OSDL's Review of Desktop Linux In 2006

derrida writes "The OSDL's Desktop Linux Working Group has published its first year-end report on the state of the overall desktop Linux ecosystem. The report provides insight into the year's key accomplishments in functionality, standards, applications, distributions, market penetration, and more. Of great interest is the Market Growth part. Quoting from there: 'Most observers believe that much of the growth will take place outside of the United States. "It will be in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries," said Gerry Riveros, Red Hat, "because of the price and because they aren't locked in yet."'"

Comments

not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

not encumbered by patents or opressive DMCA type laws

US kids in 20 years will ask: what happened ?
and you will say: well, we where in court arguing semantics and business methods while the rest of the world just got on with it

rAC

Re:not to mention

[ScrewMaster]

You don't get a free pass with a comment like that. It's easy to look at what Congress has done here, and say, "boy, is the U.S. fucked." Unfortunately, we aren't alone. Europe is taking our shiny new copyright and patent crap and running with it (and making it even worse in some respects, if that's possible.) Furthermore, there's a lot of pressure being applied to bring other countries in line, pardon me, "harmonized", with certain unpleasant aspects U.S. IP law. We're all going down the tubes together: we're perhaps a couple of elbow joints ahead of everyone else, but not that's all. Too many powerful people around the world want control of their respective economies, and one way you do that is by manipulating and suppressing technological advancement.

Re:not to mention

[AusIV]

Thank you! It drives me nuts when people talk about anything that goes wrong in the US as though their country were perfect. If you live in a country that doesn't have any downsides, let me know and I'll see about moving my family there.

Am I happy with the direction the US is going? Certainly not. Be it IP laws, corporate protection at the cost of citizens, or the attorney general claiming that the writ of habeas corpus is not granted by the constitution, I'm not happy with the way things are going. But the great thing about the US is that it has a good (though not perfect) mechanism for changing the direction every couple of years. Right now, the technically inclined are noticing problems with IP. If it becomes significant enough to become a political issue, the country can change course accordingly. In many respects, our country has been in worse situations before, but we've always recovered.

With regard to the grandparent post, the US, like any other country, may fall behind in a certain area for a while. But we're not so stupid to sit on our collective ass for 20 years and allow the country to fall horribly behind the rest of the world.

Re:not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

With regard to the grandparent post, the US, like any other country, may fall behind in a certain area for a while. But we're not so stupid to sit on our collective ass for 20 years and allow the country to fall horribly behind the rest of the world.

So you would like to think but there are enough counterexamples to prove otherwise.

Re:not to mention

[JackieBrown]

You forgot to name the "counterexamples."

Re:not to mention

[kfg]

Europe is taking our shiny new copyright and patent crap and running with it. . .

It's called the Berne Convention Treaty. America was shoved into coming in line with it; and ran with it.

America's shiny new copyright and patent crap is firmly rooted in the monarchial grants of absolute right and trade guildism that America's founding fathers firmly rejected.

Too many powerful people around the world want control of their respective economies, and one way you do that is by manipulating and suppressing technological advancement.

And adoption of the Berne Convention Treaty was one of the first signs that America was heading down this path. We gave up being the industrial might driving the economy of the world for being a bunch of paper traders.

If they can manage to hold themselves together as a nation China wins. If not India wins. In any case, we lose as our bits of paper become worthless on the international market.

Jesus we used to make some good stuff.

KFG

Re:not to mention

[Arivia]

Thank you! It drives me nuts when people talk about anything that goes wrong in the US as though their country were perfect. If you live in a country that doesn't have any downsides, let me know and I'll see about moving my family there.

Cana-fuckin-da.

Re:not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The voters voted out the corrupt republicans and voted in the democrats (corrupt? most likely, but we will see)?
2. The democrats said that they would pull us out of Iraq? i.e. they promised something that they can not deliver, but apparently it sounds good.
3. The democrats signed off on funded ideas i.e. no new increases in debt. if true for the next year and a half, I will pull a straight ticket democrat.
4. Going after the corruption of W and the Republicans. Awesome. But why not push to open sibel edmunds? While She will take down a few dems, she will supposedly take out 50+ corrupt top republicans (including bush and cheney).

All of this sounds good, we will see if there is hope for America.

Re:not to mention

[Per Abrahamsen]

> It's called the Berne Convention Treaty. America was shoved into coming in line with it; and ran with it.

US made the mistake of joining Bern convention, EU made the mistake of copying the DMCA. Basically, every new limitation on the right of the public on either side of the is copied to the other side, in the interest of harmonization. For some reason, the harmonization never goes to the side that helps the public.

Re:not to mention

[Alef]

Too many powerful people around the world want control of their respective economies, and one way you do that is by manipulating and suppressing technological advancement.

Someone commented that corporations seem to go through three phases: First they are run by engineers, their technology is developed and to the extent that their sales are successful it is due to the technological merits or their products. Then, if they survive long enough, marketing people takes over, and they sell through effective marketing. This initially benefits the company. However, the technological level slowly stagnates, until it hardly moves at all. Finally, when others (newcomers in phase one) have surpassed the corporation, technologically, to such an extent that the products no longer sell well, it enters its third phase: lawyers take over to try to maintain the market position through lawsuits and manipulation of the lawmakers (this is where the record corporations are currently).

I'm beginning to wonder if this could be true also on a grander scale -- for entire countries or large regions. The western world has long been the technological leader in the world. But now, seeing others like China and India emerging as contenders for that position, those in power who benefit from the current situation try to lock it down, and maintain status quo. They do this instead of trying to be even more innovative and move forward, because that incurs a greater risk (at least short term). Eventually the ability to innovate is lost, others take the lead, and the cycle can repeat.

Re:not to mention

[ScrewMaster]

Eventually the ability to innovate is lost, others take the lead, and the cycle can repeat.

I tend to agree, but in the case of nations we are generally not talking about a cycle, but a decline.

Re:not to mention

[kfg]

For some reason, the harmonization never goes to the side that helps the public.

Follow the money.

KFG

Re:not to mention

[giarcgood]

Someone commented that corporations seem to go through three phases

For private companies this has usually been ascribed to the generations that owned them. You've got Grandpa that started it all and was successful enough to pass something along to his son. The son increases it a bit usually, but loses the focus of the original business. Then the grandkids come along and piss it all up against the wall.

Best examples at the moment in Australia are Packer and Murdoch. (Although James Murdoch appears to be doing ok). The rest of the third generation are burning cash faster than I could snort coke whilst swimming in champagne.

Re:not to mention

[Mandrake]

Well - China has many interesting problems to solve of their own even beyond 'holding together as a nation' - for example their educational system is going to need a major overhaul. They may be progressing, but education-per-capita in China is still particularly abyssmal.

They have been making some interesting strides - and they have been adapting to new problems they face pretty rapidly. I'd say there is a good chance that they will become the primary global economic player within 100 years, if not sooner.

Re:not to mention

[Zerathdune]

No, the cycle is simply much longer. roughly 1000 years ago (Give or take, I think) China was a formidable economic power, but they fell in the same trap that the west seems to be falling into now. meanwhile, today they are again on the rise.

Other countries

[Mazin07]

So they're going to say that Linux will really grow in countries like China and India, where street vendors hawk a variety of Microsoft bootlegs for less than $0.50?

I'm not seeing the appeal.

Re:Other countries

[mgiuca]

$0.00 $0.50?

Re:Other countries

[Hao Wu]

in countries like China and India, where street vendors hawk a variety of Microsoft bootlegs for less than $0.50?

Untrue. Chicken or dog cost at least many dollar. Half amount of carcass will trade for quality software more or less.

Re:Other countries

[canuck57]

So they're going to say that Linux will really grow in countries like China and India, where street vendors hawk a variety of Microsoft bootlegs for less than $0.50?

Any you pay $179....

Or should you pay $98 or $95...

The OS is a commodity, $9.99 at Walmart with Office is the Windows future. Lets face it a $5999 dual core system not to long ago goes for $599 today. Everything in personal computing has gone down but Microsoft. Eventually the cost and perceived benefit is going to change. I even predict Microsoft Linux some day. Maybe 2010. M$ isn't dancing with Novell for nothing, they are milking corporate America for what they can get before the big switch. Makes the CIO/CIO feel like they know something to see a familiar "Windows" screen in the data center, OK, make that 2012.

I call this PONIIC, Price Of Not Investing In Change.

But when push comes to shove, and the PACRIM $500 3 TB database appliance comes through the door with Linux inside it makes a poor case for $1999 of W2003 and MS-SQL and you haven't bought the hardware yet. Think - more people in China, India and Russia are learning Linux than there are users in North America. This will make the CEO question costs of PONIIC.

Microsoft knows where the growth is. That is why it is $0.50 in other countries an not in the US. Hold it off as long as possible. Nice way to beat anti-trust too because in theory it should be the same price in Taiwan as the US. Not technical reason, Windows is loaded with enough DRM and remote control a simple update could shut the pirates down in a shake.

Re:Other countries

[Harmonious Botch]

The appeal comes from not the miniscule lower cost of the OS, but the lower cost of the system required to run it.

Re:Other countries

[mgiuca]

God damned HTML...

$0.00 < $0.50?

(I'm just kidding, I love HTML).

Re:Other countries

[mgiuca]

Half amount of carcass will trade for quality software more or less.

So just to clarify, you mean, "Will trade for software of the same quality as half a carcass."

Sounds about right.

Re:Other countries

[Harmonious Botch]

So just to clarify, you mean, "Will trade for software of the same quality as half a carcass." Sounds about right. Sounds reasonable. I'd trade my old copy of W98 for half a dead chicken.

Re:Other countries

[Kuciwalker]

I call this PONIIC, Price Of Not Investing In Change.

It's actually called opportunity cost.

Re:Other countries

[FudRucker]

i live in the USA, i could buy the fanciest version of MS-Vista with all the bells & whistles but i wont and simply run my own customized build of Slackware because i have hardened enough to make even the most experience hacker and/or cracker give up and look for greener pastures, i dont have to worry about viruses & other misc. malware... the point i am making is GNU/Linux is finally getting more user base in the USA, that dreadful deal between Novell & Microsoft has a good side that GNU/Linux is being noticed by more & more people, small & medium sized business will start using GNU/Linux more, and like a snowball rolling down hill it will get bigger & bigger as more people see the benefits that GNU/Linux has to offer.

Re:Other countries

[cyber-vandal]

Yes the sooner we get people away from BSD/Windows the better.

Re:Other countries

[FudRucker]

the BSDs are ok... it is MS that can not seem to secure their OS, MS been churning out vulnerable OSs & apps since the early 1990s, they had over a decade to fix it and still cant get it right (or don't want to), i predict Vista will still be another rendition of the same old thing (vulnerable kludge)...

Re:Other countries

[Haeleth]

Lets face it a $5999 dual core system not to long ago goes for $599 today. Everything in personal computing has gone down but Microsoft.

Ignoring the obvious fallacy in your claim (many things have not become cheaper - not just software from other vendors, but also things like printer consumables are not significantly cheaper today than they were a few years ago), you are comparing apples to oranges, or rather hardware to software. Moore's Law leads us to expect massive depreciation of hardware. There is nothing comparable for software.

Outside the US for now

[NorbrookC]

I think the interesting thing about this is the projection of the greatest growth in the "BRIC" countries. I don't think it's so much that they aren't locked into Windows, as much as Microsoft has (inadvertently on their part) pushed it along. When MS started its big "anti-piracy" crackdown, it mostly hit in these parts of the world. Add in the high cost of Windows, and the ever-increasing hardware requirements for it, and a free OS that can run on existing hardware looks pretty darn good.

