VM, or you can run Windows on the hardware, or you can run wine. Precisely the same level of support for running Windows apps that you find in Linux. There is no difference.

Dual booting is a wash since you can do that on current Macs as well.

Regarding Wine, we are back to the difficulty of installation/configuration. It is not appropriate for normal desktop users, unlike the Parallels solution under Mac OS X.

Again, I think you are missing the point. It is not that wireless on the Dell laptop or Wine cannot be done under Linux, it is that they cannot be made to work trivially, that it is beyond the capabilities of normal users. That is why Apple has a serious advantage when it comes to bringing a UNIX environment to these users. The difference goes far beyond the "slightly simpler" that you claim.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[drinkypoo]

Driver support? MacOSX supports less hardware than either Windows or Linux. Period. This is not disputable.

Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple.

What that actually means is that Mac OS X offers horribly inferior driver support, because it only supports computers you purchase from Apple, whereas both Linux and Windows will run on a very wide range of hardware (Linux, of course, running on a dramatically wider range than Windows.)

Nice try, though.

Support for running Windows apps? You can run Windows in a VM, or you can run Windows on the hardware, or you can run wine. Precisely the same level of support for running Windows apps that you find in Linux. There is no difference.

Dual booting is a wash since you can do that on current Macs as well.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said there is no difference. If this is too complicated for you, I suggest you visit another website.

Regarding Wine, we are back to the difficulty of installation/configuration. It is not appropriate for normal desktop users, unlike the Parallels solution under Mac OS X.

vmware under Linux (free) makes the parallels solution a wash as well. Which is what I was saying in the first place - anyplace OSX does not lag behind linux, it is parallel. The only place OSX has an advantage over Linux (though not Windows, which has dramatically more available software) is in applications, which is an advantage that shrinks further every day. Well, the GPU-accelerated GUI is much more mature as well, but it's not useful from a productivity standpoint anyway.

Again, I think you are missing the point. It is not that wireless on the Dell laptop or Wine cannot be done under Linux, it is that they cannot be made to work trivially, that it is beyond the capabilities of normal users. That is why Apple has a serious advantage when it comes to bringing a UNIX environment to these users. The difference goes far beyond the "slightly simpler" that you claim.

No, no, it does not. With Apple you are running only the hardware Apple says it is okay to run. Of course this will give you a superior experience. If you only purchase hardware which Linux is known to work well with - still a vastly wider selection than what will work with OSX - then you can have that same experience on linux.

The fact that you do not understand this makes you incapable of participating in this conversation in any kind of useful, meaningful fashion.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[AHumbleOpinion]

Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple."

What that actually means is that Mac OS X offers horribly inferior driver support, because it only supports computers you purchase from Apple, whereas both Linux and Windows will run on a very wide range of hardware (Linux, of course, running on a dramatically wider range than Windows.) Nice try, though.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Mac OS X *only* runs on hardware from Apple, so all the generic PC hardware out there is irrelevant, as is their drivers. As I said, this is the upside of all-in-one sole-source configurations. The fact remains that when installing Linux on a PC, support for factory standard equipment is sometimes lacking, again the Dell D610 wireless example. This remains an issue that deters people from migrating from Windows to Linux and it remains an issue that makes Mac OS X seem more attractive for some users that do want UNIX. Not everyone wants to be a hobbyist, even those who want UNIX, some people just want the system to work out of the box.

If you only purchase hardware which Linux is known to work well with - still a vastly wider selection than what will work with OSX - then you can have that same experience on linux.

No, this only addresses one of several issues raised, drivers. My point stands, some users who are buying new systems and who navigate the compatibility minefield and get compatible hardware are still finding Mac OS X to be a more viable alternative. Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X. Linux's migration to the common desktop has been blunted by Mac OS X.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[drinkypoo]

No, this only addresses one of several issues raised, drivers. My point stands, some users who are buying new systems and who navigate the compatibility minefield and get compatible hardware are still finding Mac OS X to be a more viable alternative.

What I'm telling you is that if those people bought hardware after deciding on Linux, and they are not happy working out driver issues themselves, they are fucking morons. (Let me finish my thought before you think you understand my sentence, which I admit is cumbersome.) They should not be allowed to touch a computer, much less own one because if you know you're going to run Linux, you can simply buy from a systems integrator who will deal with all that for you. This is precisely what you are doing when you buy a Mac. This is also precisely what you are doing when you buy a PC with Windows. If you think that's not true, clearly you have never PC integration work.

Linux gives you more choices. People who do not understand the choices have only to buy from someone who does. You act like the power of linux is a liability. It is not. What is a liability is that people think that things which are inherently hard are going to be easy. They are not. And frankly, Apple probably had to go through a lot of work to get that hardware working. Apple is both developer and integrator. If you involve both an integrator, you will get better results.

Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X.

Most of these people are not computer geeks and don't really know what they're doing. They try to use linux without involving people who know what they're doing, give up on it because it's hard, and go to a mac. They pay a premium (although a much smaller one than in the past) for their pretty case, pretty GUI, a few Apple apps, and the high level of integration between the OS and the hardware. Or they could pay a smaller premium to just have the integration done. They choose not to do this, and they buy the mac. It doesn't mean the mac is better. It just means that they don't know enough to make an informed decision. It also doesn't mean their decision is the wrong one - but they'll never know whether it was or not.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Fanboi go home. There would be no Mac OS X if not for BSD and probably the help of Linux.

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[AHumbleOpinion]

"Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X."

Most of these people are not computer geeks and don't really know what they're doing. They try to use linux without involving people who know what they're doing, give up on it because it's hard, and go to a mac.

"give up on it because it's hard", you realize you are making my earlier point, about having to jump through hoops to get some things working under Linux?

They pay a premium (although a much smaller one than in the past) for their pretty case, pretty GUI, a few Apple apps, and the high level of integration between the OS and the hardware. Or they could pay a smaller premium to just have the integration done. They choose not to do this, and they buy the mac. It doesn't mean the mac is better. It just means that they don't know enough to make an informed decision. It also doesn't mean their decision is the wrong one - but they'll never know whether it was or not.

They have made an informed decision. They just want to get their work done, and since Linux and Mac OS X *both* run their software, but Mac OS X is less of a hassle and offers more options elsewhere they find it a better solution. Again, much of the chem/bio software is coming from Sun and SGI systems originally, it is not tied to Linux. Many people just need a generic UNIX environment and Mac OS X is attractive. I'm not saying it will replace Linux, merely that it has blunted Linux's advance to the desktop. As you your self write: "give up on it because it's hard". Why bother when you have the same apps?

Re:Apple is also a more viable "UNIX" than Linux

[linuxrocks123]

> (3) comprehensive driver support (sure I can get wireless to work with my Dell laptop under Linux but it is a pain, Mac users don't have to deal with such "costs");

As someone who has literally spent days trying to get wireless support to work on a friend's Apple desktop, after said friend bought the official "Apple"-branded wireless card, I'm going to have to beg to differ here. We ultimately gave up and she ran an Ethernet cord to the router instead.

Been there, done that...

[mangu]

The problems you mention aren't Linux problems, they are problems with some old Linux installations you may have found in the past.

Give programs names that anyone know what they are.
for example GIMP -> Graphics Editor or Photo Processor ... Just give the program a name that we know what it is

You are right, that's *exactly* how it's done in Ubuntu. The application has its own unique name, of course, it would be rather difficult to know exactly which application you mean by "Graphics Editor", but the name you see in the Ubuntu menu and icons is "Image Editor (GIMP)".

OTOH, what's with the XP system menu, where games are installed under the "Electronic Arts" menu. WTF? "Electronic Arts" could be anything, from electronic music to rendered graphics, but I've never seen playing computer games called an "Art" outside of the XP main menu... And what about the games that are installed in the "Firaxis" menu? Firaxis? What the hell is a "Firaxis"? I want to play "Pirates", where the fuck was that game installed?

Common Menus. Menus need to be in a familiar order. File, Edit, View, Tools, Help

Yes, all the applications in my Ubuntu installation use that order in their menus.

Easy installation of programs ... install the application and the Icon to the application is in the GUI menu, with the correct icon.

Sure, have you tried Adept, which is started by the "Add/Remove Programs" menu options in Ubuntu?

Desktop users shouldn't need to hunt down dependencies to get the application to work

I thought that had died with Windows98 and RedHat 7.2, right? Neither Ubuntu nor WindowsXP have that "dependency hell" anymore.

Plugging it in doesn't mean it will do anything. OS X and Windows when you plug in a camera or other hardware will load a default application which you can change who the default it.

So does Ubuntu. In the last couple of years, the hardware that has given me most problems is my Philips 200W6 monitor, which WindowsXP absolutely refuses to run at the standard resolution of 1680x1050, it insists that 1600x1200 is the right resolution in my GeForce FX-5200 card. No, the CD-ROM that came with the monitor doesn't work, all I get is a message saying there aren't any valid drivers in the CD-ROM. No, there aren't any updated drivers available, either in the nVidia or Philips sites. In Ubuntu it took me longer to plug the connector in the card than to configure the driver.

Plugging in a device and guessing what one of my thousand entries in /dev is this device.

Well, you got me there. I haven't looked at the Linux /dev directory in the last five years or so, I can't tell if there are a thousand or more or less entries in that directory. But I'd love to have a look at my /dev directory in XP, so I could fix my wide-screen monitor, if I could...

Linux has stalled

No, no, *YOU* have stalled. The 1990's are calling, they want their Linux installation back. Linux has been evolving pretty quickly, you should take a look at Ubuntu 6.10, for instance.

How About Some Spice In That Bowl of Chile?

[LifesABeach]

All the Linux Gods have to do is create an interface that makes openOffice look and act like Office, make Firefox look and act like IE, make KDE look and act like Windows. Make it a user option, if you get my drift. So that my parents could not effectively tell the difference. But it should not end there. Once an inner interoperability mile stone is reached, call CNN about why you are going to place a flower,(for inner interoperability), at Microsoft's Front Door each time. Ya, it will start off as a goof, but Gandhi "tweaked" an empire doing it that way, an smiled all the way back home.

This article distilled

[sskang]

KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.

Why? Who are you? More specifically, why would you assume that the developers who are busy retooling the plumbing of KDE should take time off to make screenshots for you?

linux has no chance....

[Anonymous Coward]

don't get me wrong, i love linux. there is no better development platform. however, it just flat out sucks for EVERYTHING else.

1. the file structure sucks. totally confusing to anyone who is not a developer. bin=trash.
2. the window managers all suck. the simple ones are too simple, and the gnome and kde are wanna-be Windows. vista owns them. osx owns them too. if you want Joe Average to embrace linux, the ui has to give him something fresh while at the same time intuitive, not a bootleg looking version of Windows95. Sun, if you hear me, bless us with the Looking Glass.
3. it has to work. nothing infuriated me more then my wireless g card not working under linux. luckily for me, i was at Rutgers at the time and just joined the linux group there(RUSLUG) and helped develop the prism54 driver. however, my dad is not going to code a driver for his SLR camera.
4. wmv??? maybe a solution(free) exists for this now, i don't know for sure because i gave up a while ago, but the fact that there is no good way to watch a Kimbo fight or half the porn on the internet is a serious problem.
5. games??? emulators are as good as it gets. this isn't that bad, but at the same time, its sad. and with the way thing are headed with internet distribution, don't be supprised if the VGIAA is formed and starts suing the living crap out of people in the next few years.

i know that i'll be ignored or flamed for this, but i don't care. i'll be streaming A Scanner Darkly from my Windows box in my room to my Xbox360 and watching it in HD on my living room couch.

New coat? Hardly

[Keyslapper]

"Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."

Yeah, anyone familiar with Mac OSX will tell you it's not a new coat, it's a knockoff of Apple's old coat.

It's not for nothing that everyone says the MS R&D lab is called Apple.

I know, some MS Fanboy is going to mark this a troll, but there are a lot of people out there saying essentially the same thing. Including both "experts" featured in a recent slashdot analysis of the two OSes.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing for MS, especially seeing as how Apple is so much better at aesthetics. Now they've got a real backend, it's hardly a surprise they're gaining market share and shedding the "toy computer" rap.

Still, next thing you know, those "Get a Mac" ads will have PC dressing up like Mac. Now that would be amusing.

