ESR's Desktop Linux 2008 Deadline

jesboat noted Eric S. Raymond and Rob Landley's essay about what the Linux community must do to achieve dominance entitled "World Domination 201". It says "Idealism about open formats will not solve our multimedia problem in time; in fact, getting stuck on either belief in the technical superiority of open source or free-software purism guarantees we will lose. The remaining problems aren't technical ones, and none of the interesting patents will expire before the end of 2008. We've got to ship something that works now. If we let this be a blocking issue preventing overall Linux adoption during the transition window, we won't have the userbase to demand changes in the laws to untangle the screwed up patent system, or even prevent it from getting worse. It's a chicken and egg problem, demanding a workaround until a permanent solution can be achieved. We can't set the standards until after we take over the world."

Comments

Just remove the 'Open'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Idealism about open formats will not solve our multimedia problem in time"

We can have an Open Source Desktop if we just don't make it Open Source! Brilliant!

Re:Just remove the 'Open'?

[Anonymous Coward]

just one word: consolidate

choice is good, but too much choice is spreading ourselves too thin

Re:Just remove the 'Open'?

[x2A]

Don't be silly, I use each and every single one of the 30 calculators, 60 text file viewers, 40 email clients...

This is the problem with anarchy; everyone will tend towards choosing different things. Some leadership is required to say "we're going to concentrate here", so that resources are consolidated, and projects can really start moving forward at a much faster rate.

Re:Just remove the 'Open'?

[Planesdragon]

Staying Free is a guaranteed way to lose? Tell me more, you seem to have invented a fascinating new branch of logic, cos it seems to me that if you are forced to use non-Free software (or hardware), you have already lost.

Yes, exactly. Right now, OSS is losing because of the focus on free formats, among other things.

Free Software must be able to read the not-open format, or it's useless. And useless software never becomes prevalent enough to take hold and start dictating formats.

The only real problem of Linux is

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Ease of installation. Be it drivers that manufacturers don't bother providing for Linux, or applications that require configuring as root, etc... But the problem of drivers aside, there's a fundamental clash between ease of installation (i.e. something grandma can figure out herself) and security: if you make Linux as easy to use as Windows, then you need to discard the root/user distinction, and that would make Linux as bad as Windows. Yes, I know Windows has a superuser/normal user distinction too, but grandma doesn't use it, and those who do know it's a pain.

The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate. That sort of plan is a 10 year plan at the very least, and requires educating people at school about basic computer security, and the dangers of being a computer idiot. No amount of tweaking will make a good secure OS an easy one.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[Kjella]

The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.

Good choice of word to misspell. Besides that, "people" in general want to use whatever everyone else is using, they want to use whatever brand name apps they've heard about and most of all, they want it simple. Every company in every line of business wish their customers were better informed and better trained, it's not going to happen. You can teach a monkey new tricks (like that the Intarnets is now the fiery fox, not the blue e) but most people don't want to become "computer literate". Not even the modern kids who MSN all day want to be "computer literate" in the way you think of it.

Want to make inroads:
1. Corporate workstations. That means in particular
a. Exchange replacement
b. Policy management like Active Directory
c. Heavy compatibility work with MS Office

2. Educational facilities
a. Get Linux labs, dual-booting machines
b. Deploy Firefox, OpenOffice etc. as alternatives on all desktops
c. Make sure all internal systems are platform-independent

3. "Family management"
a. More shades between "root" and "user". Waaay too often I get asked for the root password for things I'd like to delegate, but not give away total control. Linux is great when you're either one person or administering a bunch of people that only get approved applications, inbetween is not that great.
b. Security updates that really are without question, so you could set them up to install automatically. I really like apt-get and all, but it annoys me that I don't know if I'll get asked about some config file where the defaults have changed or whtaever.
c. Somewhere to put "common documents" that is somewhat standard and sane. Everybody has their home dir like "My documents", it's not difficult to fix but it's always a custom dir with custom links, don't people have like general data that's shared with all users?