The problem desktop Linux is still facing is getting more penetration in the biggest market - the United States. There are still areas where improvements need to made, and in some areas, applications to be developed. One thing that we have to recognize is that MS is not going to give up its stranglehold on the OEM installed market. The only way Linux going to be able to make any strides is to recognize that the user is going to have to do the install, and to make it easy for them. There's a project going on for Ubuntu which shows some promise, called Winbuntu - it's a Windows installer for Linux. I don't know how it'll work out, but it shows the concept.

Re:Outside the US for now

[westlake]

MS is not going to give up its stranglehold on the OEM installed market. The only way Linux going to be able to make any strides is to recognize that the user is going to have to do the install.

You have written the obituary for Linux in the domestic consumer market.

This market is middle class.

This market is antithetical to everything the Geek stands for. If the Geek hasn't learned that lesson by now, he will have it pounded into him again and again over the next five years.

This market can and will bear the cost of the OEM Microsoft system install, as it has for over twenty-five years. No one wants the level of involvement with an OS implied by the do-it-yourself Linux install.

Entry level for the Vista Basic laptop at Walmart.com is $500. Vista Premium $850.

Re:Outside the US for now

[gbulmash]

You're forgetting a major factor here. Most people didn't learn the applications they use. They were *trained on them*. They never learned the program conceptually. They learned it procedurally... step-by-step.

If you change the steps, the order of the steps, or the location of the steps, and they're LOST. Not only are they lost... they're angry, unhappy, less productive, complaining, and in need of re-training. It doesn't matter if the new software is better or "just as good". It doesn't matter if the platform is better. They know how to be productive when they're following these specific procedures. If changing the software changes the procedures, you have to re-train them in the new procedures, and you have to deal with all the productivity lost while they learn and adapt. And that doesn't include the pushback from the ones who resist change out of fear or inertia.

Any exec or front-line salesperson who uses ACT!... never going to switch platforms until ACT! supports that platform. Seriously.

And that's where your hurdle comes in. Change is neither easy nor painless. Imagine a pain meter on a scale from 1 to 10. Let's say that Windows is a 5 and Linux or Mac is a 2. But the adjustment of switching is an 8. People will opt to stay with the 5. They know the 5. They know they can tolerate the 5. Because even though the 2 is promised, the 8 looms large in the immediate future.

What's going to prompt people to switch is when the combination of Microsoft arrogance and aggressive bad guys raise the pain of Windows to a 6.5, while the efforts of Linux and/or Apple developers lower the pain of switching to a 6.5 or lower. When switching is no more painful than staying the course (or possibly even less painful), you'll see the needles start to move in bigger ways.

Re:Outside the US for now

[HeroreV]

There's a project going on for Ubuntu which shows some promise, called Winbuntu - it's a Windows installer for Linux.

Thanks for the heads up, this looks fantastic!

For a long time it's seemed that few care about making Linux easy to get into for the average person. ("I can setup Linux, so it's stupid to waste time making setup easier. I'm faster with a CLI I've invested hundreds of hours in learning, so it's stupid to waste time making/improving the GUI.") However, this is clear evidence that some people really are working hard on making Linux easy as pie for normal people, and it really makes me hopeful.

If the Ubuntu Windows installer turns out like it is described on the Ubuntu wiki, I can definitely see it making a huge impact.

Re:Outside the US for now

[mikearthur]

Technically, the biggest market is the EU, which has will and has seen far greater growth than the US, according to the article.

Re:Outside the US for now

[HW_Hack]

""You're forgetting a major factor here. Most people didn't learn the applications they use. They were *trained on them*. They never learned the program conceptually. They learned it procedurally... step-by-step.""

Trained or mentored (on applications or OS operations) ---- the average non-techie basically learns by rote .... doing the same steps over and over until they become "proficient". As a front-line support person at a large high school I constantly see new employees who claim to be "PC proficient" crash and burn while trying to learn how to use OSX for the most basic computing operations. So in a terrible stroke of fate ..... they are already captured by MS. They've learned all they need to know and have other interests or things to do.

I believe there are only 2 things that will drive the "herd" away from MS offerings: cost or security. If the net continues to sprial down on security issues this may drive some folks to Linux or OSX.

However, being a glutton for punishment I plan to offer a Linux demo in the Staff lounge and may offer monthly "Linux Sessions" where staff can be assisted in loading Linux on their personal PCs etc.

OSS mainly outside of the USA

[timmarhy]

it's already been identified that the majority of OSS gets developed outside of the USA, i think you will find america's court system and patent laws are going to result in doing software business inside the USA to become very unpopular through the next decade. you'll end up with only massive corperate entities like MS able to cope with these entry barriers, and if you think you can rely on companies like MS for innovation......

Re:OSS mainly outside of the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

[long rant with lots of name-calling...]

In summary, shut the fuck up and let the adults speak.

My feelings exactly!

Re:OSS mainly outside of the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Give us just one example of MS innovation... real innovation that is, pls.

Re:OSS mainly outside of the USA

[dhasenan]

In their research departments. Other than that, they've just produced polished, integrated, cheap, or less obscure forms of existing software that was unpolished, unintegrated, expensive, or obscure. And that's a fine, if parasitic, business model, as long as innovative software has those flaws.

With open source software, we'll keep those flaws because we allow people to access our software before it's in a release stage. Microsoft will continue its time-shifting arbitrage until it dies, and I'm not sure how long that will be. They have twenty billion dollars to burn through, after all.

My 2006 report

[br00tus]

I should begin with that I am a confirmed Debian booster. I run Debian at home and love it. Anyhow, at work an old server was decommissioned and I was told I could have it, so I burned the latest unstable CD and tried to install Debian. No go. I have heard a lot about Gentoo but have never really played with it so I decided to try that. No - didn't work. So then I had some Red Hat CDs lying around so I tried that. No go again.

In years past I have always noticed that FreeBSD always makes it easy to install. Makes it easy meaning it recognizes hard drives, network cards, even 56K modems, without a problem. I installed FreeBSD with two 3.5" standard FreeBSD install disks a few years ago over a 56K modem with no problem. Like the Apple commercials say - "it just works".

I prefer Debian and Linux to FreeBSD, but Linux distros have a lot to learn from FreeBSD in terms of ease of installation. FreeBSD makes it really easy to install itself on a PC without barfing on network cards, hard drives and so forth. It was the same situation ten years ago when I was installing Slackware on multiple floppies versus my FreeBSD network installs. And from my experience last week, I see it still holds true.

Re:My 2006 report

[Urza9814]

Debian and Gentoo are a pain in the ass to install. Period.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of Mandriva. It also 'just works'. Even my wifi was detected and properly configured without any problems, without any messing with ndiswrapper or the CLI. I mean, you can set stuff up that way if you want, but I much prefer doing the config work AFTER I have a fully working system.

Re:My 2006 report

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are interested in an easy-ish way to install and run Debian unstable, consider http://sidux.com/ , which basically is in RC mode at the moment.

Re:My 2006 report

[frogstar_robot]

My experience with Mandrake a few years ago mirrored yours. Out of the box, things would be autodetected better than anything else and Just Work. Thing was, My Mandrake installs would rot faster than Windows 98. Updates never worked right and the online repositories would always be incomplete and flakey. Debian was a breath of fresh air. Harder to configure initially but I could stomp on my Debian boxes with heavy lead boots and I could never screw one up so badly that I couldn't get back in a healthy state easily.

My question is this: These days, how well do Mandriva systems do as time goes forward and you update and upgrade things? Should you decide to manually config things, will the GUI tools handle it seamlessly or barf obnoxiously?

Re:My 2006 report

[istewart]

On old hardware, I typically find myself reaching for FreeBSD before anything else. I came into possession of an old Pentium 133 with a CD-ROM drive that couldn't be booted from directly. The only Linux that would install was Damn Small Linux, and I disliked its behavior of booting from an image on the hard drive rather than installing to its own filesystem on the hard drive, so the next candidate was FBSD. It installed and ran great... the only caveat was that the 1GB hard drive was too small for a ports-tree install. Ever since then, I've kept FBSD handy at all times for whenever I run into an old machine.

Re:My 2006 report

[Urza9814]

Honestly, I've never used the upgrades. hah. You might have had a bad distro though. It seems that every other version is kinda crappy, though which ones work sometimes depends on your hardware. For example, 9.2 ran rock solid back when I was starting out...never had a single problem with it. 10.2 made me switch to slackware. NOTHING worked right. I came back though for 2006, and haven't had many problems yet, though it's a fairly recent install. I dunno if I'm the best person to be giving advice on this though...I'm only about halfway into the second year since I discovered linux. Still quite new to it.

Re:My 2006 report

[evilneko]

I took my first Linux baby steps on Mandrake, back when it was called Mandrake. I liked it, I think it's the perfect distro for windows refugees (disclaimer: I have not tried other friendly and windows-like distros, such as Linspire or Xandros yet) and even found the killer app that made me stick with Linux: screen. After that I cut my teeth installing Gentoo on aging hardware, and then Debian. Debian is a breeze, compared to Gentoo.

Re:My 2006 report

[frogstar_robot]

These days, I use Ubuntu for Desktop use but I still come at it like a Debian guy. When I got into Ubuntu, they were faster at getting desktop and multimedia candy than Debian unstable. Once Etch releases, I might even go back. Once I get my Ubuntu systems installed, I just use dpkg, apt-get, and checkinstall as though I were still a Debian user (incidentally I've been running Debian on servers for years. The impedance match for that remains spot-on). I'm largely unaware of Ubuntu specific management tools since I still use a home directory that goes back to my Debian days. I basically have been treating Ubuntu as a more current set of packages rather than something that has a different ideology than Debian. Hell, Debian Unstable oftentimes has some new toy I want; the desire for a current KDE got me into Ubuntu in the first place. I often rebuild Sid sources against my Ubuntu desktops then install. I'm reluctant to install Debian binary debs in my machine but I won't hesitate to rebuild their sources against it. Come to think of it, that may be the best policy. Ubuntu has a new desktop release every six months and those tend to be well polished. If I want to be even more current on some minor item then rebuild Debian's latest against it.

You can have your stable cake and eat the latest and greatest too. It just takes a little knowledge and effort. If you don't want to take the time for knowledge and effort just run Fedora's, Ubuntu's, or Mandriva's latest supported distro and wait. All good things will come to them eventually.

Re:My 2006 report

[Anonymous Coward]

"I dunno if I'm the best person to be giving advice..."

Hey, don't let that stop you, this is slashdot! :)

Re:My 2006 report

[Urza9814]

I've never managed to get the ubuntu installer to even start on my computer. Damn thing just won't run. A friend was trying to try out Linux and was recommended Ubuntu, and had the exact same problem. I pointed him to Mandriva and he hasn't had a problem since. So I tend to be bias against Ubuntu. But I know more people personally that have seen it fail than have seen it work.

Re:My 2006 report

[zx-15]

I had the similar problem running debian testing on older hardware, I work with first generation Compaq DL380/580 . In particular installer doesn't like some SCSI controllers, however this problem is easily solvable by installing base system of debian stable, using network install cd, then going to /etc/apt/sources.list and replacing stable mirror with unstable/testing, and then performing distro-upgrade. Works like a charm if you want to have a newer system on the older hardware.
The only problem with this approach is that when updating the kernel from 2.4 -> 2.6, apt tries to remove 2.4 on the working system! so you first would have to install latest version of the 2.6 kernel for debian stable (it's 2.6.8 i think, then do dist-upgrade) and then install the latest kernel e.g. 2.6.18-3(etch) or 2.6.19(sid).