Now, this doesn't mean I won't be touching Vista. All my development takes place on XP these days, and I've no doubt we'll be moving to Vista eventually. Once I upgrade to a MacBook Pro, I'll probably even buy a copy to run under Parallels.

Do rivers stagnate?

[Frederico Camara]

What is this article about? It's asking for BIG revisions. It says something in the line of 'Change everything and you have something new. If you change bit by bit, somehow you would never get there'. Take a look at what the author defines as "stagnation": we have accustomed to the continuous flow of revisions and improvements in our desktop experience, when we use Linux. So major improvements are perceived as point revisions. We expected them. We wait as changes are happening and when they finally come we just use them. Is this stagnation? Say, if something is flowing continuously, it means it is stagnated? Then I read this thing about randomness. I thought evolution was random, as well as creativity and improvement. I even thought ideas were random by nature. Now I read this as if it's a bad thing. Ok, does he wants to see results? Install Gnome 2.0.0 and KDE 2.2 and compare. It's not about bug fixing and speed improvements, it's not the same as comparing patched and unpatched versions of Windows XP. There are real improvements! Today's versions are as different from these early versions as Vista is different from XP. And on another note, I read "not ready for the desktop" as if it really means anything. Ready for the desktop means nothing! Computers were being used on the desktop long before they were "Ready for the Desktop". The problem is every writer thinks people that use Free Software are masochists, we're not. It feels comfortable, responsive and easy to use. It's not so easy to set up, but computers were never easy to set up, it just takes time. It works out of the box just until you try to do something different. Same as it ever was. All things summed, this was a really lousy article.

problems yes, but was there ever a bubble? no

[socerhed]

This topic is very stupid. First off lets be real, there never was a bubble, and as long as the open source community stays the way it is, there never will be a bubble.

The reason that I say there never was a bubble is because the same places that say there is/was a bubble, are the same places that Linux is the greatest OS out there. Truth be told, Linux is a OS that has alot of potential but no unity. As long as there is a lack of unity there will be no bubble of any kind. "But thats what the open source community is about, unity." Really? Then why is it we have 2 types of desktops that don't resemble each other at all. Yeah, Windows has 2 types of desktop but at least they look alike and you don't have to start a new session every time you want to switch, might as well reboot. Why is it that we have a million different media players, text editors, and game programs that allow you to play the same fricken game. It makes no sense at all.

You might have noticed I left out the part about having a million distros too. That has to be the biggest problem. A problem that will have to be solved but if these other problems get solved then everything will just fall into place.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. What I hate is how it's split up into a million different projects that all do the same thing. The funding that goes to all these different projects could go to one project. Open source is all about efficiency right? If we unified, we could actually afford to run ads, make business deals and push forward alot faster.

But as far as a bubble? There never was one.

Desktop Linux is a misnomer

[stinkyweezelteets]

I'm sure this will be said hundreds of times, but one more can't hurt. I use Linux on my desktop. Therefore it is desktop Linux. What we need is Enduser Linux.

Thom the plumber comments on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"Other than computers, my biggest hobbies are my family, friends and my two cats. I'm also a huge music-lover, having a large collection of (legal) CDs and LPs. My taste in music is very diverse, ranging from The Eagles to Bruce Springsteen, to Garbage and Roxette, all the way up to Frank Sinatra and Oasis. And much, much more. I'm currently a student, and I have a side-job at a DIY-shop annex plumbing company."

Sounds like he should stick to his side job, because criticising the Linux desktop folks is not going to get him a Linux job.

Stereotype destruction

[jmorris42]

> Linux has a problem with it UI for Desktop usage.

No it doesn't. Random people off the street can and DO use Linux desktops, specifically GNOME on a clone of RHEL3. I'm running it in a public library setting and people just use it, kids to senior citizens. I did make a few compromises like Crossover Office installed to run the Office viewers and most importantly IE for sites that won't render in anything else. A decision that saved our butts come Katrina when FEMA's site was IE only.

And since it is a sane multiuser OS we can give them home directories, email accounts and even allow them to install into their home directory. No public access Windows allow such freedom. And yes we have people taking advantage of this. Too many people confuse 'easy to use' with 'what I already know how to use.' But when you turn people loose for a bit they learn new things.

And if you pick your hardware carefully, like an OEM would, installation is also a no brainer. Literally just plop in the DVD and answer some simple questions like what time zone you are in and which optional package groups you want.

> Give good names to the features. Give programs names that anyone know what they are.

I don't know which distro you were looking at and how many years ago, but RH has been doing that for a few years.

> But for desktop use they are a big pain. Things like install the application and the Icon to the application is in the GUI menu,
> with the correct icon.

If the icon doesn't appear correctly it is a bug to report to whoever is maintaining the package. If you are the sort of buttmuncher who insists on installing via tarball AND bitching because that doesn't work anymore in a GUI package managed world you should STFU.

> Desktop users shouldn't need to hunt down dependencies to get the application to work nor can you assume your application will be
> part of the distribution list) People want to go the web site download a program and run it.

And why should we adopt lame Windows practices like forcing people to hunt down a website, download an installer and run it when we have a much better way? Take a look at a modern package manager, you can add repos to them in a very simple manner. So if a 3rd party (I assume you mean payware since free software should get into most default repos if it doesn't suck) wants to support an OS they should provide a repo and instructions for adding it to your collection. Then installing their program AND ANY DEPENDENCIES (dependencies will even be solved across repos) becomes checking a box in a GUI and keeping it current is pretty much automatic.

> Plugging it in doesn't mean it will do anything...

If it is supported it will do something. If it is partially supported you might have to futz with it. If it isn't well then it isn't. Same as owning a Mac, everything doesn't work. Everything works on Windows because ALL HARDWARE (excepting a couple of Mac only bits and bobs) is sold for Windows, of course it kinda/sorta works there.

> OS X and Windows when you plug in a camera or other hardware will load a default application which you can change who the default it.

You say that like it is a good thing. Most of the time it suxors because they are using it to try to keep you captive to their bundled app and will even geep stealing the association back. We don't play those games.

> Linux has stalled, in the desktop...

No it hasn't. Look at the progress in Fedora/RHEL, SuSE and Ubuntu in versions spanning the last couple of years and you will see major progress in all of them. Linux long since passed the point where mere mortals can use a Linux desktop in an environment where there is a professional admin, and has reached the point where an OEM preload would be viable for many users, only it isn't available.

We will probably never reach a state where Linux desktops run Windows games so if that is you benchmark just stay on Windows and play, the rest of us have work to do and no time for futzing with Norton Anti-virus.

Only the hype is fading.

[ishmalius]

Hopefully the hype and rhetoric of the Linux desktop, and the unreasonable expectations for it, are being tempered. If people wanted a free replacement for each and every one of their favorite Windows programs, then obviously they were looking in the wrong place. But that is a Good Thing. Windows has been around far too long, and the look and feel is becoming tired and boring. We don't want the same thing to happen to the desktop as what happened to General Motors.

But the various projects seem to be rather healthy, and progress very nicely, with new stuff all of the time.

Very true

[ishmalius]

I wish that I hadn't used up my mod points this morning, else I'd +1 that statement right now. Open Source is definitely not a place for people who fear change.

Who cares what their OS is?

[banerjek]

The whole problem with computers is that they're too damn complicated and they don't work that well. OSes aren't anywhere near what people need.

When the car was first invented, you needed to be a mechanic to drive one (or you needed to have your own mechanic). However, nowadays, they run quite well if you just put gas in them and keep the fluids and filters clean. You don't need to know anything about setting fuel/air ratios, maintaining the transmission, or even repacking bearings since that stuff's all sealed now. You can subject this complex box of moving parts and electronics to harsh conditions for years on end, and practically no maintenance is necessary.

With computers, we are still in the stage where everyone has to be a mechanic. You have to screw around with linux to make it do what you want and it's hard to find any two installations that work the same. Windows and OSX may look pretty, but it's easy to mess up a computer and you have to know what you're doing to make things right. Most people don't want to spend their time wondering about the intricacies of how their hardware and software work. They just want the gizmo to do its job. They're not stupid -- they want to have a life in the real world.

No one should care what the OS is in their computer any more than they should care who manufactured the compressor for their refrigerator or the blower on their furnace. Until the computer can be made as easy to use and reliable as just about every other product, we can look forward to perpetual squabbles over whether option A or B is better when the reality is that they both leave much to be desired.

Re:Who cares what their OS is?

[cdrguru]

Experiments have been tried with the idea of "appliance computing", but it hasn't worked out very well. Partly because these attempts have been with dial-up networking and very limited capabilities in terms of both processor, RAM, local storage and display.

Maybe what is really needed is something that is an "appliance" in the form of a notebook computer. Sadly, the browsers are not cooperating with this much - downloadable executable stuff completely violates the "appliance" model. You can't have stability if there is the possibilty of spyware, malware or trojans.

You could probably have a manufacturer-only update with signed code, but it is possible even for this to leak out. And these units would be a tempting target because there would very likely be a lot of them.

Re:Who cares what their OS is?

[KillerBob]

Experiments have been tried with the idea of "appliance computing", but it hasn't worked out very well. Partly because these attempts have been with dial-up networking and very limited capabilities in terms of both processor, RAM, local storage and display.

Really? What do you call game consoles? I had no idea they were going to die out so soon.

The GP is absolutely right. Users don't care what's running in their computer, they care that it works. Everybody has a different threshhold for how much crap they're willing to put up with, and what kind of hoops they're willing to jump through to get something that works. While you or I may be willing to spend the time configuring Linux to work properly on the computer, the average user may not. For some, they're willing to spend more money for something that "just works". Others, they can't afford to spend money on a computer and want something that's free (as in beer). Some have idealogical reasons to avoid mainstream software, and want something that's free (as in speech). Most people are willing to spend a little money in exchange for better support and fewer headaches.

Yeah, you *can* do anything that Windows can do on a Linux distro. Yeah, if you know what you're doing, you can do it better. And yeah, you can do it without spending a dime on software. Yeah, you're free of the evils of DRM. But you know what? All that freedom doesn't change the fact that for most of us, the desktop computer is a combonation between a typewriter and a gaming console. What matters is that it works, and quite frankly, Linux doesn't. Not for the gaming that I'm doing. A decent driver for the video card in my laptop doesn't exist, and gaming is impossible with Mesa: the framerate simply isn't good enough. I could easily do the web surfing, e-mail writing, document-writing, and video editing on the laptop with Linux. Oh wait... no, I couldn't do the graphical editing, because the memory card reader doesn't work either, and I can't transfer the pictures/video from my camera.... Linux on my laptop simply isn't an option. On the desktop, it's an option, but when I have a legitimate license for XP Professional lying around, why bother configuring Linux when I sacrifice all technical support from the hardware manufacturers and software vendors, and in the process open myself up to needing to buy a subscription to Cedega in order to do what I do most with the machine: play games?

Idealogy is all well and good, but the computer *is* an appliance no matter which way you look at it. It may be an extremely complicated appliance, but it's an appliance nonetheless. What matters is that it works.

Re:Who cares what their OS is?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What matters is that it works, and quite frankly,
> Linux doesn't. Not for the gaming that I'm doing.
> A decent driver for the video card in my laptop
> doesn't exist

I'd say your laptop isn't working then or at least not properly supported. Not Linux' fault but yours for making the choice to buy such a thing. Bitch at yourself, bitch at the OEM or bitch at the video manufacturer but the last thing you should bitch about in this scenario is Linux. JMHO.

Is a next big thing important?

[massysett]

Is there something wrong with the continuous improvement we've seen in GNOME with its six-month release cycle? UNIX is a solid base; is there a need to pull a Vista- or OS X-like move by starting over? "Linux 3.0" or even "Linux 2.8" doesn't turn anything up in Google; should I be worried?

MOD PARENT UP

[PoprocksCk]

That comment had me in stitches... thanks!