Gamers and people that rely on support lines or local tech shops just aren't cases you'll win. There's so many quirks in changing to Linux, it just gets too expensive to pay for it (and these aren't the people to search online forums). You need someone with Linux sklil in the company, institution or family. To think that any significant share will put in a k/ubuntu CD and install it by themselves, is dreaming.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[compm375]

The problem is not ease of installation nearly as much as it not being preinstalled on many computers. Most Linux installation processes are pretty easy, maybe even easier than a Windows installation, but the average user doesn't do a Windows installation either - it is preinstalled. What we need is either a bunch of OEMs cooperating, or some kind of effort to install Linux on people's computers for them.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[grumbel]

### Ease of installation.

I am sorry, but that is just bullshit. Linux has been extremely easy to install for years, it also happens to be a heck of a lot easier to install then Windows and lets not forget we have LiveCDs, so giving Linux a quick try is among the most trivial things you can do. Beside from that, installation is totally overrated, you do it like once in a lifetime and then never ever again, if you have trouble with it, find a friend that helps with it. Installation is a pretty much solved problem, with repartitioning being the only thing that requires some thinking.

The real problem isn't installation, but maintaining an Linux, simply things as installing a piece of software you have seen on a webpage can be extremely hard and time consuming, even for somebody with 10+ years of Linux experience, for your grandma such things are simply totally out of reach. Sure we have apt-get and friends, but those help absolutely nothing if a piece of software isn't in your distribution, which kind of is always the case with new software. Unless that changes and software installation becomes a no-brainer, Linux won't stand much a chance in the mass market.

And speaking about security, that one is totally overrated as well. On a desktop computer there is only one account that matters and that is the one of the user using it, lets call it juser. If root or jusers account is compromised doesn't make a difference, since in *both* cases the intruder has full access to everything that matters anyway. If there is something I really don't care about on my Linux then its /bin, /usr, /var and all those other root-write only directories that have absolutely nothing of valuable data, since it comes straight from the distribution CD and is trivial to recover, if /home/juser/ on the other side says bye-bye and you don't have a recent backup, then you can really be in trouble. On large multi-user installations things look different, but on your average desktop that whole root/user separation doesn't provide much benefit at all. That of course doesn't mean we should get rid of it, but you don't really need much more then a password-less sudo.

### The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.

Good luck trying that, it won't work, ever. The simple reason for that is that computers simply don't make sense. You can teach a person math, because math makes sense and is logic, but handling a computers relies in very large part simply on learning the quicks of its broken software, on Linux just the same as everywhere else. So knowledge from 5 years ago can be totally useless today, lots of computer knowledge is already worthless after a year. Computers simply don't make sense and it requires just way to much time for the average person to learn all the quirks and workarounds. The solution to all this is to simply *fix* all those quirks and bugs so that they never ever touch the users desktop. There simply isn't a logical reason why installing a tar.gz requires me to manually track down dependencies, why there is no undelete and why changing the mouse speed requires editing Xorg.conf while changing mouse acceleration does not, its just bugs and history that made the software the way it is today, there is no logical design principle behind all this. Simply fix it and don't try to teach the user why your software is broken and how to work around it, just a waste of time.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[UbuntuDupe]

If that's the problem, here's a crazy idea:

Market PC's with Linux already installed and ready to start.

Hire a real marketing team. Put it where the masses will see it.

Oh, you mean that take real money and business expertise? Ah, dammit, so *that's* why they charge for software! I *knew* there was a reason behind it!

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That sort of plan is a 10 year plan at the very least, and requires educating people at school about basic computer security, and the dangers of being a computer idiot.

You don't think schools have enough to teach people already? (Clue: Look at the literacy levels and mathematical skills of the average school leaver.)

You can never make a computer 100% secure, because there will always be people who tell others their password. Every time you raise the game, there will still be someone at the bottom who's an easy target. But you certainly can write software that doesn't allow the kind of attacks that plague us today, without any user education at all.

If you want a user security model that works relatively well, you need look no further than banking and credit cards. Everyone knows how to swipe a card and type a four-digit number, and that you aren't supposed to write the number down anywhere it's recognisable, and that if your card is stolen you call the bank and cancel it. This system is simple enough for the average guy/girl in the street to handle, yet works pretty well and requires very little training.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[aauu]

Making more people computer literate is not the solution.