Re:My 2006 report

[Firehawke]

I really don't want this to sound like I'm trolling, based on the content, so be warned in advance.

About three years ago, I ran into a server (HP, if I recall correctly) that had the strangest problem I'd ever seen: Neither Gentoo or FreeBSD would run on the thing. You could install it, but the thing would randomly kernel panic within 5 minutes of being up, and you couldn't trace where exactly the crash was.

If, on the other hand, you shoved Windows XP onto the thing.. it would run perfectly fine.

To this day I'm still not quite sure what was wrong with that box.

My point? Nothing's perfect. The problems you described having aren't necessarily indicative of problems with the distro-- of course, you didn't really go into any real detail on WHY the installs failed-- and for every report of one of a "Linux just won't work on this machine" type of trolling (not saying you are, but I see those all the time around here) in favor of BSD or whatever there's a thousand reports of it just being fine on a given hardware.

Your mileage may vary, I guess...

Re:My 2006 report

[strider44]

This is a post for 2006 not 2003. I'm serious here - even the difference between kernels 2.4 and 2.6 is a huge one so you shouldn't get discouraged by one problem that happened 3 years ago.

The answer to your problem though is that it's probably a hardware issue, I'd guess RAM. You should have run memtest86 on it. It's anecdotal evidence though and pretty irrelevant - I had a graphics card that would work fine on Windows but due to a fault I believe in the framebuffer got image corruption on Linux. They're different operating systems, that's all. You can easily have a piece of hardware that fails on Windows but works fine with Linux (something I had on both systems I've personally upgraded to Athlon 64s that could only be fixed with a complete format and reinstall)

Re:My 2006 report

[Firehawke]

In a way, by misunderstanding my point you've proven it. I'm saying exactly what you're saying in reply to br00tus -- I'll quote:

'I should begin with that I am a confirmed Debian booster. I run Debian at home and love it. Anyhow, at work an old server was decommissioned and I was told I could have it, so I burned the latest unstable CD and tried to install Debian. No go. I have heard a lot about Gentoo but have never really played with it so I decided to try that. No - didn't work. So then I had some Red Hat CDs lying around so I tried that. No go again.'

Okay, we have Linux issues without a precise description of WHAT was barfing..

'In years past I have always noticed that FreeBSD always makes it easy to install. Makes it easy meaning it recognizes hard drives, network cards, even 56K modems, without a problem. I installed FreeBSD with two 3.5" standard FreeBSD install disks a few years ago over a 56K modem with no problem. Like the Apple commercials say - "it just works".'

Now we have a comment about FreeBSD working. Essentially meaningless in the context you and I agree on.

As for the machine I was speaking of, memtest came out roses. I really should have noted that in the original posting. In the end, I was forced to give up and leave it on Windows until my workplace could replace the machine with something a bit more modern.

Re:My 2006 report

[wolf08]

Same here. My baby steps were done with mandrake 8 and 9. I think that they go a LONG way to making things seem 'normal' to windows users.

Re:My 2006 report

[FishWithAHammer]

That's not what normal people call "easy."

Re:My 2006 report

[el_chicano]

My question is this: These days, how well do Mandriva systems do as time goes forward and you update and upgrade things? Should you decide to manually config things, will the GUI tools handle it seamlessly or barf obnoxiously?

I had a box at work (a small web server) that I upgraded from 2005 Free to 2006 Free and only a few things broke. Most of the problems I could fix pretty easily using the GUI tools, but some of the stuff needed fixing through the command line.
 
I tried to upgrade that same box to 2007 Free and LOTS of stuff broke. The biggest problem was that Apache went from 2.0 to 2.2, which broke a lot of web-related stuff. Since the main reason I was using Mandriva on that web server was because it was extremely easy to update I was disappointed when I found out it updated Apache to 2.2 without giving me a choice about the matter.
 
I ended up having to futz with that box to try to get it to work right once again and after spending about eight hours trying to get it fixed I finally gave up. I ended up installing CentOS Server 4.4 on that box; believe it or not it took less time to get CentOS configured the way I wanted than the eight hours I had wasted trying to fix the problems that arose with Mandriva 2007.
 
Don't get me wrong, I am still a big fan of Mandriva but I am still deciding whether I should go the upgrade route with my 2006 box at home or if I should reinstall from scratch. I will probably add another hard drive and do a new installation. Good thing I went to separate /etc /home and /var partitions years ago!

Novell or ODSL?

[alext]

Is ODSL funded by Red Hat as well? Seems to have a Novell slant, to the extent of (ludicrously) claiming that cross-platform development is "finally" available with Mono 1.2. Like it wasn't with Java?

Anyone care to estimate how many companies put Linux in place to run Mono vs. Java?

Re:Novell or ODSL?

[Hymer]

I don't really think that anyone is really interested in .NET, Mono is good to have in the same way wine is good to have but as soon as you kill the last WinBox in your company you don't need any of them anymore.
As I see it .NET is a good way for profit maximizing for sw. compnies: developers can make their job quicker and the companies are selling the product more expensive (Pay $$$, this is new technology)... and the final product is not any better and is not easily portable (mostly because it is heavily relying on components wich are part of the OS).
--
the truth is the truth... even when you doesn't like it.

Still a number of years, being realistic here

[notoriousE]

While Linux is gaining a little bit of ground on the desktop, I think it will take another 5-10 years before the average joe will be able to switch. I figure in that amount of time most applications will be web-based and subscription based and therefore able to run on any platform. At that point, why NOT run Linux, BSD or OSX? You won't be tied down to some proprietary application on a dying platform.

Re:Still a number of years, being realistic here

[timmarhy]

avg(joe) won't swap untill 2 things happen. flash runs as well on linux as it does on windows, and games run.

Re:Still a number of years, being realistic here

[notoriousE]

Flash 9 is out for linux and runs fine I think the gamers are going to start gravitating towards consoles in the next 10 years as well.

Re:Still a number of years, being realistic here

[magixman]

The "average joe" will never switch to Linux. Instead he will eventually buy a computer from Wal-Mart for $169 and he won't know or care about the fact that the OS is *nix. What will drive the mass defection to Linux will be the shrinking cost of PCs which increases the portion of the cost paid by the manufacturer for the OS making it more attractive to pass on the conventional OEM arrangement with Microsoft. Hardware manufacturers drive the adoption of the desktop operating systems more than evangelists.

Driving the Linux Desktop in 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

The press on Vista is so bad right now, it should really be used to push Linux adoption on the desktop in 07.

I myself switched to Ubuntu on my home desktop because of Vista-fear.

Re:Driving the Linux Desktop in 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

For me Vista is irrelevant. I switched my parents to Ubuntu when they wanted a new laptop to replace their old iMac. They LOVE it, and these are people who are generally quite computer-phobic (which is why I previously got them an iMac).

Re:Driving the Linux Desktop in 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

I myself switched to linux because the cracks for xp got to be a pain with service packs and other updates.
Also, I like warez for amazing audio+graphics packages etc, but I'm bored of it. The only things I actually need on a computer are fairly boring, and ubuntu linux does them ok.

Inside Out.

[twitter]

the high cost of Windows, and the ever-increasing hardware requirements for it, and a free OS that can run on existing hardware looks pretty darn good.

Is there any place that this is not true?

It's not happening

[Animats]

Every year, I see these "Linux is ready for the desktop" articles. But it never happens. Back in 2004, WalMart offered a $499 Linux laptop. They don't do that any more. Lenovo, HP, and Dell have fooled around with Linux laptops, but try to order one on line. Search for "linux laptop" on Dell, and you get back "Dell recommends Windows Vista(TM) Business." There are some off-brand Linux laptops available, but they're overpriced.

Linux on the desktop looked closer three years ago than it does now.

Re:It's not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

that is so funny because there was so much praising around here about that and people claiming they finally reached the milestone.

Linux... One step forward... two steps back

Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[starseeker]

KDE in its current form is quite usable for most common purposes, and those abilities it doesn't have can probably be added as widespread adoption takes place. OpenOffice has its faults but it usually does the job. I would say at this point, it's not Linux as Linux that's the holdup. It's:

1. Legacy systems, documents, and most importantly user training in said systems and documents. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" rules when computers are the tool rather than the end goal in and of themselves, and it's hard to fault that logic. If you change your systems you're effectively "breaking" your employees in terms of their productivity, and fixing them is quite a job. It's only justified when the end benefits are worth the pain, and to be fair in most cases they probably aren't, at least in the short term. And we all know how good capitalism is at thinking long term.

2. Compatibility with the largest possible market segment. If your customers/suppliers insist on dealing in old formats (see #1) then it's rather hard to force them to change. And every minute spent dealing with such issues is one less spent on work related to producing something.

3. Costs of retraining your IT department and switching your software/machines. Yes it will take time - hardware support, IT helpdesk training, identifying and testing replacements for currently used apps, etc. Not painless at all.

I would say Linux was "ready for the desktop" several years ago, or at least as ready as Windows. KDE and Gnome are excellent systems for most users, once installed and configured properly. (That's what admins are for - work PCs are not normally maintained directly by users, regardless of OS.) Now the problem is revealed as being rather deeper than originally anticipated - it's not JUST Linux that's the problem, it's change period.

For home use, people want to play media and install thousands of commercial specialty packages, which are all written for Windows. More legacy software issues, with no budget or interest on the part of the people writing them (why target an uncertain platform populated by geeks who give stuff away?)

The problems aren't technological now - I would say they can be more accurately characterized as inertia. It's hard to give people reasons to switch from something that works, even when the new thing is BETTER than the current one. Linux, due to legal constraints as well as not quite 100% compatibility with things like Word formats, is not and probably CANNOT become (legally) a drop-in which is better in all cases.

Personally, I think the only hope for a massive switch to an open source OS is one where the software is written in such a fashion that it can be PROVEN (mathematically) to be secure/crash proof/what have you. Such a verifiable guarantee might gain enough interest/momentum to be worth the massive shifts that still have not taken place, but I am aware of no other lack in the marketplace severe enough to warrant it.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[starseeker]

Indeed, installing drivers is a problem, but not one that can be solved only on the Linux side.

So long as hardware manufacturers want to keep secrets to themselves inside binary driver code, Linux will have difficulty supporting newer hardware well. I think projects like that open graphics card would be a big step in the right direction, but of course the latest and greatest NVIDIA card will always have this problem. Then, too, patents come into play in this arena.

A graphical "install this driver" setup wouldn't be hard - the problem is much lower level than that, and may actually be as much philosophical as anything else (I'm not a kernel expert).

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[banerjek]

It's hard to give people reasons to switch from something that works, even when the new thing is BETTER than the current one.

I wonder how many linux users prefer the Dvorak key layout even though it's far superior and has been supported for many years? Once a base level of functionality is reached, most people aren't interested in messing with something that seems good enough for practical purposes.

Normal people shouldn't care any more about what OS their computer uses any more than they care what OS is in their phone, VCR, car computer, or whatever.

I could use linux on the desktop, but don't because there are too many problems I'd have to work around. On the other hand, I strongly prefer it for servers because it's more versatile and easier to maintain than MS.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[mgiuca]

This is mostly true, but one of the things being pointed out recently with Vista coming out is that switching from XP to Vista will require almost as much training as switching from XP to Linux. So now is the perfect time for companies to, rather than upgrading to Vista because MS tells them to, to finally break the cycle, migrate to Linux and run their own software the way they want to run it.