In the end, marketing and money win

[itsmatt]

The issue is that the world largely is unaware or ignores Linux. How many of your neighbors have ever heard of Linux? I doubt if any of mine have. How many have heard of Microsoft or Apple? Most of them. To consumers, money and marketing talk. Neither XP/Vista nor OSX is completely unusable and both have considerable marketing efforts behind them. Linux may be solid and stable and have the hearts and minds of many developers and IT folks around the globe, but the average Joe simply doesn't care about it and most companies are going with the product that has a real company behind it that they can reach out and touch. I think Linux is cool but MS and Apple aren't likely to falter at this point. The Linux desktop, for most people, is probably a curiosity at best, unfortunately.

Re:Desktops? Sound

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is true because sound isn't supported in the kernel? I get so many complaints about this from someone who does sound app devel.

Re: OS X and Windows and Debian (Linux)

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a MacBook, but I find the OS X Not So Great in comparison to what I get from Gnome in Debian (Etch - still testing). For starters,
      * multiple desktops - *must* have. nVidia add-on in Windows is just not the same and OS X, well, I guess that is "next release"?
      * ability to have *proper* mouse movements. I HATE the stupid sticky mouse. The huge non-linear movements (even fixing it with external utility) are still horrible!!
      * I like XCode, but I can live with emacs just as well.
      * Hate lack of proper support for a lot of software I use. Rails is difficult to get running on a Mac. And HELL, it is impossible to get third party stuff running on a Mac, like gnuplot. You have to compile everything from scratch, then it doesn't work... Fink also has broken stuff. With Debian, much, much better. Actually, it was easier to install Debian on the MacBook and boot into it for web development with rails than trying to get all the requirements for the app compiled and installed on OS X.
      * Windows is even worse than OS X - cygwin doesn't compensate for all the lackings in Windows like long path support. I mean paths longer than 512 characters. This can break tla (Gnu Arch). And no, CVS or SVN are not acceptable in comparison.

There is a lot of positive things about Windows and OS X. For example OS X has better MacBook support than Debian, but I guess it just has to be this way!! Windows has games available, but now with good quality game consoles, who cares? I stopped. I still like games like nethack and netrek and yes, even chess in comparison to the currently ridicules games like WOW - what is the objective there anyway?? And I like Diablo II! That game at least had an objective!

But there are many things that I do not like about these legacy OSes. That is why I stick with Debian. Windows and OS X have a long way to go before I'll like them as much as I like Debian+GNOME+Linux 2.6 :) Well, probably never. They are nothing more than a "hobby OS" for me.

[*] No, I'm not a OSS zellot that thinks all software should be free and for free. I write closed source software in Debian! :) And I run closed source software in Debian. And I do pay for the MSDN Subscription to MS too - clients still seem to be using these legacy OSes so I need it to compile and test my software there.

Linux desktop and Portland project

[Anonymous Coward]

OSDL has tried to give a push to KDE and GNOME by attempting a common cover, but OSDL
has lost steam as it seems the Linux desktop has, too.

LTSP has been the bigger success and smart technology.

Perhaps he's right?

[steelcobra]

Isn't it just remotely plausible that Linux really isn't going anywhere fast? I see this fanboyism all the time on gaming forums. I've run WinXP on this system for over a year and a half without any real problems because I take care of it. I like that over 90% of software runs on it. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2047517 ,00.aspGaming is going nowhere. Your average user can't touch it because it's too complicated. And as for servers, sure, it's great if you're setting up a little business or gaming server where it's going to be on its own and you can get it set up in a few days, but it's just not an option at the Enterprise level. I'm sure you don't want to hear this, but Windows Server 2003 is far more effective at deployment, management, expansion, and migration. And Linux has nothing approaching the excellence of Sharepoint Portal Server 2003. And they're all getting a full upgrade next year.

If I'm wrong, tell me exactly why. The Microsoft is evil excuse isn't going to work because while they do engage in shady business practices, they are the only ones who are capable of generating an operating system that works on 90% of all systems, has a unified graphics API to ensure games work, keeps IT personnel employed, AND can be used by your average PEBKAC.

As for Mac OS, it will never be very common because Apple will never release a full x86 system version not preinstalled on their own hardware.

Re:But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distro

[Anonymous Coward]

(yes, I know I was down on Debian a few days ago for having too many packages)

What makes you think any one cares or even remembers what you said about something a few days ago? Or even a few minutes? What? You shit gold and pee rose water? Yeah right.

FC6

[zogger]

First application listed in the menu is add/remove software.The first one. There's just no way to make it much easier than that. Linspire/Freespire has click-n-run, again, pretty easy. Other major distros are similar, and it doesn't matter which package application manager scheme they use, because the newbie user will be using the one that is applicable to the OS distro that is on the machine sitting in front of him or her, they don't have to figure out whether to use a .deb or an RPM or a tarball whatever, they only will see what is there to choose from, and with all major distros having thousands of applications, the excuses are dropping down to a few propietary applications that are more commonly used in a workplace environment where professional people guide their users, and then some games, and frankly, I no longer see games as being much of an issue with the advanced consoles out there.

  I'm still a CLI doofus, and it doesn't seem to matter with me running linux at all, it isn't much of an issue at all. I run stuff from cli, once in awhile, but I don't *have to*. Once a person is used to mousing around, really, desktop linux is no big deal at all, and if they are a complete raw noob to computers at all, mac, windows, linux are all more similar than not for any useability bragging rights, it's up to the new user how intutitive they are then coordinating an icon and running a mouse and you just can't overcome that without personal handholding and/or a lot of experimentation on the users part. some people are just not smooth enough with ANY operating system to use it unattended right off the bat, but most folks could get going pretty easily with any of them, at least to do some basic common tasks.

Re:FC6

[abandonment]

The problem with linux isn't installing the software that comes in whatever Distro's 'normal' list of applications.

It's when you want to install something that ISN'T in that official list. With windows, I can go onto the net and find a random utility or application that I think might be interesting or useful to try out, download it and install it without spending days on the task.

With linux, you find a cool application online that you might want to use, and suddenly have to go looking for a 'potential' distro-specific build of said application. Download it, try to install...it barfs because of 'x' random prerequisite library / file / whatever is different than what the application is expecting...

The simple fact that so many linux applications have to be built from source in order for them to work for a major distro is just ridiculous.

Linux needs a common executable format that JUST WORKS across multiple distro's. This means that the executable or application should NOT require specific custom libraries or prereq's to be on the machine previously. It should NOT require a custom version of a kernel, driver or whatever-broke-this-time...

As a game developer, we really WANT to provide our games and middleware for Linux, but every time we go through the process of trying to even setup an development environment where we can run the application, I am just horrified at how convoluted installing a real 3d driver into linux is...

Spending days trying to get the OS to recognize and install a real driver for the hardware is NOT user-friendly no matter how you look at it. The whole argument against bundling closed-source drivers is a killer for linux on the desktop. Average users could care less about things like this, they just want the shit to work.

I've tried with numerous Distro's and the experience has been horrific every single time. When rocket scientist programmers (who might not be linux-gurus, but ARE very familiar with cross-platform application development) have to spend days trouble shooting installation of a video driver, the platform as a whole is flat-out broken.

Linux never had a desktop bubble, and unfortunately as more time goes by, the whole community becomes more and more fragmented. It's a great idea, but someone needs to step up and create a 'Linux OS', just like Apple and Microsoft do.

Linspire is probably the closest thing to a true desktop OS, and they are doing the right things that SOMEONE needs to do to get their OS more exposure, namely:

1) Retail
2) OEM deals

Without both of these, Linux is dead on arrival for the desktop.

Re:FC6

[drx]

The problem with linux isn't installing the software that comes in whatever Distro's 'normal' list of applications. It's when you want to install something that ISN'T in that official list. With windows, I can go onto the net and find a random utility or application that I think might be interesting or useful to try out, download it and install it without spending days on the task.

Try that with an application that is not available for Windows.

Re:Red-haired child - stuck in a rut for 5 years?

[rubycodez]

what the hell, I plug USB sticks into Ubuntu, SuSE and Debian desktops and servers and everything is just fine. Did you last use Redhat 5.2 and leave the Linux world spouting the same trash ever since?

Glad you noticed Debian's menus

[Anonymous Coward]

As those of us who beat the drum ceaselessly point out: the under-the-hood differentiator of Debian (and its ilk, so: [KUX]buntu, Linspire, Xandros, etc.) is Debian Policy, which specifies that menus are to be provided, and follow their own menu policy. Does Joe/Jane Sixpack or Aunt Tilly need to worry about this? Not really. But this is (one of many many reasons) why Debian (and ilk) Just Work[tm].

It's also why principles and fundamentals matter, much as some would like us to believe they don't. Current issues with sound, multimedia, and pluggable devices throw some curves, but they're largely surmountable (and frequently surmounted).

So is 2007, or 2008, or 2009, or 2100, the year of Linux on the Desktop? FIIK. My personal YOLOTD was 1997. Never looked back.

-KMSelf

The most insightful comment on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably the most insightful comment I have ever read on the subject.
The plain truth is most people couldn't care less. Just make the damn thing work, wrap it up in brilliant colors and nice whistles and you have a sale. If what you are looking for is a sale, that is.

btw: what is "sixponco"?

No bubble in North America

[flyingfsck]

Linux adoption on desktops seems to be an 'everywhere except North America' phenomenon. However, this is typical. North America traditionally lags the technology curve by a couple of decades. However, Linux is slowly crawling into government and military installations. Eventually, American industry will also start to take it up, but only after going almost bankrupt. If you want to look at leaders though, you got to go to Germany, France, Portugal, Brazil and South Africa.

muhaha

[Anonymous Coward]

desktop linux is easier to use then anytime before, looking glass is a nice 3d desktop, gnome and kde both perform well compared to windows

applications, games are all there, commercial and free

i absolutely see no bursting bubble there!

the bubble i see is what will happen when consumers realise how they get ripped of from vista and move away to other alternatives (not only linux, but embedded devices for internet, email, im like gaming consoles and other appliances)

the other article on the top today just says what i mean - vista is a suicide scheme for the pc industry

it is not a clone of xp with more sweets on it - it is even less than xp, where you had more freedom at least

Re:muhaha

[steelcobra]

What games? You can run the few that Id gives you. You may be able to run a few converted titles. But no one is developing games for linux beyond a few companies that do it because they feel like it. What are you going to do when you can't run DirectX 10 titles?

Re:muhaha

[Ash-Fox]

What games?

Here are a few companies/groups that make Linux games in alphabetical order. I can't be bothered to search for any, so if you want more, Google.

• http://absolutist.com/
• http://www.aepoxgames.net/
• http://www.artsoft.org/
• http://www.battlefront.com/
• http://www.bioware.com/
• http://www.blackcatgames.com/
• http://www.caravelgames.com/
• http://www.gamewaredevelopment.co.uk/
• http://www.darkarts.co.za/
• http://www.demiurgestudios.com/
• http://www.doubledev.com/
• http://www.emhsoft.net/
• http://www.garagegames.com/
• http://www.illwinter.com/
• http://www.insani.org/
• http://www.introversion.co.uk/
• http://www.ironcode.com/
• http://killerbeesoftware.com/
• http://lgames.sourceforge.net/
• http://linuxgamepublishing.com/
• http://www.winterwolves.com/
• http://www.oddlabs.com/
• http://www.parallelrealities.co.uk/
• http://www.phelios.com/
• http://www.pixel5studio.hu/
• http://www.pompomgames.com/
• http://grubbygames.com/
• http://pygame.seul.org/
• http://www.realtech-vr.com/
• http://red.planetarena.org/
• http://www.rune-soft.com/
• http://sillysoft.net/
• http://secondlife.com/
• http://www.wyrmkeep.com/
• http://www.vvisions.com/
• http://wolfpack.twu.net/

You may be able to run a few converted titles.

Actually, a few companies off that list didn't make Windows ports of some games.

But no one is developing games for linux beyond a few companies that do it because they feel like it.

What's wrong with that?

What are you going to do when you can't run DirectX 10 titles?

Wait for Wine to support it I guess. Although I'm pretty happy with my current collection.

Keep flapping em, idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

All it takes is for one Linux representative to hire one lawyer and sue places like Slashdot for the outrageous libel that Linux - and only Linux - is subjected to. Funny, if Linux isn't the hero of technology, how come it's the only system that everybody feels safe attacking?