This is like solving societies problems as follows:

• Healthcare with more medically literate people
  How many medical journals do you read? How much biochemistry and anatomy do you know? or want to know?
• Automotive transportation with more mechanically literate people
  Most likely a skilled automatic transmission mechanic outearns you. The work is more physically demandng than computer work.
• Energy distribution with more electrically literate people
  Can you wire to national and local code requirements, open a live distribution panel without killing yourself
• Housing with more architecturally literate people
  Building codes aside, do you know enough engineering to build something that will not fall down?

People just want to use the results of technology for the most part with perhaps a hobby interest in some aspect such as photography, astronomy. The details of making the technology usable by the masses is rightly the province of the technicians.

*nix will be successfull when there is a single *nix with a set of well designed applications with consistent user interfaces and RTFM is a forgotten phrase. Otherwise, *nix in the consumer marketplace is a bunch of kit cars, ugly as sin and driven by very few (except at race tracks). You can't get any more mass market than Wal*Mart which is not successfully selling Linux clones of windows machines.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[grcumb]

Not even close. I can "sudo su" and I'm root. GP is asking for a good implementation of ACLs.

Heh, never thought I'd actually say this, but... RTFM .

sudo allows a user exactly as much or as little access as they've been granted by the root user. We used it widely to limit access to logged-in users on production machines to about 6 commands. Anything else had to be specifically authorised by Ops. I'd love to know how to get the same degree of control with as little effort on Windows servers.

Re:The only real problem of Linux is

[jcr]

Not just installation. From TFA:

When somebody with a degree in finance or architecture or can grab a Linux laptop and watch episodes of The Daily Show off of Comedy Central's website without a bearded Linux geek walking them through an elaborate hand-configuration process first, maybe we'll have a prayer.

People use Windows because (believe it or not), for all its faults, it's easier to use than Linux.

The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.

NO!

Way to miss the point, dude. The whole need for "computer literacy" stems from the failure of the computer industry to get a lid on needless complexity. When I want to vacuum my floor, I don't have to know how to series-wind a motor, do I? When I want to drive to the store, I don't have to know how to manually advance the spark timing as my engine warms up. When I want to read a book, I don't have to know how to fill a glass bulb with an inert gas so that the filament doesn't burn out a second after I turn it on.

Don't kid yourself, we are still in the stone knives and bearskins era of computing. Apple's almost into the bronze age, but just barely. I hope to see the iron age before I retire.

The "real solution" is to advance computers to the point where they just work.

-jcr

Oh good grief

[JohnFluxx]

How exactly can Linux lose? It's getting better all the time. It can't go bankrupt, it can't be taken over, it can't be bought out.

You could argue it might gain more marketshare if we 'relax' our ideals and principles, but so what? We aren't going to lose linux or anything if we don't.

Re:Oh good grief

[Pecisk]

We can be sued out of market.

Enough said. And seeing what actually happens in US IT court rooms, I fully agree this time with ESR.

Re:...and?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Why is ESR so hellbent on taking over the world? We have a system that works, and that can play multimedia just fine, albeit illegally, why does it matter how many people use it? I, for one, don't see ESR wanting to take over the world as enough of a reason to cave in and use proprietary technologies...

You just gave the reason why we need more people adopting Linux: what you say is that Linux can play multimedia files just fine, only illegally (I'm assuming you're referring to the proprietary mplayer codecs here). Yet you see no reason to "cave in and use proprietary technologies"? Strange line of thought...

If, on the other hand, a significant number of people used OSS, they would have a lote more weight to lobby software manufacturers for more open-source codecs, native ports of their software to Linux, etc... making using Linux perfectly legal when those codecs are available on your favorite platform.