Now for my Software Engineering / Computer Science knowledge:

Also as far as mathematical proofs go, well that's just infeasible I'm afraid. By this I mean, it is mathematically impossible to make proofs in most languages because they are so nondeterministic (this reduces to the Halting problem). Modern languages may be designed with proofs in mind (functional and logic languages like Haskell and Mercury) - now for these it is technically possible to make "proofs" but if you want to automate a proof on anything more complex than Hello World or a simple computation, it's going to take an exponential amount of time.

For more realistic proofs, you do hardcore system testing, establish reliability measures, etc, etc boring statistics stuff, to come up with a "0.00001% chance of failure per hour" or something like that.

But really, this is all academic crap that nobody in the "real world" will listen to - and it's silly to think that businesses will throw away Windows and adopt Linux just because some professor says it's "proven stable". Linux is already well-regarded to be a far more stable/secure platform than Windows but it doesn't do us a lot of good.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[Trelane]

for regular windows users its hard to come to terms with installing drivers using command line.

Good news, then. You don't have to install anything with the command line.

windows is far superior in terms of installing stuff.

I humbly disagree. I find installing drivers much much easier under linux (namely, you don't have to; your hardware is pretty much supported out of the box or not at all). Installing software is easier too, unless it's not provided by your distribution. In that case, it's exactly the same as Windows, as you click on an installer to install the software, unless your software vendor is a jackass (I'm looking at you Mathworks and Wolfram). There is an InstallShield installer available, just like Windows. The autopackage installer seemed pretty nice too.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[Skewray]

You will note that, according to the Executive Overview, there is no KDE, only GNOME. Was the report written by Americans?

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[scotch]

I wonder how many linux users prefer the Dvorak key layout even though it's far superior and has been supported for many years?

Ha ha, yeah, if the Dvorak key layout is "far superior" it should be trivial to prove this superiority to the world. Don't hold your breath.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[dhasenan]

You don't need to go to the command line to install any drivers in Linux (unless you have particular issues).
  - Any drivers necessary that are in the Linux kernel will be automatically detected in most distributions.
  - The major proprietary drivers for Linux are nVidia / ATi binary drivers. The ATi driver, at least, has a graphical interface that does everything the command line tools do (at least their default settings).
  - ndisgtk means you don't have to use the command line even to set up an ndiswrapper.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[dhasenan]

But the executive summary doesn't mention GNOME, either. GNOME isn't mentioned until Section 3. KDE would have been mentioned had it had recent developments regarding Portland, ODF, accessibility, or Samba. Whether this means that KDE already has the functionality and GNOME is catching up, or that GNOME has these features and KDE does not, I do not speculate -- I don't think about those features; the only one I use is ODF.

Both KDE and GNOME are mentioned in Section 5. Neither are mentioned in sections 1, 2, 4, or 6.

This is clearly a vast conspiracy, and everyone from Tierra del Fuego to Baffin Island is involved. You have it exactly right, Skewray.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[Dan Ost]

An interesting discussion of the "Superiority" of the Dvorak keyboard
is at http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html

According to this article, the studies that "proved" that Dvorak was a
better keyboard were all flawed in very significant ways.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[Haeleth]

Good news, then. You don't have to install anything with the command line.

What distro are you using? I use Ubuntu, which I had been given the impression was one of the least maintenance-intensive options, and I have had to install dozens of things from the command line to get everything I need working, as well as editing configuration files by hand, etc.

I find installing drivers much much easier under linux (namely, you don't have to; your hardware is pretty much supported out of the box or not at all).

Unless you want to use your expensive high-performance graphics card properly, of course. At which point you start running into nasty difficulties. If your distribution provides proprietary drivers at all, the ones it provides are likely to be very out of date compared to what the vendor provides. My experience with NVidia has been that I have to install NVidia's drivers manually. And that means my desktop breaks every time my kernel is updated slightly, dumping me unceremoniously at a command line until I reinstall the drivers all over again.

No great problem for me, because I'm an unashamed nerd who's comfortable with Unix. I like the command line. But would I ask anyone less confident to put up with that? No chance.

Installing software is easier too, unless it's not provided by your distribution.

Which it easily might not be, if it's anything out of the ordinary. And even if it is, centralised repositories tend to be rather out of date.

For example, recently I needed to access some stuff on an old Windows drive, and I was overjoyed to discover that Ubuntu Edgy had ntfs-3g in (IIRC) universe. But the performance sucked accessing large files, which was odd, because the ntfs-3g site claimed they'd fixed that problem. Probing a little deeper, I found that the reason was that the version Ubuntu provided was months out of date; installing a current version by hand fixed the problem. Fine for me, but that's no comfort for Auntie Ethel.

In that case, it's exactly the same as Windows, as you click on an installer to install the software

I'm trying very hard to think of a single instance where I have installed Linux software by "clicking on an installer". And I cannot think of one. Not a single occasion.

I can think of a few times where I've installed stuff from downloaded package files, which works fine where there's a package for your distro and is utterly useless when there isn't. And I can think of several times where I've installed stuff from binary tarballs by running an enclosed installation script from the command line, which generally works for recent releases and fails miserably for anything older.

But most of the time, when I install stuff my distro doesn't provide, I've had to do so with the good old ./configure && make && sudo make install incantation. Which would be fine if that incantation always worked - even my grandmother could probably be coaxed into pasting that into a terminal window with sufficiently detailed instructions. Unfortunately, it's usually more of a case of ./configure; less INSTALL; find . -name INSTALL; less doc/INSTALL; [install obscure dependency]; ./configure; ./configure --help; ./configure --with-obscure-dependency-path=/path/to/obscure-de pendency; make; emacs src/foo.cpp; [fix code that presumably worked with whatever g++ version the developers used]; make; sudo make install... and if your grandmother can cope with that, she has my utmost respect.

There is an InstallShield installer available, just like Windows.

That's largely irrelevant, though, because basically nobody uses it, and obviously you can't use it to install software that doesn't explicitly support being installed that way. It's potentially of interest to developers, but to users it's meaningless.

The autopackage installer seemed pretty nice too.

Yes, it's very nice. Unfortunately, basically nobody uses it, etc.

Re:Desktop linux is in good shape, now it's users

[Anonymous Coward]

> centralized repositories tend to be rather out of date.

I've always wondered with all the discussions about Linux "needing a unified installer" etc., why the true power of Open-Source was never leveraged in such a way as to come up with a unified package building system that uses the source code directly from project XYZ's site. Kind of like portage but decentralized. Slackware's SlackBuild scripts might be the closest thing to it, but it would need to be distro-independent as in work on every distro. There could be a centralized repository for such scripts, but the source would be downloaded directly from the dev site. This would also make things easy for security updates and so on. I don't get why I need to see 15 different security announcements and package releases from various vendors for the same exact issue...

My experience

[DarkWicked]

As a relatively new linux user, I can say that I've seen significant progress in the ease of use and functionality in just one year.

I started with Fedora Core 5, got jealous of some of the functionality of my girlfriend's Ubuntu, and I'm now extremely satisfied of Fedora Core 6 which brought all the functionality it lacked and even great extras I didn't know I needed like the desktop effects (xgl/compiz).

An example of the graphics issue mentioned.

[AltGrendel]

If anyone wants to have an idea on just how tough it can be to get a binary graphics driver running, just check out the ATI forums at phoronix. It's a painful process though I will say one thing. While I can't run beyrl, I now have one hell of a FPS speed on my older ATI 9000 chipset graphic card.

Next time, it's going to be Nvidia.

Re:An example of the graphics issue mentioned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Binary drivers are hard to get working on windows too.

A lot of Windows computers use some (slow) generic windows vesa driver, with the 3D hardware just sitting idle.
A lot of laptops come with Windows pre-installed, but no 3D driver, and no sign of what 3D chip is actually in there.

Please type the word in this image: [_ ] [Submit][Preview] ???, disables addblock, ahh! _that_ image!

Re:An example of the graphics issue mentioned.

[MooUK]

I've had absolutely no trouble getting the binary nvidia driver working under Ubuntu Edgy. Nor any trouble getting Beryl to run. (And the results are most prettiful.)

OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[AusIV]

OSDL = Open Source Development Lab. I had to look it up. Thought someone else might be wondering.

Re:OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to look it up.

You must be new here.

Re:OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[cyphercell]

LOL Hey, GP. It's where Linus Torvalds works.

Re:OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[marcosdumay]

OSDL are your hosts here at slashdot. Few people don't know them, and you could just look at the very first links at /. page.

Re:OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[AusIV]

I recognized the acronym, but I didn't know what it stood for. I know slashdot hardly qualifies as a journalistic publication, but even so I think it's bad practice to have an entire summary without ever mentioning what an acronym stands for.

Re:OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[lord_rob the only on]

OSDL are your hosts here at slashdot

Nope, actually, Slashdot is hosted by the OSTG, this acronym meaning Open Source Technology Group.

Re:OSDL = Open Source Development Lab

[millermj]

FWIW (For What It's Worth), OSDL has become like SGI (Silicon Graphics, Inc.) or KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken). What the acronym once stood for is meaningless today. IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) OSDL used to hardware hosting organization -- a way that developers could get access to hardware in their lab. OSDL doesn't do that any more (that I know of anyway), and instead is best known as Linus's employer, and a membership consortia where the big companies who want to see Linux succeed work together to reduce adoption barriers.

Regardless, since OSDL and the FSG (Free Standards Group, maintainer of the LSB (Linux Standards Base) spec) have now merged, it's all the Linux Foundation (LF) now anyway.

Anyhow, because of all this, I'm now going back to not spelling out TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) effective as of the end of this sentence. L8R

So here is my progress...

[paniq]

I switched my Gnome desktop theme about 20 times last year, unable to decide whether a Vista-styled theme was glorifying or mocking the competition.

Then I decided that I still prefer Clearlooks.

Boy, what a year.

Re:So here is my progress...

[that this is not und]

I like FVWM, but then it's not a lot different than TWM, and TWM is installed by default as part of the X11 distribution that is part of the 130M base install of NetBSD.

What I 'prefer' is bare clean useful functionality. And desktop menus created by editing plain text .dotfiles, since I know enough vi to get that accomplished easily.

Re:So here is my progress...

[paniq]

Gesundheit!

Printing

[smittyoneeach]

Some kind of corner has been turned for the GNU/Linux desktop in 2006.
I light off cups (that is, go to http://localhost:631/ in FF), enter th IP address of the printer in the obvious place, and stuff works.
It's a cheezy home wireless network; I really want the Dumbest Thing That Works, realizing that if there is a reset, DHCP may re-jigger things.
Trying to figure out how to set a printer by IP in that other OS has baffled me. It's an Easter Egg hunt gone ronngg. The quest for simplicity has been abandoned at a variety of levels.
At least I only have to suffer that OS at work.

Re:Printing

[frogstar_robot]

Some kind of corner has been turned for the GNU/Linux desktop in 2006. I light off cups (that is, go to http://localhost:631/ in FF), enter th IP address of the printer in the obvious place, and stuff works.

That ass Raymond not too long ago held up CUPS as example of things FOSS is doing wrong. I hate that sometimes. A lot of very talented people did hard and thankless work to make things work as well as possible and all some can do is bitch about what doesn't. I'm no fanboi. I know there things that could work better. But ESR's brand of "constructive criticism" is one we can well do without. You're right. With decent hardware, CUPS can work well and not be all that hard to deal with.