Re:Keep flapping em, idiots

[steelcobra]

Personally, I see more fanboyism about it here. But then again, Linux just isn't that great. The entire concept is built around a junky command-line OS that requires a three inch thick book to outline the user/admin commands. And as for "All it takes is for one Linux representative to hire one lawyer", you're assuming that the core linux community is anything but a fragmented group of geeks who refuse to pay for software and are trying to piece together a chunk of code that matches what a company pays hundreds of thousands of professional coders to build.

Admin vs Usage

[superbrose]

When I first started using Linux I was drawn to it by the amazing amount of free software it had to offer, and the convenience of the command line. I decided to install Linux on my own machine and got rid of Windows. And oh my god, all hell broke loose. At the time I had to recompile the kernel in order to get my graphics card to work, sound setup was very difficult - things took ages.

*But* I was overjoyed when I got it working, a truly rewarding feeling. On the other hand, when programs crashed or failed to install in Windows I would find it frustrating, especially since we are talking about commercial software, which is supposed to work flawlessly.

Quickly becoming a penguin enthusiast I decided to install Linux with KDE on my mum's, my brother's and my girlfriend's (I know, I'm not a proper geek) machines. I administer these remotely and have, 3 years later, not received a single complaint regarding usability. They all use their computers to browse the web, send/receive emails, chat, manage photos, listen to music, print, write documents... all of which can be accomplished easily. And they are happier - mainly because it's free.

Yet would they use Linux own their own? No, definitely not. The only way for this to happen would be if administration was much simplified, in fact it would have to be pretty much inexistent. Non-technical users cannot be burdened with current Linux administration, because it is too challenging, too time-consuming and simply requires too much technical knowledge.

So in my opinion, it's not the GUIs that should take the blame. They don't think there is a lot that needs to be dumbed down. I know a lot of people who are intrigued by Linux and especially by Amarok, but who cannot find entry into the Linux world with their current computer proficiency, simply because of the administrative burden. And they all like choice.

Dumbing down is solving the wrong problem!

[davecb]

Normal computer users aren't being served well by Windows, either. Dumbing down an interface won't help my Grandma (actually a friend's grandma) at all: she's a retired MD, businesswoman and druggist. Which is to say she's a normal person, not a moron.

What she needs is a way to change something without writing a program, something she doesn't know how to do. Therefor she needs a graphical representation of the subject matter, such as her patient records, and a way to manipulate and edit it symbolically.

As it happens, the company that did the research in that area is Xerox, and the one which popularized is is Apple. Windows is a non-starter, so don't make the mistake of copying it...

--dave

Re:Glad you noticed Debian's menus - Mod Parent up

[HighOrbit]

Mod Parent AC post Up. Kudos for Debian. If only the other distros enacted the same policy for their package maintiners to follow, then alternate desktops would work properly.

What the "Year of Linux" is and why it's 2007.

[twitter]

Every year, there's a slew of folks here that like to bandy around the "year of the Linux desktop" line.

That's funny, I never see any of those posts. Would you point to one or two of them? I know that I have not been hopeful for more use until recently. With more than a million users, there's sure to be one of every kind of post imaginable, so your task should not be very hard.

It always has the air of some sort of criticism. There's some implication that it was supposed to be already, has yet to happen, and never will.

It's intersting that you can read into posts that don't exist, but yes it is obvious that there should be a greater Linux market share. The GNU/Linux desktop has enjoyed numerous advantages over non free software for close to a decade and it's cheaper. A free market would have more free software in it. The continued M$ vendor lock is both puzzling and outrageous.

what exactly is the phrase supposed to mean?

It's the tipping point, where a combination of M$ user frustration and standards adoption undo the power of non free software. Firefox is a good example of how that power is broken. Because IE sucked, people on Windows adopted Firefox and this has made the internet a more standards based and friendly place. With 20% of users, and most of them influential trend setters, on Firefox few websites are willing to risk using some crappy M$ toy that does not work outside of IE. This alone has made a dent in M$'s hold because the easiest way to make Firefox work now is to move to free software. Companies like Chrysler and IBM are already moving. When enough users get on free software, the FUD will be gone. Hardware vendors and home users alike will be happy when they can quit worrying about the "M$ network effect" and paying the M$ tax to simply make their computer work and exchange information with each other. If you think about it, the odd thing is that people managed to give Bill Gates so much power over their work. The tip will be fast and the transition complete within a few years of it happening.

2007 and the introduction of Vista will do the trick. It's so bloated, so restricted and so expensive that people who want the features are leaving the M$ world in droves. There is nothing it can do that you can't get done with less hardware and less trouble in the free software world. I predict Linux Desktop use will surpass 15% this year and that the conversion will grow exponentially, 30% in 2008, 60% in 2009 then dominance in 2010 and beyond, tapering off to 95% of the market with some niche use of non free software for very special legacy purposes. This will eliminate their ability to influence laws and the "IP" nightmare laws will start to be undone.

Re:What the "Year of Linux" is and why it's 2007.

[_Sprocket_]

That's funny, I never see any of those posts. Would you point to one or two of them?

Cursory search - no consideration for content:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114092&c id=9667996
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155912&cid=130 69574
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/ 1531237

A little more time / work would uncover far more (my cursory search has many, many more alone). I'm surprised you've never seen this comment. It's not as common as some of the normal Slashdot fare - but it's hardly uncommon.

It's the tipping point, where a combination of M$ user frustration and standards adoption undo the power of non free software. Firefox is a good example of how that power is broken.

But again - what's the proof that this is going on? Suddenly everyone uses Linux? Every other machine runs Linux? You start seeing Linux every so often and aren't surprised? I would argue that the change isn't going to be sudden and pronounced. The change has been happening for years. And if there ever is a time when a "tipping point" can be determined, we're not going to know until well after the fact. Therefore, the ongoing jibes based on this phrase are meaningless.

Re:What the "Year of Linux" is and why it's 2007.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha! I'm so going to seek you out in December '08 and mock you.

Re:What the "Year of Linux" is and why it's 2007.

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

Sell Linux

[Sqreater]

Just cut a distro out of the herd, let someone sell it without source and call it "MYScreensOS 2.0" "the desktop Operating System alternative to Windows for the rebel in all of us." NEVER mention Linux or Unix in marketing. Of course, simplify it. Who says it has to have drivers for everything? Sell it with drivers for standard setups. Five printers; three scanners--who really cares? Select Gnome OR KDE, don't confuse the public with two. It isn't meant to be an enterprise solution. People do NOT want to make these decisions. Make them for them. Partner with equipment manufacturers. Point is, the greatest advantage of Linux--its free, open source requirement--is also its downfall as far as public awareness is concerned. That kills the possibility of it being a serious desktop OS for the masses. No commercials, no desire for it. No demand for it, no pressure on OEMs. Communism is relatively free of capitalistic energy, so is the Linux world. And that is a problem apparently.

Desktop - no improvements mainly

[sugarmotor]

I see no improvements in desktop functionality overall for the last 5 years. I'm writing from a Mac Mini.

There's hardly anything useful and noticable to me compared to KDE/Windows 2000 as I used otherwise.
If anything they don't let me reach the /tmp directory from the file browser.
The eye-candy is just for the developer's amusement.

Copy and Paste, open window, close window. Tabbed browsing. That's just about all one needs from a desktop.

Speed is just about all that is lacking, but its mostly managable.

Stephan

Slashdot looks better in both KDE and Gnome...

[nrdlnd]

If it's all about the desktop and it's look then both KDE and Gnome is way nicer than Windows XP64 that I've compared it with. Take Slashdot: the gradations in the menus with Firefox look much better and even the anti alaising is better something that really surprised me. I haven't had the possibility to compare it with Vista as it's not out in my language yet. Where is the bubble?

Desktop is meaningless to new user addoption

[Anonymous Coward]

I can speak to this because quite recently I became so angry with my windows box having to use up what seemed like a third of my RAM to prevent the machine from being exploited or invaded by virii or mal-ware, that I searched for the easiest and safest Linux-distro I could find. All I wanted to do was get an old p3 with 256MB of RAM going so that I could use the internet and maybe type a document and listen to an MP3. The basics. So I scanned through the live-on CDs and found PuppyLinux. You burn the CD, boot with it, and with some mild setup you are running Linux. The GNOME vs KDE problem is not relevant to me since it runs XVESA or XORG. It works and I am happy. If linux people want windows joe-blow, and the real question to ask is "do you REALLY?", to adopt linux then it is going to be more about the simplicity of the distro than what windows manager is used. Right now linux should be marketed as an OS to run a "second computer" that runs FAST on ancient hardware. Then you will get people like myself who have had enough of Windows and all of its security problems. No not your mom, but like the techish male who knows enough to change a hard-drive or install RAM.

Re:Desktop is meaningless to new user addoption

[Ash-Fox]

If linux people want windows joe-blow, and the real question to ask is "do you REALLY?", to adopt linux then it is going to be more about the simplicity of the distro than what windows manager is used.

Wrong. To get average joe to adopt Linux, all one has to-do is make sure they sell Linux systems in shops, not Windows.

Media Support

[Mike610544]

I just searched this whole page of comments for "mp3" and failed. Why does everyone here overlook the fact that a default install of a modern distro can't play mp3s, flash, and basically all video formats (like someone said earlier: it doesn't matter whose fault this is.) I've used Linux for years and I still don't bother trying to get any of this working, never mind getting it to work smoothly with stuff embedded in web pages. I know most of it is theoretically possible, but once you're hacking autoconf files and manually setting LD_LIBRARY paths it's beyond what many people want to deal with.

Re:Media Support

[daverabbitz]

FUCK OFF.

I don't know about other distro's, but on gentoo getting mp3 support is as easy as adding an mp3 use flag to /etc/make.conf, and emerging mpg321.

Also setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH is piss easy. If you can't edit /etc/profile (or on Gentoo /etc/env.d/xx_whatever) and add a line saying LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/opt/whatever/li b" you are a dip-shit, and need to remove yourself from the gene-pool.

Re:Media Support

[Mike610544]

How many config files would a user need to edit to get that stuff working on Windows box?

Re:Media Support

[Ash-Fox]

Why does everyone here overlook the fact that a default install of a modern distro can't play mp3s, flash, and basically all video formats (like someone said earlier: it doesn't matter whose fault this is.)

You can buy Linux distributions with said support out of the box if you don't want to-do it yourself (see commercial versions of SuSE Linux and Mandriva Linux).

I've used Linux for years and I still don't bother trying to get any of this working, never mind getting it to work smoothly with stuff embedded in web pages.

For me, it's editing a text file, once. Then I can install whatever I need.

I know most of it is theoretically possible, but once you're hacking autoconf files and manually setting LD_LIBRARY paths it's beyond what many people want to deal with.

For me, it's just been knowing which packages to install.

Not everyone can choose.

[gosand]

I don't think there are 2 types. I would consider myself a geek, been using Linux on my main computer since 2000. Yes, it was kind of tough then. :) Now it is so much better. I like the command line for lots of things. Heck, I still use PINE as my mail client! But 'easy' does not have to be non-geek. I want my USB devices to auto-mount. I use a combination of konqueror and the command line, it is all about what makes doing the task easier. Konqueror makes browsing photos super-easy - but when I want to resize them all for my website, I use the command line. For burning CDs, give me k3b over the command line any day!

Personally, I have never liked the Mac interface. I haven't spent that much time with it, but it has always frustrated me. For work, it is Windows - it just makes doing THAT particular job easier. I just want the right tool for the job. I am just glad I know how to use more than one tool. I don't really care if Linux gets mainstream acceptance, I just like it for what it is. (sometimes) Sometimes it frustrates the hell out of me, but that can happen with technology in general. It might be easier to set up printer sharing over your home network on Windows, but there are lots of other things that are easier on Linux. Think I didn't curse a bit when I upgraded my Kubuntu version recently, and had to re-hash out all of the X and Nvidia crap? Hell yes... but once I got it sorted out (again) I am back to being very happy with Linux. I like it despite its flaws, and I choose to use it. Not everyone can make that choice.

Choice

[sterno]

This is what I love. On some level my interest in Linux came down to a question of choice and freedom. When it really first came to prominence, Apple was floundering and Microsoft seemed on a path to total hegemony. I liked Linux because it was free, and free, and gave me a choice. Sometimes it was harder to do things in Linux than it was under windows, but then I came to learn that there were a lot of things that then became easier. I loved how many tools I could get for it that were also free and free.