They miss the biggest point

[Reality Master 101]

They like to use history is this essay, but backward compatability is by far the biggest factor in the history of desktop operating system software. This essay hardly mentions it, and not in the context of history. The biggest reason Windows 3.1 won was because of its backward compatability with DOS -- and Microsoft never forgot the lesson. Dos -> Win3.1 -> Win 95 -> Win 98 -> NT 3.1 (sort of) -> Win2000 -> XP -> Vista. Microsoft gives you a relatively smooth glide up the chain so that you don't have to throw away all your existing software -- and hardware. Of course, it's not perfect, but it's sure better than throwing away everything to move to Linux or a Mac.

Re:They miss the biggest point

[realnowhereman]

You can, in fact, download the original version of VisiCalc -- the original spreadsheet program, released for MS-DOS in 1981 -- and run it, unmodified, in DOSEMU under any version of Linux you feel like.

Re:They miss the biggest point

[BobKagy]

They do mention this in the article. They also think that Wine is coming along nicely and will allow Linux to provide the same level of backward compatibility that Win64 will. In part they expect the experience to be similar because there are signs backwards compatibility in Win64 isn't/won't be as perfect as it has been in the past.

They've got me convinced that the insurmountable problem is multimedia support is now an essential part of the desktop, and it is illegal to distribute a Linux desktop with full multimedia support in the U.S. Thus it is illegal to distribute a Linux desktop functionally equivalent to Win64 or MacOSX.

Re:They miss the biggest point

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Dell already sells computers without Windows on it. Why does hardly anyone choose to get it? Because very, very, very few people want it.

I think that's got a lot more to do with the fact that Dell hides their Linux offerings on the site, and even if you do manage to find them, you'll have to buy in large quantities before they'll sell you them.

Wake me up when Dell has a drop down "operating system" saying

• Windows
• Linux (-$50)
• None (-$55)

on each and every page where they sell PCs. At the moment, the "choice" (if you can call it such) is XP or XP Professional.

Rich.

Re:They miss the biggest point

[MobyTurbo]

That's like saying I can run any Mac application on the PC I want, as long as I have a Mac emulator. Who cares? Can I download that program in Linux, and run it like any other application, unmodified?. No. In case you didn't know, Windows XP and Vista use an emulator for DOS programs too. In fact, the emulator has enough problems that dosbox, an emulator for both Linux and Windows, is better for some applications than Microsoft's own emulation of DOS in WinNT derived OSs. Also, dosbox and dosemu have almost no effect on the emulated program's performance and near-100% compatibility. This includes programs like DOOM that use 32 bit extentions, or BBS software that access serial port hardware through a FOSSIL. Linux has had DOS emulation for years, actually. It's too bad that when MS was introducing Windows 3.x and 9x, more people didn't know that Linux would let them keep their DOS apps too.

Re:They miss the biggest point

[mtaht]

ESR's argument is flawed about the need to transition to a 4GB+ architecture as well. I don't agree with his "drop dead date" of 2008, but push the date back to about 2012, as things like PAE are more adaquate than emm386 was to keep users and single programs satisfied on the x86 architecture. No individual binary I run ever gets bigger than 600MB in size today, which leaves plenty of headroom for x86 to continue in place.

On the other hand, 2GB is the new 640k, and I agree with the paper that by 2008 4GB will be a comfort zone, and cerrtainly by 2012 8 and 12GB will start putting real pressure on the 32 bit architectures. And, more importantly, at the moment, Linux has a competitive amount of market share in the 64 bit market, enough to, perhaps, tilt it towards a Linux Desktop. I'd certainly like to see more working towards this goal.

What ESR proposes in his Codex idea seems to have potential. I propose much the same thing in my blog today...

Re:Linux is a kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows also has a very impressive line of server products. Sure the stability and security might not be as good as Linux but most businesses this is not the prime reason to choose a server OS. In my experience most companies or VARs choose their server OS by looking at managability, application and price. Personally I deal with a lot of small businesses and Windows Small Business Server 2003 is very hard to beat.

1. Digital Fax system
2. SharePoint services
3. Remote desktop / assitance
4. Group Policies
5. Exchange

Because all these options come with a very impressive cost ($1000.00 for server/5 user license), you cannot go wrong. It is stupid to buy anything else if you have less then 40 users on your network.