Re:Printing

[zcat_NZ]

Browsing to http://localhost:631/ in firefox to configure your printer is one of the totally counter-intuitive things ESR was complaining about. Browsing to some random port on localhost is like having to tweak a registry key in XP, and it should not be necessary or tolerated for anything a 'normal user' is likely to do.

If you want to add a new printer there should be an "add new printer" tool somewhere obvious, like under the System menu. Bonus points if it already detects the attached printer for you, and if the system can be configured to pop up the add-printer dialog any time you plug in a new printer.

Re:Printing

[unapersson]

What like:

System -> Administration -> Printing

followed by "Add New Printer".

Which takes you to a Wizard. So it's part of GNOME already.

Re:Printing

[MooUK]

On some distros, there *IS* an add new printer option in the system menu. Ubuntu, for example.

'Course, clumsy users can still cock things up, but they do that on whatever OS.

(I misconfigured a printer recently and couldn't work out why; I actually found it EASIER to fix the problem within the CIPS web interface)

Re:Printing

[zcat_NZ]

Yes, Ubuntu gets full bonus points; the add-new-printer dialog is in a very logical place, and quite easy to follow. All the printers I've set up have been detected in advance. And under "removeable drives and media" I can have the system bring up the appropriate dialog automagically when a new printer is plugged in.

Linux has come a long way

[alan_dershowitz]

I first tried Linux in 1997. At the time I couldn't imagine using it as a desktop. However, there were a few turning points for me:

1) GOOD package management. I started out on Redhat. Whenever anyone brings up RPM problems, they get reamed on Slashdot "RPM IS NOT A PACKAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM!" Well, once upon a time, there wasn't Yum or Red Carpet, and the best thing there was (RPM) was still hell to use. Now between RHEL and Gentoo, I rarely have to worry about not finding dependencies. Thank God.
2) 2.6 Kernel. The reason is because before 2.6, X under Linux always "felt" slow.
3. Firefox.
4. More expansive community, documentation. I remember in 1997 trying to get help:

ME: "I'm trying to do X and it's doing Y. Does anyone have experience with this? "
THEM: "RTFM"
ME, (looking): "The man page doesn't say anything"
THEM: "+b You've been banned, troll."

Now I look at the Gentoo install documentation and user forums now, and I am just in awe. Likewise for many of the other major distros.

Now that wireless is going smooth, the only thing I have to complain about is no matter what I do, font rendering is inconsistent and often ugly. But as of two years ago, I am a happy full time Linux user! Take this for what it's worth, I just wanted to share my experience.

Re:Linux has come a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

1) GOOD package management. I started out on Redhat. Whenever anyone brings up RPM problems, they get reamed on Slashdot "RPM IS NOT A PACKAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM!" Well, once upon a time, there wasn't Yum or Red Carpet, and the best thing there was (RPM) was still hell to use. Now between RHEL and Gentoo, I rarely have to worry about not finding dependencies. Thank God.

I started using Linux in 1995, with Slackware. Some time after that, I moved to Redhat. I had this Redhat 5.0 install that I upgraded all the way to Fedora Core 4, often incrementally using Rawhide packages. Every single upgrade was done in the command line, without using the CD-based upgrade. And up until Fedora Core 1->2 upgrade, every single one was done by hand with rpm -U. And believe it or not, this setup ran very well.

RPM isn't convenient to use manually, but it's not as bad as you make it sound. As long as you knew to use RPM in query mode, it was pretty simple to figure out which file had what you needed. And I recall rpmfind.net, which I used often.

Now dpkg is absolute garbage. It's no wonder the debian people made apt-get first.

2) 2.6 Kernel. The reason is because before 2.6, X under Linux always "felt" slow.

To me, X felt exactly the same with the 2.4 kernel.

3. Firefox.

Definitely. Those last couple of years with Netscape 4.x were just very unpleasant. I was very grateful for the Mozilla suite (I've never been a Firefox fan, though).

4. More expansive community, documentation. I remember in 1997 trying to get help:

ME: "I'm trying to do X and it's doing Y. Does anyone have experience with this? "
THEM: "RTFM"
ME, (looking): "The man page doesn't say anything"
THEM: "+b You've been banned, troll."

I'm sorry you had this experience, because mine differs dramatically. In 1997 the Linux users I knew were very competent (much more than the self-proclaimed Linux experts that are around today), and they didn't have this attitude problem you describe.

Re:Linux has come a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

My crycle with Redhat was:

1. Is there an RPM? yes.
2. Install RPM dependencies fail. Go to rpmfind.net
3. try to install 5 other RPMs. These have six other dependencies. Back to RPMFind.net.
4. OK, a few have RPMs, a few dont. Try to install the ones I find.
5. download source for missing dependencies.
6. build fails because it can't find GTK.
7. Spend a week looking at source and forums for problem.
8. month later, a new minor version of the library compiles and installs.
9. Finally try to finish installing the program I want in the first place. It won't install because it can't find the library I installed from source.
  10. I give up, with an extra 1.1 gigs of crap installed on my system.

And I know I am not alone in this experience. I undoubtedly will be called an idiot by someone for this, but I don't think dealing with this made anyone smarter, gave them any more credibility or built character. It just made RH a pain in the ass to use.

Re:Linux has come a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to call you an idiot. It mirrors my own old-days experience with red hat. But I went to slack instead and compiled everything I needed from source. A lot easier than trying to make rpm work as advertised..

Re:Linux has come a long way

[Jesus_666]

You forgot:

11. Months later you decide to upgrade to the next version of RedHat/Fedora and those packages you installed from source/third-party repositories generate conflicts with those from the upgrade that leave the system in a barely-usable state where it's easiest to just wipe the entire OS and reinstall.

The incompleteness of the official repos and the breakage that occurs when upgrading a system that uses anything besides official packages was what turned me off Fedora. Now I have just as much fun with Gentoo, just with better package management (and no breakage due to upgrades).

Re:Linux has come a long way

[DrDitto]

I first tried Linux in 1995 (Slackware). It was cool, but the install lasted a few weeks. Used HP-UX at work/school for most of the next 4 years. My home PC ran Windows NT 4.0 for most of the following 4 years. I never saw one crash or BSOD with NT 4.0. Stable as a rock.

Nonetheless, I tried Linux on my home PC again in 1999 (Redhat). Install lasted about a month. Tried Linux on my home PC again in 2001 (Debian). Better, but not as good as Windows 2000. Win2K was a great Microsoft release....just as stable as NT 4.0, but now games actually worked. Woot!

Tried Linux on my home PC again in 2003. Nope...getting hardware to work still took too much of my time. And I'm a techie.

During much of the past 6 years, Linux evangelists have proclaimed it "is ready for the desktop". Well I have used Linux on my desktop at work for the past 6 years. Yes, a great technical platform for scientific computing and software development. But sorry, unless things really have changed in the last 3 years, Linux is not an OS for casual home use. I keep trying, but I keep going back to Windows. Ubuntu looks promising, but I've been sold on a lot of promises.

Note: I've never had a Windows 95/98/Me product on any of my machines.

Re:Linux has come a long way

[jimicus]

Now I look at the Gentoo install documentation and user forums now, and I am just in awe. Likewise for many of the other major distros.

Things have improved drastically there, this is so true.

It pains me to say it, however, but there's still a few (some surprisingly major) OSS applications with mailing lists which your "you've been banned, troll" comment would be an understatement.

Re:Linux has come a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

"unless things really have changed in the last 3 years"

3 years? Development in the last 12 months has been dramatic. I frankly don't give a shit which OS anyone else uses, but development in Linux is pretty quick, certainly there has been a lot of change in 3 years.

I don't think that is true

[rolfwind]

Okay, first off three years ago Ubuntu was not out yet. It came out in late 2004. Desktop Linux has come a long way since Ubuntu's release (hell, Ubuntu came a long way. Now they have distros that based off of Ubuntu and fix their parent distro's shortcomings - like Mint Linux).

Two, I think the focus was on the desktop. Notebooks are slightly different animals. Sleep/Hibernate and all that fun, as well as many of them having their custom buttons on the keyboard.

Three, when I saw Walmart selling Linspire back in the day, I just thought "It's too early" and also Linspire made the mistake of trying to sell themselves as a cheap windows (Lindows). I think that is a mistake. It is not Windows, not compatible with Windows Apps more often than not - especially back then, and it was aimed at the wrong market.

There will be no year of Windows, but I suspect Linux will creep in more and more. Maybe it's just me though.

Re:I don't think that is true

[jt2377]

it seem like history is repeating itself. first it was RedHat, the first Linux distro with praise to dethrone Windows then Mandrake or SuSe and year after year with different distro. you're singing the same old song with different tune but it's still the same old song.

It's broken again. Fix it with free software.

[twitter]

Legacy systems, documents, and most importantly user training in said systems and documents. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" rules when computers are the tool rather than the end goal in and of themselves, and it's hard to fault that logic. If you change your systems you're effectively "breaking" your employees in terms of their productivity, and fixing them is quite a job. It's only justified when the end benefits are worth the pain, and to be fair in most cases they probably aren't ...

Funny how Microsoft has gotten away with just that. Every version of Windoze has a few pointless GUI changes and little real improvement, yet the Dells of the world push it out. Vista and Office 2007 mark the largest GUI change in a long time. Legacy software is broken. Where does that leave the user's "faultless" logic?

Free software interfaces are more stable. Window maker, is a Next clone and it's basics have not changed in fifteen years. There are several others, like the fvwm or olvwm, and Enlightenment, that have been just as rock stable. At the same time there have been many other excellent interfaces that have grown up. All of them are extensively customizeable so that you can have as much change in each as you like and they all work together, so you can mix and match. The same performance from Microsoft would have Windows 3.1 GUI be adequate, customizable still available and easily interchangeable with a dozen other excellent window managers. Right.

The same arguments apply to file formats and hardware. Vista is bringing with it .DOCX, the M$ "open" format with a 6,000 page spec. It's also going to obsolete 54% of exiting computers and 94% of them are not really "premium" ready, so their users will soon be disappointed by an upsell that degrades their actual performance. DRM promisses to make it all that much worse.

The real hope is that Vista goes nowhere. XP did not move hardware and it had much better driver and legacy application support at launch. It took four long years for it to be majority. People want new hardware and it's time for it to move. There are major improvements that are good for both performance users and people who want something small and quiet. If Vista's changes are so bad that it actually harms sales, look for Dell, HP and others to follow Lenovo's lead to make up the difference. That would break the M$ monopoly once and for all and then we would not have to worry about this upgrade train nonsense.

Vista - the Ow is Now.

Outside the Windows for now

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think the interesting thing about this is the projection of the greatest growth in the "BRIC" countries. "

Oh, I don't know. If we can get Kanada into the fold, then we'll have something to throw through Windows©.

What is BRIC, and why BRIC

[romit_icarus]

Interestingly, the article mentions BRIC countries. The BRIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC is a set of coutries poised for great economic growth this century.

So it's obviously a set of countries that Linux should be in..

It was of our own doing.

[Kadin2048]

Jesus we used to make some good stuff.

Amen. What's ironic, is that as I drove around certain parts of Western Pennsylvania a few weeks ago, is that it's not as if we don't have the capability to make "stuff" anymore -- the machinery, the productive capacity, is mostly all still there, albeit rusted, and the workforce is there, albeit unemployed and twenty years out-of-date -- it's just that the desire to do it disappeared and moved elsewhere, by virtue of some pieces of paper that swapped hands and certain handshakes between heads of state.