Today I have 3 very solid choices (more, possibly, depending on how you count your linuxes) and we can all find the right environment for us. I love that, on my new computer, I can run OSX, Linux, and Windows, not just on the same box, but even at the same time. When I work from home I have OSX on one screen and Windows XP running in parallels connected to my work desktop. Theoretically I could probably hook up a third monitor and have a Linux desktop running too, but that'd be a wee bit of overkill (and I don't have nearly the desk space).

It still frustrates me though how much support is given to windows to the total exclusion of all else. I understand the business reasons for it, but it does drive me nuts that I have to dual-boot my computer just to play a game. But we are making progress I think, and perhaps growth in OSX may help Linux down the line, encouraging developers to write software that can take advantage of all platforms more easily.

The only problem is lack of pre-installation

[NatteringNabob]

Nothing to see here, move along. I'm typing this from a Linux desktop (laptop in docking station, actually). My desktop machine at home is a Linux box. GNOME works fine. KDE works fine. The other Linux desktop environments work fine. Linux on the desktop won't take off until you can buy a desktop machine from a major Windows OEM with either Linux preinstalled or no OS and the price of Windows deducted. There are no longer any technical or usability obstacles to Linux on the desktop. GNOME 2.0 and KDE 3.0 are already better desktop systems than MS Vista, and they will continue to get better at a faster pace. It is entirely a distribution and applications capture problem.

I always find MSFT posts humorus

[FewClues]

I guess with the long, long awaited release of Vista the MSFT guys have time now to hit the blogs and resume attacking Linux at any level. This article is straight Flame Bait. Where are the moderators?

Desktops are dead

[heroine]

2006 was the year of the set-top box. This is where Linux is big and what kids want. Blu-ray & HD DVD were the first true mandates for the set-top box era. For now on, words like DLNA, UPNP, HDMI, HDCP, AACS, "plays for sure" and "certification" are going to take the place of words like OpenGL, Vista, Window, and "start menu".

Re:XP with a new coat? Nonsense!

[DohDamit]

I've been looking, and I don't see these major advances between XP and Vista. For those that need to know, I use Windows exclusively - not a Linux Zealot. I'm just someone who's trying to see what the big deal is, and why I should spend the money to upgrade.

re: Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?

[heffrey]

Er, when did it fill up enough to burst?

Crashes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have used Beryl daily for hours now for a few weeks. The total amount of running time is in hundreds of hours already. I have had zero crashes or problems with it. Most likely the aiglx and/or opengl support of your display adapter drivers are bugged? You aren't using ati/nvidia stuff there are you? For comparison I am using Ubuntu (aiglx enabled out of the box), gma950 and installed the packages from ubuntu.beryl-project.org.

Don't target the home desktop market

[dircha]

Most people don't have any reason to migrate to GNU/Linux on the home desktop. Their computer comes with Windows. They pay for Windows either way.

Windows does everything they need.

Even Office usually comes with the new computer or can be added to the bundle for an insignificant price.

Most families with children aren't going to move to GNU/Linux, if only for the reason that their off the shelf games can not run under GNU/Linux.

Not to mention off the shelf tax software.

WHY would a home user want to migrate to GNU/Linux?

I develop on Debian GNU/Linux at work, but at home I use OS X and reboot via Boot Camp to play Windows games. GNU/Linux does absolutely nothing for me on the home desktop, and I'm sure that I'm more likely than Joe Average to have an interest in using it. But even I don't.

libao

[RAMMS EIN]

``Take sound for instance... There are many competing frameworks (ecasound, jack, esd, etc.) Many applications only support one or two''

Isn't that what libao is for?

A Question:

[Lost Penguin]

I buy a new computer;
I ask for an itemized bill.
Price of Windows should be refunded by Microsoft.

Why can you not get a bill for a new computer showing what you paid for Windows?
I want a refund for x dollars from Microsoft for my Toshiba laptop.

My God I wish...

[Eric Damron]

...that Microsoft zealots like you would get a clue. It becomes so tiring to have to to rebut the same old bullshit lies over and over again. Oh well, here we go (again).

"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"."

What version of Linux are you trying to install? Oh yeah, you're not. You're a Windows user just parroting old FUD.

I haven't used every distro out there but I have used Mandriva, Suse and Ubuntu. None of them require using any command line commands to setup the OS or to add software after. THEY ALL HAVE GUI INTERFACES THAT DO EVERYTHING FOR YOU.

I find that setting up Windows is far more difficult because I almost always must install my hardware drivers from a separate CD. And yes reboot after each driver is installed. With Linux I don't have to go through that pain. Everything is installed and configured automatically for me. No hassles.

"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."

Hard to answer a blatant generalization without being rude so I'll just say that most blatant generalizations like the one you just gave are made by people who don't really have any facts and just want to group people to make it easier to attack them.

You give an made up story about how "Linux zealots" would go about setting up Quake on both Windows and Linux an what they might say. Very cute but just a made up story none the less.

"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."

The first part of this statement is true. Geeks are a special breed. The second part makes a bullshit assumption that Linux REQUIRES geek skills to setup and use. Then you draw a bullshit conclusion based on your bullshit premise.

Re:My God I wish...

[Klaidas]

I find that setting up Windows is far more difficult because I almost always must install my hardware drivers from a separate CD. And yes reboot after each driver is installed. With Linux I don't have to go through that pain. Everything is installed and configured automatically for me. No hassles.

Well, sure. Unless your hardware doens't have a linux driver... then you wont need a cd AND you won't be required to reboot. That's soo cool!! Linux all the way!!

Re:My God I wish...

[Eric Damron]

Yes, well the same thing can be said for Windows, can't it?

OS Comparisons & Adoption [now with anti-fud(t

[_.- thimk! -._]

Yeah, that's right. Windows is easy and Linux is hard. Nonsense.

Definitely so. While there are some differences in getting things set up initially, the constant nagging little pains and annoyances of Windows where it won't get out of the way certainly add up. And similarly, while newer versions are much more stable than they used to be, it's still considerably less stable than Linux or OS X.

The real issue here is not that Linux desktops need to progress anywhere. I use both Windows and Linux for hours a day and they both have their share of frustrations and joys. Your Quake example is a joke, since most people don't care about playing games like Quake on their computers. You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is written to run on Linux at all. But so what? There's lots of great Linux/Unix-only software that I can't run on Windows. Although, I must say that I think the free software aspect of most Linux software makes it much more likely that a Windows port exists for good Linux software than a good Linux port exists for good Windows software.

For the most part, well put.

The problem for Linux on the desktop is not usability or availability of games or a host of other problems at this point. It's things like lagging support for new versions of ubiquitous software, like Flash.

True. Availability for the newest flash versions does still tend to lag for all non-windows OSes. But, flash isn't a necessity for a lot of folks, either, so this isn't a real deal-breaker either.

It's the non-existence of any Quicken products for Linux.

True again. Intuit, seemingly forgetting it's early origins, has been an extremely Windows-centric company for years now, at least where Quicken is concerned. There are a number of decent competitive products out there available on other OSes. Are any really as nice as Quicken Premier Home and Business, with all of it's features? Not that I've found yet, but there are some products that are becoming quite competitive with the entry-level version.

It's the fact that OpenOffice is a relative new-comer and MS Office/Works products have been around since the 80s.

Again, true. It's worth noting that, for the most part, OpenOffice has almost reached feature parity with Word, and has reached that point very rapidly, considering how long it's been around. It's also worth noting that it's increasingly common that even folks working for M$ have had to resort to using OpenOffice to salvage presentations they were making at Industry Conferences. While Office is still the leader in Suites, it can still be finicky, especially PowerPoint, and sometimes (though less so) even Word.

I've also had several occasions where colleagues have had problems with viruses attached to Office documents, while I, using OpenOffice on Linux, was totally unaffected, and was able to (again) salvage the documents and provide them virus free.

At most major computer retailers, the only operating system you can buy pre-installed on a machine is Windows. The average user never installs an operating system.

Sad, but true.

Mac has a devoted base of people willing to pay a premium price for Apple products, why I'll never know, since Apple's offerings have been an inferior price-to-value proposition since at least the release of Windows 2000.

I think perhaps you don't know because you've bought into complete and utter FUD, based in old preconceptions, not the modern market.

Let's make it easy for the next commenter to bring out the old tried and true /. checklist.

A price comparison done today at Dell and Apple's websites for a very reasonable entry configuration, between comparable Dell and Apple Laptops, configured with nearly identi

Re:XP with a new coat? Nonsense!

[Enderandrew]

I'm not suggesting that you should, but Vista is a serious departure from XP.

I think XP is the best iteration of Windows ever released, and Vista is an undue resource hog. But that's just my opinion.

Phew!

[Brandybuck]

Phew! I'm glad it's the Linux bubble that has burst, because GNOME and KDE are AWESOME on FreeBSD!

common menu format

[ChristTrekker]

So all we really need is a common menu format, so that all the WMs can point to the same file(s). Isn't freedesktop.org working on a spec for that? What's happening with it?

I'm going to repeat my Linux on the desktop rant.

[crhylove]

For the 789th time.

Make it look and operate like windows, and everybody will switch. Install wine by default. Make sure all the codecs are loaded, and that it plays dvds, cds, and most windows software.

Thank you.
rhY

Similar to post on the gentoo-user mailing list

[Laebshade]

From 3 simple sentences sparked more than 100 replies on the gentoo-user mailing list. Below:

I've caught a whiff or two lately that Gentoo is declining in
popularity amongst users and developers. Is it all in my head? I
personally still love Gentoo.

For the full thread, read the gentoo-user mailing list archives.

And somebody please cue the "Netcraft confirms, Linux is dying" lines...

There's a list of problems...

[Kazoo the Clown]

- The X Windows foundation
- The lack of a diverse array of superfriendly, fast end-user applications and games that you can buy for Linux off-the-shelf at OfficeMax, Staples and OfficeDepot
- The X Windows foundation
- The lack of more closely integrated OpenGL with both the window manager and the graphics card driver
- The X Windows foundation


And, oh, did I mention "The X Windows foundation?"

Face it, in order for Linux to become the next Desktop "phenomenon," it can't do just as well as Microsoft XP/Vista, it must be notably BETTER. However, it will never be as long as it is tied to X. X is great when you want graphics over a network, but it will always be mediocre used for a desktop. A successful Linux desktop must be next generation, not last generation.

You want success in the Linux Desktop? Save X for the "Remote Desktop" features when you want to login over a network, and get behind building a high-performance bleeding edge desktop built on something more like DirectFB. A successful Linux Desktop GUI has to really push the envelope, and it just ain't doin' that right now.

Sure, X can be enhanced with "work around" features to bypass TCP/IP when the client and server are both in the same box, but not without performance cost compared to something like an XBox or a Playstation II, which is the kind of GUI performance you need to at least appear to be "next generation" in comparison with XP/Vista...

I actually spent a couple of years using Linux as my primary desktop at home but I don't anymore, as I ended up dual booting into W2K and then ended up spending all of my time in W2K running the apps and even developing some OpenGL programs, because the performance was so much better. As much as I hate Microsoft, even W2K beats out KDE and Gnome on the two factors that are the most important-- graphic application availability, and performance. You can't get the former instantly, that's sure, but you can't get it AT ALL unless you've got the latter...

Oh, and BTW-- I have been using Vista lately, IMHO it really IS just a warmed over XP. They added UAC (privilege tokens), added a few other security elements here and there, changed the interface graphics a bit, and moved things around and reorganized the menus so it looks different (such as moving search to inside start menu), but otherwise it seems just about the same. The new IE interface seems worse, and the new Windows Explorer interface is horrible.

Re:There's a list of problems...

[Ash-Fox]

The X Windows foundation

What's wrong with it?

The lack of a diverse array of superfriendly, fast end-user applications and games that you can buy for Linux off-the-shelf at OfficeMax, Staples and OfficeDepot

I've never even heard of Officemax, Staples and OfficeDepot. But they do sell Unreal Tournament, Quake , OpenOffice.org in the local stores here which support Linux (Windows version also in the same box).

The X Windows foundation

What's wrong with it? It's certainly not speed.. Because UT, Second life, hell World of Warcraft under Wine is faster than under Windows, OSX.