Finally

[Pecisk]

Finally someone of our leaders said what was needed to say - we need to get serious market share, period. No buts, no whys. If you don't get it, you never will be serious about IT, seriously. Because IT don't need only stuff that works now, but which also have serious legacy and support. Don't like it? You bet it, no one likes it, but it is REAL LIFE. Not some dreaming about John Lennon vision of the world, yes, we can try to achieve that, but let's be honest here - we need wilder strategy and understanding about politics here. We need seek out how to get people to our side. For example, I can say honestly that if someone would tried to push me to use FLAC or Ogg instead of allowing to play mp3s on Linux desktop, then I would definitely said good luck and went to study Macs or something else. Only features open me world of "freedom" and "openess" what I value so much now.

We should LEARN and EDUCATE people, not try to PUSH them on our side. It will never work.

This time, ESR got this in the center.

Happy Christmas everyone, go out, meet your dear ones, be with your family.

Peter.

Re:Finally

[nomadic]

Finally someone of our leaders

ESR? A leader? Hahahahahaha....

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally someone of our leaders said what was needed to say

You consider ESR a leader? Plus your whole "end justifies the means" notion kinda contradicts the spirit of Linux and open software, don't you think?

Re:Finally

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'll third the claim that ESR is not a leader. He's more of a pundit. He has very little open source software to his credit, and the people that tried to use it say it's bad. I think that's more software than Robert X. Cringely has to his credit, but at least Cringely is a little amusing and a little bit educational, I can't say that ESR is either.

I do think that he may have said what needed to be said. That doesn't make him a leader though.

Vista 32-bit?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

Vista is still 32-bit.

Uhh... no. Vista is available as a native 64-bit OS for x86-64 systems. The kernel is 64-bit, the drivers are 64-bit, and most applications are 64-bit. Is everything 64-bit? No. Is everything on a typical x86-64 Linux distribution 64-bit? No.

I think it has a far bigger problem

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't think the real problem of Linux is the difficulty of installation. Windows is not always straightforward to install either, but for most people it's either done before they get the machine or they get a techie friend to help. It's no biggie.

IMHO, the real problem with Linux is simply a shortage of high-quality applications. This is not intended as a slight against any particular application, and it's certainly not a statement that there are no high-quality applications. But let's be fair: Linux has, as yet, no answer to MS Office at work, and no answer to the range of games available for Windows and/or the latest generation of consoles at home. And that's just step one; there are many more specialist business applications, communications and multimedia software for home users, and the like that will have to follow. Until this sort of thing is available, Linux will never go mainstream, no matter how simple to install it is, how good the driver support may be, or how dedicated its users are to Open Source or Free Software ideals.

This appears, at first sight, to be something of a vicious circle: commercial organisations with the resources to put together that kind of software are unlikely to commit them until there's a market, and the market will not materialise without the software base. But there is light at both ends of this tunnel. On one end, there seems an increasing tendency for the more specialised business applications (or "databases", as we used to call them) to have web front-ends, and since Linux does have decent web browsers available, this reduces the problems in this area. At the other end of the tunnel, Linux itself and several other projects demonstrate clearly that the OSS community is capable of building applications on the scale required. It just needs to grow up a bit, spend less time worrying about philosophical and ethical issues, and kick off some heavyweight projects where the management team have the vision and organisational skills necessary. There's no reason that can't happen; it just hasn't (very often) so far.

Re:I think it has a far bigger problem

[Decaff]

Meanwhile, reliability problems with import/export of .DOC files, the underpowered Calc that can't keep up with Excel, the lack of anything to compete head-to-head with Outlook, and several other serious concerns will prevent most/all mid- and large-sized businesses moving to OO any time soon. It's just not ready for the big time yet, like so many other OSS applications, and this is exactly my point.

I just don't accept this; I have been supporting businesses using Open Office for a long time, and haven't encountered major issues. Import and export of .doc files has not been a problem (even novice users seem to have few difficulties with this).

I have transferred users from Outlook to Evolution with few problems. I have not seen, in placed where I have deployed this software, anyone who wants or needs to match Outlook feature-for-feature. I fact, support for business processes has been simpler as a result.