We have a government run by the "paper traders," as you put it, for their own kin; they have sold off the economy, piecemeal, to the benefit foreign interests and themselves, despite the obvious outcome: you cannot maintain a first-world economy and standard of living, when you are competing in a labor market with a billion-plus Chinese and Indian peasants. It just isn't going to happen, it's unsustainable: either the first-world country's costs and standards of living are going to sink, or the third-world's are going to rise, and the former is a whole lot easier and a lot more likely than the latter. (Think of it in terms of economic "mass," and of two bodies orbiting around each other; it's a lot easier to move 300 million people down towards the level of a billion poor ones than it is to move the billion up to meet the 300M.)

When the shell game is done, the U.S. is going to become a nation of aristocrats: the same paper-traders who have run the place into the ground, and thus knew from the beginning where it would end, and have moved their wealth into hard currencies; and everyone else, who will be stuck with their savings in a currency suddenly not worth the paper it's printed on (it's already not worth the metal its minted with), and forced to buy everything from abroad (since the country has long since ceased to produce anything of value), who will be stuck with the bill.

Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great empires, which, like many before it, was brought down not by invaders from afar, but from mismanagement and greed from within.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[kfg]

. . .it's already not worth the metal its minted with. . .

When I perform one of my own songs I like to do a little routine, offering a cash prize to whoever can identify the movie that is the secondary inspiration of the song, the primary inspiration being obvious, since the first words are "I know a girl."

I reach into my pocket and pull out a quarter:

"Oh sure," I say. "You're thinking it's only a quarter, but you have to remember, this is not just a piece of paper. It's hard currency; and when the shit hits the fan and the economy collapses, it will still be worth its weight in . . . adulterated zinc."

KFG

Re:It was of our own doing.

[bnenning]

US manufacturing output is rising. There are fewer *jobs* in the field, but that's largely because of automation, not foreign competition. China is losing manufacturing jobs too. As productivity rises, fewer workers can produce more. While this is often bad for those who lose their jobs, it's a net benefit to society; consider buggy whip makers, phone operators, secretarial pools, etc.

either the first-world country's costs and standards of living are going to sink, or the third-world's are going to rise, and the former is a whole lot easier and a lot more likely than the latter

Considering the consistent worldwide economic growth in the last several centuries (when not ruined by totalitarian regimes), which today is being accelerated by Moore's Law, the latter seems much more likely to me.

Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great empires

The US may lose its hyperpower status though any number of causes, but that's independent of whether standards of living rise or fall. The sun now sets on the British Empire, but I'd rather live in London today than in 1907.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so keen on being the BEST economy in the world, when you could be second or third best but still better off than today *in absolute terms*?

Division of labor makes life better for everybody involved. Yes, those who can't adapt to a changing world lose their jobs, but that's life. No one of us has a right to keep doing the same thing for decades and get paid for that.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[smoker2]

Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great empires, which, like many before it, was brought down not by invaders from afar, but from mismanagement and greed from within.

Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great financial empires, which, like many before it, was brought down not by invaders from afar, but from mismanagement and greed from within.

There, fixed that for you.

And to be true to the facts, the US has never been invaded by land, air or sea, and only rose to pre-eminence after WW1, mainly because it was not invaded, and so did not have its infrastructure decimated. WW2 compounded that advantage. It's easy to be smug when you've never had to face the enemy on your own doorstep. Also, I wouldn't say that a state of affairs that has lasted less than 100 years could be considered a "great empire".

Another interesting thing is, largely because you have never faced invasion and/or occupation, you have come to regard the rest of the world as your enemies. You have to keep watch on all fronts, because you have no true alliances. How is that going for you ?
The British Empire controlled most of the world at various stages, and yet we have cordial relationships with all our previous "dominions". And our empire lasted a bit longer than 100 years too.

And before anybody starts saying that without the USAs help in WW2, the British would all be speaking German, let me remind you that without the British forces, the USA would probably be speaking French. In fact it was due to the British daring to expect some money from the colonists to help pay towards that defence, that you went off and declared independence. Funny how when you "helped" us during WW2, we had to pay the money back, and are still paying, in one way or another.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[Lars512]

...it's unsustainable: either the first-world country's costs and standards of living are going to sink, or the third-world's are going to rise, and the former is a whole lot easier and a lot more likely than the latter. (Think of it in terms of economic "mass," and of two bodies orbiting around each other; it's a lot easier to move 300 million people down towards the level of a billion poor ones than it is to move the billion up to meet the 300M.)

In case you haven't noticed, standards of living have generally been increasing worldwide, maybe minus some African nations. Ask your parents, or grandparents if either are still alive. This isn't some zero-sum game where you only enjoy a nice life because others are suffering in poverty. Isn't the famous conservative economics creed: "a rising tide lifts all boats"?

What's more, short of a major war breaking out, the US will probably never "decline", but instead become gradually superceded by larger global bodies, until it no longer has the clout to flout international conventions, and instead becomes just another (large) global citizen. Some will mourn this loss of "empire", but lets face it, people have long looked to the Scandinavian countries anyway for examples of best-practice progressive policy and leadership.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[12357bd]

I still keep the faith in american people. When the objectives are correct (ie. science, progress, etc) and not dirty (ie. war, money) no other country in the world can match the american spirit. I am not american, but it feels sad to realize the truth in your post.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[Haeleth]

And to be true to the facts, the US has never been invaded by land, air or sea

Was it really never invaded at all during its various wars with Mexico, Canada, and so forth? I guess it's possible, if you discount raids where the enemy forces pillaged without attempting to capture and hold territory.

And before anybody starts saying that without the USAs help in WW2, the British would all be speaking German

That's bollocks anyway. Germany was doomed with or without America. What would have happened without the USA's help is that the whole of Germany would have joined the Soviet empire, instead of just half of it. (I observe, incidentally, that even after spending the whole Cold War under Soviet domination, the East Germans do not speak Russian.)

Re:It was of our own doing.

[Haeleth]

Isn't the famous conservative economics creed: "a rising tide lifts all boats"?

I prefer Mr Bush's version - "we ought to make the pie higher."

(I'm still not sure why people ridicule that one. Increasing the height of a pie will surely increase the volume of each slice just as effectively as increasing its radius will...)

Re:It was of our own doing.

[that this is not und]

You should have handed out nickels.

A quarter contians no zinc and somewhat less than 25 cents worth of a copper-nickel alloy. The US Nickel now has a bit more than five cents worth of metal content. The pre-zinc cent contains well over 2 cents worth of copper. (the cent was converted to copper-plated zinc in 1982. zinc is the metal they used to mint coins in Nazi Germany starting about halfway through WWI. go figure)

A few weeks ago, though, Congress passed a new law making it illegal to melt down cents or nickels to recover the metal content. Go figure.

Re:It was of our own doing.

[kfg]

The US Nickel now has a bit more than five cents worth of metal content.

Well that's what they get for making it a dumbass size.

KFG

Re:It was of our own doing.

[el_chicano]

I prefer Mr Bush's version - "we ought to make the pie higher."

(I'm still not sure why people ridicule that one. Increasing the height of a pie will surely increase the volume of each slice just as effectively as increasing its radius will...)

It is an proper-English-usage thing. While it is true that the three dimensions are length X width X height, if the height of one pie is greater than another people usually don't say that one pie is higher than another, they usually say that it one pie is taller than the other.

Think about it this way, if there were three shelves, one 2 units high, one 4 units high, and one 6 units high, a pie on the second shelf is higher than a pie on the first shelf, and a pie on the third shelf is higher than both the pie on the first shelf as well as the pie on the second shelf.

Economically, if you liken wealth to height, because the poor have fewer wealth units they could be considered short, the middle class would be mid-height, and since the rich have a lot of wealth units they could be considered tall. Which pie would be within reach of all? The lowest one, as the highest pie would only be reachable by the wealthy.

In my mind, while most of the mangled English of Bush's can be attributed to his being an idiot, this particular mis-statement can also be considered a Freudian slip as his desire to keep the pie higher accurately reflects his wish that only the wealthy supporters of the Republican Party should be able to benefit from his economic policies...

Re:It was of our own doing.

[el_chicano]

I still keep the faith in american people. When the objectives are correct (ie. science, progress, etc) and not dirty (ie. war, money) no other country in the world can match the american spirit.

I am an American and you just made me LOL. While it is true that historically the Americans have kicked ass in science, that scientific progress was not always accomplished through ethical means. Read up on the Tuskegee experiment to see what I mean...

Re:It was of our own doing.

[Anonymous Coward]

> short of a major war breaking out,
> the US will probably never "decline"

Funny...last I checked there *was* a major war going on...a two-front war no less. Perhaps soon to be 3-front war. Costly one too...

Re:It was of our own doing.

[Zerathdune]

zinc is the metal they used to mint coins in Nazi Germany starting about halfway through WWI.

The Nazis didn't come to power until after WWI.

Ripoff.

[Kadin2048]

Sounds reasonable. I'd trade my old copy of W98 for half a dead chicken.

Sounds like a bad trade to me. You can make soup out of that chicken, but what are you going to do with those Windows discs? Even sauteed, I think they'd be pretty tough.

Re:Ripoff.

[wellingj]

Sounds like a good trade on his end....

Linux needs Control Panel

[zx-15]

I think that desktop linux is not ready because it still plagued by a problem of text configuration files. I'm perfectly OK configuring my debian box from various files in /etc directory, however most of the users e.g. normal people aren't, and as long as proper GUI configuration tools, like Control Panel in windows, are absent from KDE/GNOME desktop environments I don't think that majority of people would like to use it. And these tools would not be there for some time, because a few distros currently support common location of configuration files, and LSB itself is a joke: "LSB compliant system is the system that supports RPM package management". So until these things are going to get sorted out Linux will get mainstream, which is, I hope, just a couple of years from now.

And, yes I'm aware of Red Hat system-config-* stuff, the problem is, these utils aren't that great, an they not that well organized.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[pembo13]

What do they lack? Yasy? system-config-* and KDE Control Center?

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[the_womble]

like Control Panel in windows, are absent from KDE/GNOME desktop environments

Like System Settings (kcontrol) in KDE and the Gnome Control Centre?

The few occasions when I have resortd to editing text files has been when doing things that the majority of people do not do.

There are lots of things for which Windows users need to edit the registry. This is usually more complicated than editing a Linux config file.

Stop Spreading FUD.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[miro f]

openSUSE YaST2 and control center actually manage to configure pretty much anything that you would need with the desktop without any issues (well, except for the fact that it's damn slow)

it's a shame no other distro has come up with anything nearly as good.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Zenwalk a slackware variant, it has exactly what you are looking for. In fact it is a stripped down distro that by and large does everything that windows does plus one hell of a lot more. It uses Xfce with the GDM manager and really is faster than any distro I have tried to date. If you understand about levels you can reset the login to 5 or 3 within an Xgui so that it makes changing video cards a breeze if you have to.

All the other configuration utilities work under X and you can even easily reconfigure you network, audio card and startup services from within X without having to drop down to level 4. Compared to changing video cards on windowsxp it is simple. Just use xorgconfig then startx if you screw up your video configuration. There is even a simple graphical video settings gui for those who are too lazy to use the macro ctrl+alt+plus.

Slackware and Zenwalk being closer to a true unix file system setup makes program installations a breeze and compiling code from source is just plain simple (if you do code for anything). The new editor Gainy is really easy to use for editing and debugging source code as well. Not to mention it is a really great little text and html editor.
The kicker is that you do not have to know squat about linux to use the system...all you have to do is be willing to type in a user name and password. I know this is an anathema to windows users but it is also the real reason windows just plain sucks.