The lack of more closely integrated OpenGL with both the window manager and the graphics card driver

Isn't that one of the goals of Beryl?

The X Windows foundation

Sorry. I'm at a loss what's wrong with it.

X is great when you want graphics over a network, but it will always be mediocre used for a desktop. A successful Linux desktop must be next generation, not last generation.

Seems to work really well here locally.

Sure, X can be enhanced with "work around" features to bypass TCP/IP when the client and server are both in the same box

Unix sockets aren't a workaround at all.

but not without performance cost compared to something like an XBox or a Playstation II, which is the kind of GUI performance you need to at least appear to be "next generation" in comparison with XP/Vista...

I honestly thought the X-box, PS2 performances were crap for the hardware they had.

I actually spent a couple of years using Linux as my primary desktop at home but I don't anymore

How many years ago was that anyway?

as I ended up dual booting into W2K and then ended up spending all of my time in W2K running the apps and even developing some OpenGL programs,

There is better OpenGL performance under Linux, it's quite obvious when you run games and look at their FPS. Let's not forget that Windows is still using le olde OpenGL 1.5.

As much as I hate Microsoft, even W2K beats out KDE and Gnome on the two factors that are the most important-- graphic application availability, and performance.

I wouldn't be using KDE 3.5 if it wasn't faster than Windows. I hated waiting for dialogs to redraw when I was maxing out my tiny memory, waiting for file open/save dialogs to actually display a folder, waiting for the entire desktop (Taskbar, desktop, explorer in general) to unfreeze because I tried to access a file share (which ran into some problems, because destination computer was just rebooting or network being slow because it was a VPN connection).

Firefox and AOSS

[gottabeme]

It's likely that you're having this problem because Firefox doesn't use the AOSS wrapper by default. Try running $(aoss firefox) (or in Debian edit /etc/firefox|iceweasel/firefoxrc|iceweaselrc and set it to use the aoss wrapper). That fixed it for me.

If you aren't using Firefox/Iceweasel, it's likely that it's a similar problem.

We've lost the network model

[dannys42]

The GNOME and KDE people have been copying and working towards the Windows model. The original X and Unix designs were great because of their customization and features and the network-centric design. To this day, I'm not sure GNOME particularly likes it if you have two desktops running off the same network share. (It works, but I'm not sure it works as well as it should.) I can't speak for KDE, not having used it in a while.

The obvious problem with having lots of customizable features is that it overwhelms the user. The solution was not to remove all the features (a la GNOME). The solution was to create customizable "profiles". So that users can simply say whether they are a "novice" or "developer" or whatever. This allows beginners to "just use" the system. And advanced users to tweak to their hearts content. A very scalable system.

Who develops these profiles? Well, the author of the software certainly could. But I imagine what would have happend is that each distribution has in mind various groups of people they target. So the distribution makers would take the job of deciding what sets of features their audience prefers.

Don't underestimate the power of this in a network environment either. Any company, school, etc. will likely want a certain set of default profiles for their audience. Being able to customize this to their own environment is exactly what makes Windows such a pain to administer. Unix makes this easier with text based config files. But having a profile infrastructure would make it a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, it seems like the Linux desktops haven't had any focus in this direction, choosing instead to emulate the single-user mentality of Windows. The last version of GNOME I really liked was 1.0. Since then I've cared less whether I was in Linux or Windows because they're both irritating in the same ways now.

Complaints aside, I'm quite pleased with the way these projects have developed (or fostered development) of things like DBUS and the way we handle auto drive mounting, etc. The GNOME font rendering engine is also quite nice, if a bit slow.

What's it all about ?

[leftcase]

I'm a little confused. What the heck is this story about? It just seems to bash Linux desktop for no apparent reason. The difference between Vista, OSX and Linux desktops is the first two arrive out of the box, and you (if you so wish) build the Linux desktop to your requirements. With regard to features etc, the Linux desktop has the features the user chooses. I'm willing to bet that more or less any desktop feature you can find in Vista or OSX is available or in development for Linux... Features available in the end users copy of Linux are defined by which packages a maintainer has decided to include with a Linux distribution. I think Ubuntu is making steps towards creating a nice desktop operating system and we'll see something much more refined appearing from the Ubuntu team over the next couple of years.

As I've Said Before

[Master of Transhuman]

The only problem with Linux on the desktop at this time is the distros doing a LOUSY job of testing their releases and wasting time and manpower adding on 3D "eye candy" to compete with Apple and Vista instead of making sure their instsllation and update mechanisms are rock-solid dependable, not to mention things like KDE and GNOME services that actually run the desktop.

I've had trouble with installing, updating and KDE services on THREE distros - and not some lame one-man distros, either, but Mandriva 2007, SUSE 10.1, and Kubuntu 6.06 - in the last month or so. This made Linux on the desktop for me as bad as Windows - maybe more so. This is NOT what I switched to Linux FOR. I switched to Linux for security, reliability and freedom. Currently I'm getting the first and the last, but NOT the second. The Linux kernel doesn't appear to be a problem - it's the desktop, installation and update software that is the problem. Applications, of course, vary as to quality - but if a distro is including an app as its main app for an application class, such as media, that app needs to WORK RELIABLY.

There needs to be a "feature freeze" on ALL the major distros and a system software cleanup and tweaking period. I suggest ALL of 2007 be devoted to this, since Vista isn't going anywhere for a long time anyway.

Kind of makes you appreciate the FSF & GNU...

[pschmied]

Long term vision seems to be what the FOSS community generally lacks. Innovation in FOSS tends to be dominated by disruptive technologies. For example, nobody probably predicted that Ruby on Rails would grow as it did before it was already on its way up.

Recall that initially, the FSF/GNU vision of what the GNU OS would look like would be a combination of HURD, the GNU userland that we know today, and GNUStep for graphical applications.

But the FSF's approach with GNU was always a long term approach. The GNU userland took a damn long time to build. In many ways, not having to concentrate on writing a kernel (because Linux stepped in), and not having to write a GUI layer (because it largely languished from lack of developers), has enable GNU to produce a pretty kick-ass userland, compiler suite, etc. As a BSD fan, I'm fully aware that even BSD stands on the shoulders of FSF giants (for example, say, gcc).

Along the way though, developers have scratched their own itches. KDE came along and was an ambitious project written in C++/QT. It had some less than desireable traits to a significant number of developers: C++ is an ugly bastard, and QT wasn't (then) libre.

Enter GNOME. They didn't want to use C++ so they decided to write a desktop environment in C. In retrospect, that sounds to me about as smart as Be trying to write chunks of the BeOS kernel in C++ (eek!).

Both start on relatively shaky foundations (for various reasons) but HUGE amounts of developer effort are poured into beating the other. Labors of love and things of beauty are built on those relatively unstable foundations. Some of the problems disappear: QT goes GPL. Some of the problems are addressed: GNOME begins to write software in the more elegant, but less proven C# with its Mono project. But certain perceived problems remain: C++ is still inelegant, C# has Microsoft smell all over it, and furthermore We have our camp and We want to beat Them.

Meanwhile, work continues on GNUStep. GNUStep allows GUIs written for OS X (NIBs) to be used in GNUStep and vice-versa. GNUStep starts being used to write some more serious applications. Gnustep even starts looking more modern with the addition of themes (everyone always cares more about flash themes now, than a useable development framework tomorrow).

Fact is, the NeXT design has proven itself 2.5 times already in a big way. When NeXT was NeXT, NeXTStep was the most innovative thing in town and was revered by All. When NeXT acquired Apple (for a large negative sum), the architecture was proven again (Mac OS X anyone?). Now, GNUStep is soooo close. The framework is there and stable, but it needs: 1. integration into a coherent environment. 2. applications of all colors, shapes, and sizes.

GNU's long-term vision is starting to be realized with GNUStep, but it doesn't have the critical mass. Too many disruptive technologies have, well, disrupted that vision. It's less exciting to stay the course with long-term vision, but at some point, that is what will make a "successful" Linux desktop. Too much of our core infrastructure is rotten to compete long term. Of course, success here is relative. FOSS has already been successful on teaching people how to hack. Where it hasn't been successful is as a consumer, desktop, market competitor.

Both Microsoft and Apple have modernized and made their development environments more consistent (C#, .Net et al. for MS, and ObjC, Cocoa, Quartz, etc. for Apple). Where's our modern, coherent set of API/Frameworks for the Desktop? C#/Mono? C++/QT/KDE? XUL/Javascript/Whatever? GTK/C? ObjC/GNUStep?

I think at this point it's about goals. Do we want to compete on the Desktop? For all the people who say yes, I recommend getting together and swallowing some pride, quashing some egos, and coming together to push for it. Even if we can build and maintain 7 competing desktop environments, development platforms, etc., the rest of the world doesn't want to deal with them.

Of co

Re:Kind of makes you appreciate the FSF & GNU.

[synthespian]

Maybe FSF/GNU had it right to begin with. Maybe it's time to take another look at HURD too.

Maybe it's time you stop the (nice) proselytizing (where are the screenshots, BTW?) and start reading the papers by the microkernel community. Maybe you'll learn why some of them are not working on The HURD, and why even The HURD developers talked about moving to L4, IIRC.

Console Is Enough For Everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

As is 640k of RAM.

linux developers are selfish hobbyists

[matsuva]

My only Os is suse linux, and i am not a techie as such. i would like to see linux adopted by a larger community, but i don't see it happening any time soon. The real question here is if ordinary endusers can be expected to understand how a product works in order to use it. Linux is extremely userfriendly for (mostly nontech-hostile) geeks, but it isn't at all for people who don't know and don't care about how a computer works. Should everyone be a car mechanic in order to drive a car? It would be a hell of a lot more convenient, but the thruth is most people just want to use a product, not develop it. Untill linux developers grasp this concept of people not wanting to be linux developers, linux will remain at +- 1% marketshare no matter how much better it is. The real problem is not about incompatibility or people not wanting to change OS, it is about techies who refuse to take endusers into account in their spare time, because of that attitude linux will remain the exception on an average desktop, not a broadly accepted OS like it should be.

Burst? Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I began using Linux as a desktop OS roughly one year ago. Yes, I did try several times in the past, first time in early 1998, but each time left me unimpressed and frustrated. I *stopped* trying in 2002.

But around about this time last year I relented and gave Linux "one more try." A few days later and I deleted my WinXP partition. For me, the Linux "desktop bubble" is only just beginning to take shape.

Contradictions?

[TaoPhoenix]

I'm starting to get confused.

I'm pretty conversant with the Windows situation. I thought that was all about the ... desktop monopoly. So don't we all want Linux with a killer front end to be a serious choice for the desktop? It turns out, I grew up with GUI's. I happen to like a two dimensional spread of my options; it's easier on my ailing memory.

For a long time I have been aware of the "other fight" between "Truly/Sorta Free" Linux and Ox X, "Free Core but just as proprietary on top." Hello, Animal Farm.

The obvious solution would be ... a mysterious massive injection of cash and manpower into a thunderous release of some 3 unified brands of Linux ... and STILL free as in everything.

Could the final showdown really come to the fact that free-but-unfocused loses to proprietary slavery-but-polished? Could it be that if Linux *now* stagnates, having missed Microsoft's worst unproductive lull ever, that the whole concept will splinter into 12 decaying variants headed by bickering factions?

This is the 4th cousin to the music debate - at the most brutal level, every week costs the overhead of Roof-Car-Food. (And the trimmings.) One's actions that day have to convince someone else to pay for that day's cost. Something given into a diffuse value chain takes too long to whip around to pay for This Week's Rent.

I want nothing more in the world than for someone to master diffuse value chains in a manner that solves these kinds of problems.

huh?

[Vexorian]

but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case

When did we have elections for the official spokesman for our "open minded people organization" ? I don't remember going to it.
Anyways, although I prefer Kubuntu. I have no problem whatsoever in using windows XP and admire some stuff in it. I just don't think vista is such a big deal, I actually dislike stuff from it. There are a lot of things that are just wrong with vista beginning with the huge system requirements, DRM and WGA that it seems crazy to support it right now. Seriously.

Open minded about Vista

[HermMunster]

Of everything I have read and I have read a lot; of everything I have tried with Vista, and I have Vista from the beta and release candidates; I would say that Vista is really nothing more than XP with a new interface.

