Slashdot Mirror
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."
Are gnome and KDE -really- the only choices? XFCE? ICEwm? Hell, CDE even?! ... or dare I suggest ... Bash ?
... 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.
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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).
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.)
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
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.
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.
Beep beep.
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
"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.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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.
"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'.
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.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Fuck you Slashdot
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
The Calgary Unix User's Group got a great lecture from Aaron Seigo of KDE last week,
7 .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.
http://www.cuug.ab.ca/past-meetings/meetings.06-0
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.
Strange. I remember people saying that about the 'browser wars'.
Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
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.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
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.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
>>What can OS X do that KDE can't?
In the hands of a techie or Joe Blow user?
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.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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 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.
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.
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.
Think global, act loco
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...
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
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.
I do not have a signature
/Mod Article +1 Flamebait
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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...
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Plus they almost destroyed Toontown!
The 90's called, and they want their "I tried Linux but couldn't install it" angst back.
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
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.
Deleted
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.
Oh boy, are linuxers naive...
n 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.
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=Conte
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.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
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!!
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.
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).
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
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).
"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".
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
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.
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.
im in ur
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.
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.
*sigh* back to work...
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
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
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.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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
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?
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".
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.
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.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
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.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com