All and all if you want a linux desktop that is so simple that even your mother could learn it then Zenwalk ranks up there with Ubuntu and is one hell of a lot less resource hungry. Because of Audacious it will also easily do Mp3s without the rediculous Debian and Ubuntu codec warnings!

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[flyingfsck]

So use Mandriva. It has MCC, which works better than 'control panel'.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[cyphercell]

openSUSE YaST2 and control center actually manage to configure pretty much anything that you would need with the desktop without any issues (well, except for the fact that it's damn slow) -- Not when you compare Yast to "Add/Remove Programs" in M$, then you think about it and Yast handles a lot more stuff, like an online repository, complex dependencies, security updates, etc., otherwise I couldn't agree more.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[Dilaudid]

I think that desktop linux is not ready because it still plagued by a problem of text configuration files. I'm perfectly OK configuring my debian box from various files in /etc directory, however most of the users e.g. normal people aren't, and as long as proper GUI configuration tools, like Control Panel in windows, are absent from KDE/GNOME desktop environments I don't think that majority of people would like to use it. I think you're wrong. I had to know what autoexec.ini was on windows 95, and Control Panel is not usable by most users, anyone who can use it can use a text file just as easily. Most users are quite content with a "I can't make it work, it's broken, but I can live without it" attitude, so the key thing is that the computer (mostly) configure itself - which on Ubuntu, it seems to do. Thank god.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[MooUK]

Ubuntu seems to have easier-to-find config GUIs than windows in some ways, although if you're too fixed on "this option is in this control panel section" then naturally you'll have to relearn where it is.

(This it the third post I've made in this discussion praising Ubuntu. This worries me. I'm no fanboy, or at last I thought I wasn't.)

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[FishWithAHammer]

I had to know what autoexec.ini was on windows 95

OK, and how many people use Windows 95 these days?

Right, thought not. You get no points for comparing Linux to an operating system released over a decade ago. Sorry.

(I'm a Linux user--typing this on my Kubuntu laptop, in fact--but this sort of crap gets on my nerves. Compare to TODAY, not to 1995.)

As for control panel--it's not that hard to use. In the past few years it's gotten very rare for me to have to walk someone through Control Panel; most people can figure it out themselves quite quickly. And kcontrol isn't up to that level yet.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

> LSB compliant system is the system
> that supports RPM package management

I agree. While I am fully in favor of standardizing common file locations, directories and so on I absolutely detest RPM being part of this. IMHO the LSB developers completely went over the line there. If anything, they should have included common guidelines for *source* packages as to make compiling on every distro possible without pain.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

> openSUSE YaST2 and control center actually manage to configure
> pretty much anything that you would need with the desktop without
> any issues (well, except for the fact that it's damn slow)

> it's a shame no other distro has come up with anything nearly as good.

And that's precisely what's wrong with the distro model of everybody re-inventing the wheel over and over again. It's ridiculous to hear, that a piece of hardware "works" on distro X but not on distro Y. It either works on *Linux* (as in kernel+common packages) or it doesn't. Why is there no central and common repository for hardware specs that front-end configuration utilities could simply use to look things up and incorporate into the machine-specific setup? This would even leave the distros free to use their own version of config tools in terms of look, layout and so on (a freedom of innovation that I think is important) but the base information is the same across the board. Why? Because the maximum horizontal/vertical refresh rates for a monitor aren't any different on Redhat than on Slackware or Ubuntu. Ditto for everything else.

Re:Linux needs Control Panel

[wilec]

You mean META level system utilitys like Suse's Yast2, Madrivia's MCC, etc. Then there are the tools in KDE or Gnomes control centers, which at least with KDE in Suse also have the capacity to launch Yast2 modules. Personally I find the GUI system management tools in Suse for example far superior to those in Windows XP Pro. I do still ocassionally head off to /etc with a text editor, but it is do things like customize the main menu icon on my kicker panel, that most people would not care to do. As for the use of plain text for most configuration files being a liability, I see it as a strength. I still remember the pain, hassles and hazards of huge monolithic and thus often corrupted binary config files in Windows and OS/2. As for LSB, I would like to see better and more consistent implementation made by distros but it is still far from a "joke".

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Oh, the Irony!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Your comment is correct. I spent two years in Haiti, the poorest in the western hemisphere. Did anyone run Linux, no. They used old hardware everywhere. Old hardware that would not run linux. I tried replacing the pirated copies with linux and failed! Bandwith is very expensice there at least when compared to Income levels. So downloading linux "for free" is actually much more expesive than the 50 cent Devils own copy of windows. You'd have to find an older version of linux that would run on the hardware ( unlikly in most cases) and then compare it the the windows equivalent. I'm sorry I love linux, but redhat 5 doesn't compare to win 2k on the desktop for new users. No, DSL linux didn't work doesn't matter beacause the oss applications running on top neccisary for real work ( openoffice or abiword) perform terribly on older hardware.

Technology flows from the first world to the third. They will be the last to get linux on the desktop, not the first.

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[marcosdumay]

First, Haiti is not BRIC. It really shows ignorance to state otherwise. Plenty of it.

Second, somehow those people managed to run Windows at old hardware... and you clam they couldn't run Linux?!?! Obviously, they haven't tried.

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[vtcodger]

***Your comment is correct. I spent two years in Haiti, the poorest in the western hemisphere. Did anyone run Linux, no. They used old hardware everywhere. Old hardware that would not run linux. I tried replacing the pirated copies with linux and failed! Bandwith is very expensice there at least when compared to Income levels. So downloading linux "for free" is actually much more expesive than the 50 cent Devils own copy of windows.***

Only too right I fear. Windows 3.1 will run satisfactorily with 8mb of memory. It'll crash every few days when its 64kb heaps fill up, but at least it will run. Windows 95 runs quite acceptably with 16mb of memory. My experience has been that even text mode Linux will have trouble with a machine with only 8mb of memory. e.g. it will be swapping to disk just to run man. I'm sure that it can be optimized to run better by using fewer consoles, etc. It'd be interesting to watch the "just download Ubuntu and go" crowd try to deal with one of these minimal machines.

If there is a Linux release that will run a GUI acceptably and do anything useful of old machines without much memory, I've never encountered it. My feeling is that to get anything like Windows 95 performance and capability out of linux you probably need a MINIMUM of 64mb of memory (and more than 500mb of disk storage probably). And that might be optimistic.

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[r1_97]

It's mostly lack of education in 3d world countries. Old versions of linux will run on old machine in command mode - no X. We could give them obsolete machines by our standards to run Linux but no one would know how to use them. Give them the education and they can earn enough to afford to buy more modern hardware and install the latest distributions. There's the irony.

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[ldj]

If there is a Linux release that will run a GUI acceptably and do anything useful of old machines without much memory, I've never encountered it. My feeling is that to get anything like Windows 95 performance and capability out of linux you probably need a MINIMUM of 64mb of memory (and more than 500mb of disk storage probably). And that might be optimistic.

Heh, many of us were getting better functionality (GUI and otherwise) with Linux in 1995 (before Windows 95 was released) than was ever possible with Windows 95! Much depends on your needs and willingness to learn something new. So don't assume your experiences and opinions are absolute truths. :)

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[Comsn]

( openoffice or abiword) perform terribly on older hardware.

openoffice is a microsoft office competitor. you cant run ms office 2006 on old hardware either.

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

NO, I TRIED. I was there for two years. I tried and the best buinesses int he country. The textile factories, the PRestige brewery, Barbencourt, hardware distributers. Most wouldn't accept ANY DISTRO. TRUST ME.

Re:Oh, the Irony!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No, but you can run office 95 or 97! where is the OSS equivelent?

Overlooked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is STANDARDIZATION. Linux will never make it until there is a hell of a lot more standardization. Not 50000 formats for releasing packages, but ONE that works everywhere. JoeSchmoSoft doesn't want to install 20 different distributions to test that their packaging works and to create, host, and support those 20 different package formats.

In Windows, one installshield package does everything on any Windows version.

Nor does Grandma Gertrude want to download all 20 to figure out which one works on her system if all she knows is shes running Linux. Even if she does grab the correct package, she certainly isn't going to be able to open shell, su to root, and dpkg -i or rpm -Uvh the file. She will double click it, see nothing happens, and give up.

Something like VFW would be welcome, I install a video/audio codec, and it works in all applications. Also, some cleanup of the video code in general, why is there no decent video output, opengl has tearing issues even with __GL_SYNC_TO_VBLANK = 1, Xv is really pixellated, I forget the others now, but none look nearly as good as the standard overlay in Windows.

Standardization of directory hierarchy. Does that executable go in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin? What about the conf file, is it in /etc, /etc/progname/, /opt/progname, /opt/progname/etc, ...? This may be my being 'used' to Windows, but I prefer each program has its own directory where all of its files are, that way I know exactly where to look, and I can have a nice overview of what is installed.

Some just general stupidity as well, like I was bored and decided to try SuSE, so I pop in the 10.2 minimal cd which lets you install over the network. I boot and first off it takes like 2 minutes to boot into the installer, and its running like I'm on a 386, and if you've ever booted off the minimal cd, you'll see it has no reason to run like that. Anyway, I suck it up and figure it'll be okay once everything is on the hard drive. So initial question is where do you want the installer to get the files from, I was on a laptop, so I hit network, wireless, enter my WPA key, and off it goes, grabs the installer files, launches the installer, grabs all the packages, installs, and reboots to finish the configuration. Except... this time it doesn't ask for my network settings, nor save the ones I entered earlier, so I end up hitting skip on a bunch of files it needed for ending configuration because it couldn't see my freaking network anymore.

So I figure oh well I'll just configure it by hand when it boots, so I reboot and after about 5 minutes of waiting for it to boot up to a login screen I just hit the power button and boot off the windows CD and remove all the partitions and reinstall Windows.

Note: It is not the hardware, I had a Gentoo install on it ever since I bought it that worked fine, I just got tired of waiting for crap to compile all the time, and was hoping for a 'no-hassle' installation.

Other general stupidity...

- I have to install like 300MB of libraries in order to run Firefox if I'm running KDE.
- I have to wait for all those libs to load every time I open Firefox off of a fresh reboot.
- Total lack of standardized advanced GUI tools. What tool is good for administering what programs start when the system starts up? What about when the user logs in to X? How about something that tells me what video codecs are installed, what audio codecs?
- No apps seem to be 'lightweight'. Look at my two favorite windows media applications, Foobar2000 and Mediaplayer Classic. Foobar2000 is a 1.6MB download, supports every audio format under the sun, and loads almost instantly on a cold start. The closest thing in Linux is AmaroK, which is a 20MB download, and loads slow as holy hell, and doesn't offer nearly the range of audio support foobar does. Now MPC is a 1MB download (3mb? uncompressed s

Re:Overlooked...

[ardor]

Most of your points are valid only if you manually install the components. Distros like Ubuntu do take care of the 300MB libraries etc.
Some others:

- Today RPM and DEB are the de-facto standard package formats. There are also GUIs for installing these packages, also handling dependencies. (gdebi for DEBs, I dont know how the RPM one is named.)
- GStreamer is something like VFW, and is gaining popularity. (Ubuntu uses it by default.)
- The directory hierarchy is irrelevant for the home user. Again, take Ubuntu as example. Who cares about where the executables are? Click on the menu, and thats it. Also, its not hard to remember that /usr/bin contains distro stuff and /usr/local/bin manually installed things. (local should be renamed, though.)
- The SuSE issue is definitely a design error. Note however that Windows has similar issues as well.
- Loading the libraries is slow, yes, partially because of missing symbol visibility (all symbols are loaded). KDE will make use of the gcc visibility feature to address this. As for Firefox, I don't know.
- *Advanced* administration is best done via command-line, because it has much greater flexibility than a GUI could ever have. Also, it scales better. Now, a list of installed codecs is available via gstreamer IIRC. Also, "bum" is a tool for administering the programs loaded at startup. It needs to be more known, though.
- I agree that there seems to be a bloat-mania in Linux land. Foobar2000 is *very* well coded. MPC, however, uses the VFW codecs, so the comparison with mplayer isnt really fair. vlc, mplayer, and xine seem to link everything, though (mplayer.exe is 9MB monster in Windows). Still, if I want to play *any* video, I use vlc, precisely because it has support for bazillion formats (even ones not supported in Foobar).