Certainly there are features that were added and features were improved. No one can doubt that. For the average person most of those feature enhancements have already been thwarted. You can still install malware and that malware can still damage your system through IE. The feature for escalating privs from the basic user to the admin level privs is old hat for Linux, mac, and unix.

On top of that there are some extremely serious issues with DRM particularly around content protection.

Vista essentially has little more. I have seen the refinements of programs and I see the 3d effects and I have used these since the beta release, but one thing is abundantly clear. Vista is nothing more than XP with a new interface with a few security enhancements copied from other operating systems that are already exploited or easily turned off, making them useless.

The requirements for additional hardware are excessive and the costs are outrageous.

Essentially you get forced into using Vista in the next couple years with all the DRM, content protection, microsoft proprietary features and rules, constant spying on you and what you are doing even with your own content, a anti-piracy feature that will harm more legit users than pirated copies, with enormous cost increases in hardware for the average home user not to mention on top of the costs associated with the purchase of the OS. From that the users get less choice. They loose more control of what they do on their computer and their computer is being used against them to control what they do on their computer.

Linux doesn't do any of this. You can grow with linux. You can increase your usage and incrementally increase your hardware without additional software costs. You don't have to report to anyone about your legitimacy and you can choose from any number very good software products such as open office and firefox. No one will check your machine daily, weekly, monthly to see if you should be using it or not and no one will threaten to shut down your computer. You won't have to report to microsoft every 6 months to prove that you are legit when you were legit 6 months ago.

I think 2007 is the year of linux if we can rid ourselves of the zealots and create a stable desktop with easy to install programs with alot of power. With Microsoft's super huge massive monopoly that is completely uncontrolled and not accountable to anyone we'll see many more people adopt the desktop of linux.

Ballmer knows this. That's why he threatened Linux. Microsoft is very afraid of the success of Linux because I blows their content protection monopoly out of the water. This is the very same reason Microsoft is fighting so hard to take over the DRM market. They know that DRM is to data what the OS/API is to applications. You get control of that OS/API and you control alot of other markets. You get control of the content protection and DRM and you control markets far outside of the computer.

The worst thing that could happen over the next 5 years is to have people adopting Vista. Please, promote linux in your community with your family and friends and tell them what microsoft is doing with content protection and DRM. The more people that know these details and see the linux side of things will join Linux and make it a larger stronger community.

Reading the recent commercial publications about Vista it is clear that many of these magazines and trade journals have been glossing over the negative aspects of Vista and over-emphasizing the copy-cat features of Vista. They degrade our trust in them by doing this. When you read an article talking about how User Access Control works remember that you have been using it in Linux for a long time, and when you see the nice 3d interface remember the high hardware costs

Re:Open minded about Vista

[petrus4]

Vista is nothing more than XP with a new interface with a few security enhancements copied from other operating systems that are already exploited or easily turned off, making them useless.

I haven't used any of the betas myself, but I suspected as much. If Microsoft could have stayed on track with the features of Longhorn that they'd originally promised, (particularly WinFS) they would have likely had something unstoppable. As it stands however, my prediction is that the Vista release is going to be largely inconsequential.

I think 2007 is the year of linux if we can rid ourselves of the zealots and create a stable desktop with easy to install programs with alot of power.

Liberating Linux from the stranglehold of the zealots would be an enormous step forward, but unfortunately, it isn't going to happen. Both the Debian Project and the FSF (Linux zealotry's two primary sources) are here to stay; my most optimistic projection on that score has the FSF gradually becoming irrelevant between five and ten years from now, however that isn't likely. They have been around for a long time and their core demographic, although small, is exceptionally tenacious.

The most interesting determinant of the FSF's long term future at this point is probably going to be who succeeds Stallman as leader when the time comes. Statistically speaking, cults generally do not survive the loss of their founder, and Stallman's heir, whoever it is, is going to have to invest major effort if they plan to buck that trend.

Although Ubuntu is a wonderful thing in terms of non-technical usability for Linux, its' provision of revival for Debian is something which I'm less than enthusiastic about. After the FSF itself, Debian is the single biggest source of Linux zealotry, as well as contibuting to the difficulty in shedding Linux's traditional attendant negative stereotypes generally. Whatever good Debian might do Linux technically is almost entirely undone by the enormous and ongoing harm that the distribution's developers do politically, in my own opinion.

That's why he threatened Linux. Microsoft is very afraid of the success of Linux because I blows their content protection monopoly out of the water.

My money says Microsoft will no longer exist by 2020, largely irrespective of what they do at this point. Their descent began nearly 10 years ago, around the time of the release of IE 4. Microsoft's destruction will ultimately be entirely by the corporation's own hand; it will have virtually nothing to do with Apple or Linux.

The reasons for the company's now largely inevitable disintegration are primarily two fold:-

a) Massive and irreparable erosion of consumer good will on a global scale, which will be exacerbated by the DRM present in Windows Vista. People the world over have grown to viciously hate Microsoft, and very few who still use Windows do so entirely willingly. As Machiavelli wrote, a ruler can be safely feared by the population, but if he wishes to preserve himself, the one thing a prince must avoid above all others is being hated.

b) The NT codebase has reached the end of the line, developmentally. Microsoft have never had a long term roadmap past the release of NT 4, and they've been treading water ever since. This is not difficult to see; XP and now Vista are essentially glorified graphics patches for the underlying NT core. I don't bother mentioning the supposed security enhancements associated with Vista, because in reality they are futile. Once hostile code is running locally, NT's lack of an ACL model still means the show is over...and as any of the BSD people will likely tell you, security cannot be retrofitted onto a fundamentally insecure operating system design. If it is not designed for security from its' inception, then it will remain insecure throughout its' existence. Generally speaking, patching will not change that.

The question is not now whether the mainstream operating system torch will pass from Microsoft, bu

points

[zogger]

..you make some good points, can't argue with them much. I think common packaging and getting rid of shared libraries would be a good thing although it isn't the old school unix guru way because...uhh..because everyone is running a ten meg hard drive with 64k RAM on a 300 baud modem I guess..*snort*.

  I come from an old mac classic background, about the easiest it gets for packages, download, run, and that's it. Stick it wherever you want to, still works. Have multiple copies and different versions-it doesn't matter.

Good luck on getting the linux devs and enthusiasts to agree on any of that though, I think the best advice if you want to support some linux is just shoot for what YOU think is the best packaging way and best distro and just be done with it, let others sort out how to make it work on others. For most practical purposes, .deb is probably on more desktops and debian derivatives have probably the most exposure. And like you said, lin-freespire is really hitting the OEM installs (and they have the easiest for-pay after market applications in their click n run service, that should be of interest to you), they are debian derived, and ubuntu is now the current top dog, also a debian. Go that way for the most exposure for your niche, you aren't trying to get on biz desktops with games, but home users, so there ya go. Now I personally run fedora, but it really doesn't matter to me either, I am just as happy using knoppix live cd for instance, or even a mini distro (I love those things!), just more familiar with redhat stuff because it is what I started with and it works pretty well for the most part.

Wanted feature: Make Things Just Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using Linux at home and at work for about 12 years. At home and at work there is but one thing myself and my co-workers have always wanted from Linux: For things to just work easily. I don't want hardware problems. Even now I still sometimes have problems with USB mice functioning properly. When I buy something for the machine, I want it to just work. When I want to setup two monitors for one machine, I want there to be a nice GUI for configuring them. Or to be able to go to any website and watch the embedded movie in my browser (Comedy Central's website videos are a no go on Linux). It would also be nice to be able to buy a game at the local store and know that I can install it and that it will install and function without fail now and for the next 2 or 3 years.

It is no simple task to make things just work because it is a moving target. And Linux HAS consistently gotten closer to this goal. But really, that should always be the goal, not flashy eye candy as seems to be the focus of commercial OS's at the moment.

Just Make Things Work.

John

vision

[empiretrade]

The article talks about the lack of vision on the part of GNOME. It's the application, stupid! If GNOME or KDE or any other desktop platform for Linux only concentrates on itself, there can be only so far that any of them can go if they only concentrates on itself. What the vision needs to be is to line up hundreds of commercial software vendors to port their software to linux. The day we see this mass porting is the day we will see linux being seriously adopted on the desktop, regardless of the technical merit of the desktop itself, it could suck for all people would care, but it had to do something useful, i.e. apps! Give me an ugly desktop, but tons of useful apps, I will take that any day over beautiful eyecandy any day.

Bullshit

[humpy101]

Here's one for you. You want Desktop Linux to succeed (or perhaps to be more commonplace)? Easy, let me tell you how. Just convince Michael Dell that is a good idea. Pick a "user-friendly" distro (eg Ubuntu, Linspire, etc), and (here's the clincher) get Dell to PRELOAD it on the computers that they sell, and offer some kind of user support package for when newbies are stumped by gnome. The hard bit is the first sentence :-)

they are well versed in reinstalling though

[wilec]

"The average user never installs an operating system"

I don't disagree with the basic premise of your points but there is another view you are missing here. Indeed very few average users will ever do an install of a NEW OS. But most are well versed in reinstalling a certain one from system restore media every few months, guess which one that is :). Most of the ones I know usually end up losing personal files, which I know is mostly a backup issue, but that is sooo "complicated" that few ever do so on a regular basis.

I forgot the last time I installed, reinstalled, upgraded, or updated an OS and lost ANY, that is zero, null, nill, zip, not a frackin one, of my personal files in the process. I have made many many backups of my personal files and will continue to do so, but the only time I have ever had to restore any of them on a Linux system was due to the death of hardware. Not only have I migrated my personal files between new hardware, but many of them between several Linux distro's, OS/2 and BSD, and of course between several file systems as well.

Today I keep most of my personal files in an over 100gb /kommonstuff directory tree, with a daily updated mirrow of the changes or additions on a second physical drive and occasionaly to a third drive. I access them from over two dozen Linux distros, most of which are VM's, as well as from other Linux boxes on my lan. Like I say I forgot the year I last lost personal files from an OS crash, but I can remember the OS and it was not Linux, nor was it OS/2 or BSD, guess which OS it was.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Linux is Throth and foam

[Anonymous Coward]

no bubble to burst, there is a big bubble, called microsoft around it, its a soft of FOAM, throth that is continuously busting, and reforming.

there was a chance in about 2000 when Windows Win95 and Win98 had BIG problems, especially with its memory manager, and could not cope well with PC's with alot of RAM, but Linux could.

at that time, even up to WinME, Linux had a chance of taking some hard core windows users or Microsoft.
but then MS put out WindowsXP, and fixed all these problems, SURE win95 was not too stable, and all the Linux Users who say Windows is unstable, have not used Windows since Win95 is my guess.

Without a doubt, you LOST THE RACE, when MS released Windows XP, its great, its very stable.

Windows users dont want complexity, not do they want SLOW computers, but XP is fast, stable and DOES EVERYTHING everyone needs.

Yes, we've heard it all before, Linux users are Uber Geeks, they can get ANYTHING to run under Linux, IN ZERO TIME. and everyone who cant or dorks or idiots.
and if your not a programmers, you are a waste of space, and should not be on the planet.

and you IQ must be 50 if you cant work out how to configure Linux for Dual monitors.!!

This is an old argument, Linux Lost the race, their attitude and MODEL is your biggest problems. It RESTRICTS you from doing a good job,

Slave labour is not the way to develop good code, how DARE you force programmers to work for NOTHING, is there not a minimum wage in the US.
I though slavery was illegal,, ( I KNOW THEY WANT TO DO IT), but makes NO difference, its AGAINST THE LAW.

RED HAT SELLS Linux, but DOES NOT PAY PROGRAMMERS !!!, this is slave labour, ofcourse FOSS Model its great for the Distos, because you can screw programmers.

the WORLD can see this for what it is, a CULT of slaves, i dont like to buy clothes from "sweat shops", and i dont want my software writting by slaves.

Pay programmers to produce good quality software, allow them to get out of povity by advancing their skills and we'll pay for that code.
Grow up and enter the REAL world.

DONT enslave programmers, if you kill someone and say "they wanted to be killed" does not mean you did not break the law and kill the person".

taking advantage of young programmers, who dont know any better, and "convincing" them to write your code for you IS CRIMINAL.