So my practical experience based on years of support is that Open Office really is up to the job, at least for the scale of companies I deal with.

The problem with 'something better than MS Office' is that developers get distracted into trying to things the MS Office way. Microsoft is great with providing rich feature sets, but poor in terms of simplicity. They provide what users think they want, not what users actually need (which is fair enough, as MS want to sell software, not improve productivity).

A close-approximation with a somewhat lower price tag isn't worth much in this game.

When you are talking about free, my experience is that it is worth a lot. Low budget resulting from the use of Open Office+Linux has made a big impression on the owner of one company I support, to the extent where he is looking at ways to roll out the same technologies in other organisations.

But I guess these are just my experiences.

The desktop on Linux on the desktop

[SoupIsGood Food]

Well... first off, it's got nothing to do with Linux. What we're talking about is a user interface that runs on top of X-windows. As such, it will run comfortably on any flavor of BSD or commercial Unix, and even stranger operating systems.

Second off, we're talking about a vast set of tools. Gnome is nice, KDE is nice, but they're pieces of a larger puzzle that includes X-windowing systems, and all of their assorted tools, drivers, and niceties, window managers, and applications that may or may not be designed to work within the look-and-feel guidelines of anything recognizeable at all. The problem space is way to big for any one person or organization to just decide, "Hey everyone, we're all gonna be doing THIS!"

Open source software grows and evolves as programmers scratch an itch. You can't crack the whip, as the project will just fork as programmers follow whatever their interest is... commercial, educational, political or just for the hell of coding something neat. It would be nice if everyone could assume a role that's perfectly suited for some master-plan to reach some goal... but they won't. Human nature is in the way.

Open Source Software is not a place where a single goal achieved by everyone working in unison is possible. Yes, Linux itself is cool... but how many variants, patches and forks of it are out there? Quite a few... people take what they need, and follow their own interest. This is what open source software is about. Even then, there's more than Linux: there are the three (Four... five?) BSD-based operating systems, and things like SkyOS and Haiku, besides.

In this maelstrom of variation and choice, you want a single standard UI? Not going to happen. What's more, it will likely work against Linux on the desktop rather than for it. Gnome came about because they didn't like KDE, and wanted something with different political and technical goals. KDE came about because the company had a different commercial and technical goal than Motif. Can you imagine how much it would suck if everyone working on KDE and Gnome were forced to work on making a better Motif? We're better off with many projects working for their own ends. Open Source means that the projects cna pick and chose what they like from each other, everyone wins.

Then there's the issue that Gnustep isn't a part of the discussion, despite being an Open Source re-implementation of the UI Apple uses for Mac OS X... so if the best solution isn't going to "win" anyway, it's pointless whining that the third or fourth best solution isn't getting all the attention. (And, as you've figured out, the order from "best" to "worst" won't be the same for everyone... or even a majority.)

In the end, it's up to the commercial distro-makers to decide what works for them, and to pay programmers and project leads and software architects to make it happen. The interface for the OLTP project shows how to get it done, and done on a shoestring budget in a tight time constraint.

Re:...and?

[DavidShor]

Not political clout, economic clout. Do you think Microsoft cajoles their user base to political action for DRM? No, this is an issue that the public ranks very low, in these issues, any company/organization with a significant user base is given tremendous clout.

Re:Why do we want Linux to be popular?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is simple. When Vista comes out, if it gets popular, there will be no middle ground, no sharing between Microsoft and Linux. Vista has so much of a lock in factor in both hardware and data formats, that it will eventually become impossible to install Linux on a PC. Things like Trusted Computing, remote attestation, patents, and the Vista secure hardware requirements will make sure of this. Vista is Microsofts last chance to keep their monopoly, and they are doing everything they can to keep that monopoly.

The only alternative is to get enough users to rely on Linux, that there will be enough pressure on governments and hardware manufacturers to stop Vista and Microsoft from getting this ultimate lock in. Then we might have a chance to stop this before its too late.

Any Fact Checking?