BTW: is collusion and "price fixing" illegal in the US.

If so, you might want to rething the FOSS "business model".
Slavery
Price Fixing
Collusion to price fix.

thats without even looking at the viral nature of the GPL.

Do what Microsoft does

[General Lee's Peking]

Do what Microsoft does to constantly improve their GUI---i.e., track the Mac's progress. The Linux world can even better track the Mac's progress than Microsoft by getting over their religious opposition to Objective-C and just use GNUStep for the desktop. I'm not kidding either, this just seems so intuitively obvious to me; as opposed to the Linux desktop directly tracking Microsoft, which is what Gnome seems to be all about. You don't need pass or keep up with Apple, you just need to pass or keep up with Microsoft.

Re:New coat? Hardly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, anyone familiar with Mac OSX will tell you it's not a new coat, it's a knockoff of Apple's old coat.

It's not for nothing that everyone says the MS R&D lab is called Apple.

"MICROSOFT REPLICATED THIS FEATURE ARGGGHHHHHGGHGHHGHGH! APPLE DID IT! APPLE DID IT! LOOK AT APPPPLE!"

"So what? *continues working with Vista*"

"IT'S A REPLICA OF MACOSX! MACOSX!"

Just installed Beryl on Linux

[cheros]

If the sales argument is mainly eye candy, well, it doesn't need a big system to operate that, only a decent graphics card. It's always been ridiculous that the core processor should be doing that work instead of the graphics subsystem.

I just took Ubuntu off my laptop to test Fedora Core 6 (too big and doesn't support my WiFi, Ubuntu will be back on shortly) but for entertainment I installed Beryl as well. Lightening fast, funny and as much contributing to my efficiency as the MS Office paperclip, i.e. not at all.

Somehow the idea that we need a system to do our work seems to have gotten lost at Microsoft, it's all about using a system to pay them more money. Well, I'm taxed enough already (and even if I would agree with it I would like the $$ to go to the country that provides me my living) so no thanks.

I can't see the point to pay a premium to mainly support the vendors of anti virus products. I'd call that a HUGE product deficiency, and as there is fundamentally no reason why this cannot all be done under Linux or OSX there's little chance I'd get back onto the Windows bandwagon. Well, OK. maybe for accessing password protected WinZip archives - haven't had time to research an alternative for that.

But eye candy as a sales argument: not for business, and even so there's Compiz, Beryl and Looking Glass - again a wide choice versus the "let's ram our choice down your throat" DRM infested MS products. Yes, they're safer (again) but they're seriously behind the curve on that too. And even Gates is coming down from the DRM hype, so that leaves little more than bug fixes..

not going to happen

[sentientbrendan]

It's time to be realistic about the linux desktop. If it were ever going to happen, it would have been years ago.

Progress has been made on the Linux desktop front, but a grocery list of fundamental, and insurmountable problems remain.

1. Nobodies pushing linux desktops to the end user. There's no (positive) brand recognition (among desktop users), there's no marketing, there's no sales people at best buy pushing it. It might be on the shelves (in a few places) but so is a lot of software that no one ever notices.

2. Setup difficulty. Setup has improved immensely over the years, and installation is actually fairly decent now; however, it's still to hard because
2.1 Desktop users are used to *not having to do any setup whatsoever*. They are used to the OS coming with the machine. Setup on the windows and mac side consists of unpacking and hitting the power button.
2.2 Hardware detection sucks on linux. This isn't entirely linux developers fault, since they don't always have proper documentation for hardware, etc, but all those excuses mean is that it doesn't work properly, and it probably never will.
2.3 Drivers. These have gotten better, but they still suck. See 2.2 about excuses.

3. Configuration difficulty. Unlike setup difficulty this hasn't improved measurably over time. Linux configuration is still absolutely horrible from the desktop users perspective. The primary problem is flat human readable configuration files being used in places where desktop users have always used guis. The most obvious offender here is xorg.
Human readable config files make sense to developers, and administrators, but desktop users will never learn where all the files they need to edit are, let alone *what to do with them*. Unsophisticated users need preference panes, but there are few integrated into software on linux. This probably has something to do with the fact that there is no global configuration framework (like defaults on osx, or the registry on windows). Similar things exist for gtk (gconf), and indeed gnome software tends to be easily configurable, but configuration isn't a gtk specific problem and system level software like xorg can't depend on gtk to take advantage of it.
Oh, also before anyone says that novice users won't need to edit their xorg.conf, let me point out that in fact they *will* need to edit their xorg.conf because of broken hardware detection (see 2.2) and because if xinerama is turned on (most laptop users need dual screen), users can't even change their *resolution* without screwing with *at least* xorg.conf. Probably for days.

4. Linux is buggy. Very buggy. This comment is likely to earn a few flame posts, so I'd better explain it in more detail even though I think it's perfectly obvious what I mean.
The software provided with most linux distros has all sorts of very prominent show stopping conflicts, and configuration issues that users most spend *days* fixing by hand before they get a usable system. These issues eventually get fixed by the distro makers, but then new issues pop up immediately. Everyone who has installed linux on the desktop and used it for more than a few days has run into these issues.
These problems come down to the fact that the relatively small distro makes don't and can't spend the amount of money on QA that apple and microsoft can. OSX and windows certainly have all sorts of bugs, but they don't have the basic usability issues that plague linux. For OSX and windows the latest os (the one that's preloaded on it) is tested with the hardware configuration, and issues fixed before it's sent out. Patches are tested internally by a fairly large audience before the public ever even sees them. Neither of these things can happen with linux, so we are left with major usability issues that desktop users don't have the skills or patience to work through, and that many others simply don't have the time for.

5. Games don'

Re:not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Best (most honest, logical, and level-headed) post I have ever read here at Slashdot...and I've been here a loooong time.

Excellent.

LOL

[MicrosoftRepresentit]

Is this a joke?

Just say no to the command line

[NDPTAL85]

Did it ever occur to you that the overwhelming majority of computer users has absolutely no desire to progress onto more complex tasks? They only want to surf the web, send emails, play video games and use office software. For those who want more they're pros and they're extremely rare among the general computing population.

And how can you possibly have trouble managing more than a few windows or apps on OS X with Expose? Are you the one lacking in intelligence here or something? Its brain dead simple.

Re:Just say no to the command line

[MikeFM]

Then for those people let them stick with their toy OS of choice. I'm okay with that. If anything, I think that they need simpler user-interfaces for such people. There is no reason we need a single user-interface that applys for everyone. I'd disagree as to the number of people who wouldn't want to do more complex tasks though - of it could be made easy to do them. It's not very easy to do complex tasks on any desktop environment I've ever seen. The closest I've seen to actually making this possible is the much loved web browser you mentioned.

Expose is not really a task switcher. It is nice for seeing what windows you have open but it is not a good system for quickly switching between windows or with breaking windows down into groups by task. It does nothing to organize your workflow.

Re:Just say no to the command line

[NDPTAL85]

On both OS X and Linux you can always access the terminal. So for those who abhor the GUI the terminal is always there. In such a case why is it such a bad thing if the GUI is constantly improved?

As for task switching, in addition to Expose Leopard (the next version of OS X) will have Spaces which is just their late entry into the virtual desktops arena. http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spaces.html

Perhaps Expose doesn't organize YOUR workflow, but it organizes mine just fine. All I have to do is hit F10 and I see all the open windows in an app and can switch to any of them by just clicking on them. How is that hard? If I want to switch programs I can hit Apple+Tab to select a different application. In browsers and in other apps that have tabs I can hit Apple+Shift+Left/Right to move between tabs. Keyboard navigation on OS X at least is amazing. Most of that stuff applies to Windows as well. I have a box running Kubuntu up but I haven't really used it in months.

You have also yet to supply evidence that Aqua "falls apart as soon as you try to do more complex tasks" Like what? I prepare reports on OS X, use Quicken, sync my Treo to iPhoto and TheMissingSync, surf the web, play games. I don't personally program but lots of people program on Macs. Seriously what freaking modern OS these days falls apart when you try to do something complex, and this includes Windows?

KDE doesn't even come close to Vista in complexity

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! You say that like you're proud of it or somehting. Remember: Complexity is the enemy.

Other points missed too numerous to mention.

Something Shitty

[triso]

"...Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case." Vista may or may not have a new coat, however, it is absolutely the case that there are even more skid marks on its soiled and tattered underwear.

Vista is a new monster

[Phlosten]

Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case. No, Vista is a whole new bunch of crap to pollute the desktop world. On the Linux desktop front, just because a number did not jump from 2 to 3 it hasn't improved? Come on. A lot has happened to make Gnome rock on Linux. I have been using Linux as my work environment for a while now and it is certainly ready for desktop use. Linux has already won in my work place.

Re:The bubble was never there. Not true

[lsatenstein]

Henry Ford, at the turn of the century, did what Microsoft did, produce one model car and kill the competition. But eventually GM and the Dodge Brothers came along with better vehicles. So what transpired for the car industry will come to Microsoft. the Mac, some Linux flavors will gain market share. It is possible that another new interface can come along to be the product for the future.

Linux, because volume is perhaps 40 million installations versus 20 times that for windows, has a hard time to compete on volume, but not on quality. It will compete based on stability. But instability forces innovation, so all the products, such as Microsoft's, the Mac or Linux, will have to innovate as new dual core /4 cores processors and the like drive innovation. Does that mean linux is for the geeks?

So the bubble is there! As for geeks, Open linux means that developers/geeks live around the world, not just in the USA west coast, hidden from view. Today Linux is used in the schools, and taught in the Universities. Linux is open and affordable. In summary the MS geeks are invisible, and the latter linux ones, are known around the world.

Re:OS Comparisons & Adoption [now with anti-fu

[ichimunki]

It's possible that my willingness to consider Apple fairly against Windows and Linux evaporated back before they came out with OS X. I have seen nothing compelling about OS X or Apple's offerings since that convince me that they're much more than a fashion statement. Your single example touting one system against one other system is good information, but not compelling on its own. There is definitely some trend among the IT crowd to gravitate towards Macs lately, but they don't seem to be making any serious inroads elsewhere-- which makes me think some of that supposedly newfound popularity among techies is a protest against Windows (more fashion than reason). I recognize that some element of it is a desire to have a UNIX that actually works on the hardware (especially a laptop) without a lot of hand-holding. In all, I'd say the ongoing base for Apple is people used to Apple, people who believe Apple's marketing about Mac being really easy, and people who think Apple is cool.

Machines that need updating

[Latent Heat]

Major universities, even ones with an accredited College of Engineering and that win their football bowl game, may have a major way to go in administering computing systems. I am just a user of whatever systems they make available.

I plug my USB key into the slot. Nothing happens. I find someone using a Solaris machine who looks Unix savy and ask about mounting the drive -- said Good Samaritan enters a few commands and then gives up. I ask one of the "consultants" (student hourly worker, but a fine, fine students of engineering) and am told about logging into a Windows machine, transfering the files to the shared drive, and then accessing them from my Unix account.

I will use the comments to my Troll-modded post to shame the sys-admins to upgrade to a current version of Linux (I believe they have Debian). But my comment was that the problem wasn't necessarily inherent in Linux -- the problem was cultural, and we were talking an Engineering College computing center and the people who run it, not Grandma.

An Apology...

[RationalRoot]

Just for kicks, I tried installing the latest Ubuntu on my Acer 5103WMLI and it installed happily.

Getting wifi (WPA-PSK) up and running took a little googling. (Not something that your average Non Computer Guy would have been able to do), but it did not take as much time as I'd expected.

Sound and Microphone 'Just Work (TM)' - it's not really a trade mark, but hell M$ look like they are about to trade mark 0 thru 9.

I have to get the 3D drivers for the screen, but I've done that before for other boxes and it's a big deal. And then I need to check the card reader. I have doubts about the built in web cam, but that's not a show stopper.

I still think for "Joe User" it's not a runner. But it's a lot easier than I expected.

So I am Sorry for basing my expectations on my experience of a year or so back, it has moved on a lot. Back then It started to become a hobby in itself.

I still need Dual Boot, some of my college stuff (evening degreee) is M$ only.

But if hibernate works, then I'll be booting into Linux most of the time.