[tqbf]

Microsoft made $3.5 billion (net) last quarter alone, and has enough cash on hand to buy a company the size of Home Depot outright.

Absurd. Home Depot is the second largest retailer in the world, with top-line revenue exceeding $80bn and quarterly gross profits of over $6bn. Microsoft has net tangible assets of only $35bn. HD is in the top 20 of the Fortune 500, Microsoft is #48.

In the parallel universe of business that ESR inhabits, Microsoft still has more to worry about from HD than the other way around. What other completely obvious things do ESR and his co-author get wrong in this essay?

Re:Swallow Your Pride And Just Clone OS X

[sheepweevil]

Opinions are just that: opinions. Not everyone believes Mac OS X's UI is the best one out there. Using Mac OS X's UI will thus not suddenly make everything better. When I boot into Ubuntu using GNOME it looks and functions arguably better than the picture you linked to.

An essay on how not to format an essay

[Animats]

The essay is amusing. Not for its content, but for its format. It starts out with a revision history of all things. Only a dweeb would put that at the beginning of an essay intended for public consumption.

Then there's the focus on "64 bit". Microsoft and Apple both had 64-bit operating systems, then backed off. (It was surprising that when Apple went from PowerPC to x86, they went to 32-bit x86, even though 64 bit parts were already out. Which meant Apple users would face an unnecessary 32 to 64 bit transition on x86, and Apple would have to deal with annoying dual-mode issues.)

What does this essay say Linux needs? "Drivers for all existing hardware". "People who buy a new desktop want to plug in their old PCI cards..." Earth to Linux fanatics: 80% of all PCs are never opened in the field during their entire working life. What's important is drivers for what's shipping right now from major hardware vendors.

"Luckily, Windows more or less stopped being a moving target recently." Haven't looked at what Microsoft wants developers to do for Vista apps, have you? There's a big push by Microsoft to get developers using Microsoft-only technologies embedded in Vista, ones you can't run under Wine because they require non-redistributable DLLS.

"To attract enough non-technical end users to make the hardware vendors care about us, we need Linux to come preinstalled on PCs in a configuration that just works." Finally, the right answer. But that's a political and legal problem. Vendors don't offer Linux preloads because Microsoft penalizes them if they do, and Ashcroft's Justice Department rolled over on keeping Microsoft from doing that.

This essay is aimed at making Linux fanatics happy. What it should be aimed at is making low end desktops for office use cheaper. Push on Leonovo to offer something comparable to Red Flag Linux (which they preload for Chinese consumption) for export. Push on WalMart to sell it. The standard low-end business desktop should become Linux. Your call center people don't need Windows.

This hits Microsoft where it hurts - price pressure. Microsoft wants to charge more for Vista than for XP, and that could be derailed.

yeah yeah yeah

[argoff]

ESR has been saying that free as in freedom "zealots" are going to hurt Liunux for forever. Well he is still wrong. Because we are free and because we have control, that means that the market is under pressure to cater to us as we grow and expand ... not the other way around. It also means that our growth happenes is spite of proprietary alternatives and inspite of occasional commercial bias against free software. Is is the free nature of Linux that puts pressure on the market to go our way, not corporate idealisim or conformity. Nothing magical about 2008 is going to change that. Nothing magical is going to say "well, the window has passed and now all of a sudden people have no alternative". Yeah, I'm sure he wants to beat Vista to the punch, but that is a personal thing just as is his bias against people who see freedom as the ends and not the means.

Burning karma? :-)

[msimm]

Wow. An interesting response without the "me too" /.ism. :)

And critical to the pseudo elitism to boot! Too bad real discussion is becoming less frequent here. I appreciate your counter-points. The whole F you attitude seems to be kind of back in vogue and I'm guessing its probably more of new generation who haven't really been watching this whole thing unfold (and repeat itself!) over the past decade.

The fact that you should even know /etc/network/interfaces exists is a flaw. We rely on our old (comfortable) ways so late in the game and act like users are simple too stupid to understand what a great free OS we are offering them.

Traditional Linux systems (say, everyone on the market?) are servers. Work great as servers and have a GUI cobbled together and clamped into place.