In sum, you are partially right, but as I said, most points are really a distro issue. Also keep in mind that most people do NOT install Windows by themselves; instead, they use what's on that Gateway PC they just bought. When Windows is borked again and infected with 15911 viruses after 6 months, Generic Geek is called and he sets up a fresh one. Or people call support, and get told to use the Recovery CD. With Linux it would be the same (it would be probably more robust, though).

So, the REAL reason why Linux isn't there yet is because it needs to be preinstalled on retail PCs.

Close, but no cigar.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> If you live in a country that doesn't have any downsides, let me know and I'll see about moving my family there.
> Cana-fuckin-da.

NO downsides you say? Wasn't Canada the country where your politicians are being brib^W^H lobbied to get rid of fair use entirely? The one where they came out with that bogus "responsible for 50% of all movie piracy" statistic to support it?

The one where they're censoring the Internet? Yeah, it's for child porn, but I have to think that a better approach wouldn't be to censor it like that, but to arrest the people who made the site and take down the site instead of blocking it. Blocking like that is far too easily expanded into censoring other materials.

And there's plenty more where that came from. Yes, Canada is quite nice. #1 on the Human Development Index, even, last I recall. But nobody, and I mean nobody gets a free pass for claiming there are NO downsides to living there. Great? Sure. Perfect? Hell no.

Super

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be one of those people who descend on Amazon and "tag" every single Microsoft product with "defectivebydesign". Man, you guys are clever. With that "M$" and "Windoze" style, phrases like "XP did not move hardware", shades of "Windows hasn't changed since 1993" and doom-around-the-corner predictions about Dell and HP going to... Linux? (?) you guys are the cream of teh interwebs.

Except I wish you would all stay here and here only.

Re:Super

[twitter]

You must be one of those people who descend on Amazon and "tag" every single Microsoft product with "defectivebydesign".

No, but that sounds like a good idea and I'm glad that someone is doing it.

I wish you would all stay here and here only.

Hmmmm, you don't like me and I don't like you. Let's make a deal. You go away, your friends leave computer vendors, ISPs and everyone else alone and our paths will never cross. How about that? You get to pay Bill Gates for permission to use your computer, I get to use my computer and both of us are happy. Best of all, you can avoid advocating M$ shit to a free software web forum.

Now that would be super, but you've got a job to do don't you? Suck it up and get back to work.

Re:Super

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

Re:Super

[willyhill]

Best of all, you can avoid advocating M$ shit to a free software web forum.

When you reach for the #4 key, do you think "hah! take that, Microsoft!"? Because if you do, you need a new hobby.

Re:Super

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that someone is doing it.

I'm sure you do.

advocating M$ shit

Well, if I were actually "advocating" something I'd sure be glad to have you on the other side. You're a perfect example of how not to advocate anything, let alone free software.

Bill Gates must love people like you.

Re:Super

[jb.hl.com]

You really are one paranoid little man. Seriously, anyone who even takes a critical look at Linux to you is a sockpuppet of Gates/Ballmer/Allchin/Satan/me.

Also, since when was Slashdot anything more than a de-facto free software forum? As far as I can see it's billed as "News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters." not "LUNIX FTW!!! M$ SUX0RZ!!!!"

Re:Super

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one of your pathetic friends. You might want to look him up and arrange some sweaty sex.

Sorta...

[Xenographic]

In terms of being cryptic and user hostile, I agree that editing the registry and browsing to some random port on localhost are about the same.

However, there IS one important difference--it's quite easy to screw over a machine by mucking around in the registry, either by accident or because the instructions you found were incorrect. I can't compare that to simply browsing around localhost. What's the worst you could possibly do? Hit the wrong port and get a screen full of crap from chargen?

Re:Sorta...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

If you're configuring the computer by going to a privileged TCP port, then you had best hope that you can't reach through the port to interact with, say, any of the CUPS configuration interfaces; they're notorious for containing buffer overflows and other exploitable conditions. What did you say? That's a direct link to those interfaces? You're joking, right?

You can lead a manager to water....

[Kadin2048]

You know, I think I'm going to bookmark this post, because it describes the situation with every government office and employee that I've ever encountered in my life, to perfection. And to a lesser extent, most large corporations.

I'm not sure you know how right you are. (In fact, I hope you don't; and if you do, I feel your pain.)

The "training problem" is something that most technical people fail to appreciate, because it almost universally doesn't apply to them, because they generally have some conceptual understanding of how their software and hardware operates. Once you have that conceptual understanding, it's nearly impossible to imagine how it would appear without it. It changes the way you think about the tools you use, on a fundamental level.

Unfortunately, imparting that type of conceptual understanding to someone who isn't interested in learning it, is nearly impossible as well -- even when in the long run, it's almost certainly to their benefit to have it.

OS as a commodity

[LauraW]

The OS is a commodity, $9.99 at Walmart with Office is the Windows future.

I wish this were true, and it probably is true in the enterprise market. But I think it's unlikely in the home or consumer market in the near term. Items become commodities (in the non-pork-belly sense) when there are many suppliers, producing nearly interchangeable products, competing mostly on price. We're not there yet in the OS world. There are still only a few major players: Windows, Linux, various flavors of Unix, and assorted niche OSs. Price doesn't seem to matter much to consumers and OEMs: Linux is mostly free but Windows still has huge market share.

Even more important, the OSs aren't yet interchangeable. With a commodity like wheat or gasoline, it doesn't matter what kind you buy, because they're all basically the same (marketing nonsense like "Techron" notwithstanding). With computers, the OS still matters: it affects the user interface, security, training, and the applications you can run. There's also the network effect, where people tend to use an OS, or any other kind of software, because all their friends use it and they can get free support.

For what it's worth, I use and like Linux (primarily Ubuntu) at work. I mostly develop in languages like Java and Python, where "write once, run anywhere" is now finally true. However, I still use XP at home. I'm almost to the point where I can dump it, but I still use Photoshop occasionally (I hate the Gimp's UI), plus a few other tools (EAC, Quicken, some MP3 tools, a few games) that either run only on Windows and Mac or don't have easy to use Linux equivalents.

Re:OS as a commodity

[Zerathdune]

I believe photoshop works in wine.

Linux in poor countries

[mangu]

You'd have to find an older version of linux that would run on the hardware ( unlikly in most cases) and then compare it the the windows equivalent

That's exactly what I did, installed Slackware from diskettes in an old notebook with 16MB memory and 1.3GB HD. Runs Abiword and Gnumeric fine, what you need for the majority of office work. It originally had windows 95, but do you know what is the newest version of a Microsoft OS that will install in a machine with 16MB RAM? And how would you fit a Microsoft OS plus Microsoft Office in a 1.3GB disk with space left for user applications, unless it was w95?

The advantage Linux has is that you don't need a 1995 version of Linux to run in a 1995 machine. There are distributions made specifically for small machines

The only thing that keeps Linux from being widely used in the poorest countries is the same factor that keeps it from being more widely used in the USA: ignorance. The tragedy of it is that the poorer a country is, the most it would gain from switching to Linux.

Re:Linux in poor countries

[the_womble]

The reason for not using Linux I hear most often is "I can easilly find people who know Windows it needs to be fixed".

Unfortunately, most of the people who fix consumer hardware are incompetent. People who fix PCs for consumers know how to re-install Windows and some apps and that is it. The fixed PC will, no doubt, be re-infected (well, what do you imagine the commonest problem will be with pirated software and no systems administration) within hours of be hooked up to the net again.

On the other hand, it is not hard to find competent people who know Linux. If your lucky someone from the LUG might fix your problem free, otherwise you may have to pay more than the Windows person, but at least it will be fixed permentantly and properly (and without wiping your data either!).

But no, people would far prefer the nice guy at the local PC shop, who sells them crappy hardware and incompetent service with a nice smile.

Re:Linux in poor countries

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

NO! NO! NO! THe hardware support isn't there. THe machines won't accept anythign except win 9x. I tried all of the distos you inked to. THey didn't work!! win 98 will run on any old piece of hardware, because they were built to run it. Ignorance would be a factor but they are a good 7-15 years behind hardware wise. It has nothing to do with ignorance. I'm sorry but you post is absolute unmitigated bullshit! to run linux reliably on the desktop you NEED newer hardware. SUre linux would save them money IF they were buying NEW hardware. THey DONT have the money for NEW hardware so ITS A MOOT POINT.

Re:Linux in poor countries

[Anonymous Coward]

> linux reliably on the desktop you NEED newer hardware

Running Linux (Slackware 11) reliably on 233 Pentium/MMX. Kinda slow graphics-wise despite new 5200FX PCI video card since the bus is only 66MHz but it does run stable if you're patient. XFCE FTW.

Re:Linux in poor countries

[fmoliveira]

If he has 16MB of RAM, it can be a 386 or 486. He didnt say how old it is.

The Studebaker of software

[mangu]

The price paid for not investing in change is bankruptcy. Do you know the largest maker of horse driven wagons in the USA survived into the second half of the twentieth century? They did it by switching from horse wagons to making automobiles.

But it's very hard to do. Very few companies adapt to a big technological change. Motorola did it but most of the companies that dominated electronics manufacturing in 1950 couldn't survive the switch to solid-state devices, just like wagon makers couldn't switch to making cars. And the companies that survive often become like RCA, a company that dominated the market but is in the little league today.

I think Linux is a disruptive technology and it will dominate the market, perhaps by 2010 or 2012 as you mention, maybe a few years later. But a Microsoft Linux, if it ever comes, will be too late for Microsoft to survive as a dominant figure in the software market. In the next decades, Microsoft will at most be a Studebaker to some Ford that's about to come.

[ot] Windows XP and Networked Printers

[wild_berry]

For information about how it is done (albeit backwards) Win XP, you need to define a local printer port for the IP address of the printer. It's so unintuitive:

Add New Printer -> Local Printer Attached To This Computer -> Create A New Port -> Standard TCP/IP Port -> Enter Printer Name / Printer IP Address.

(I found Ubuntu/Fedora's use of the HPLIP and CUPS far easier: pick out JetDirect and enter the IP address.)

Re:[ot] Windows XP and Networked Printers

[smittyoneeach]

My heartburn here is that the printer is not attached to the laptop; it's attached to the router.
I guess you could argue that, on the same network, it's logically attached.
Certainly ain't plugged in by some ancient 25-pin cable, though.

Re:[ot] Windows XP and Networked Printers

[wild_berry]

I agree -- that's why I said it was backwards. It's not 'local' when it could be anywhere on your network or bridged and tunnelled to the other side of the planet.

Re:It's broken again. Fix it with free software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, where is the -1 Pointless mod when I need it...

Yet another anti-MS crusader who is actually HURTING Linux by his actions.

Twitter IS right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, in no way he has been impolite; he's doing the guy a service, in fact...

These M$ guys has been trying to convince the world _and_ Linux users that Linux is worthless because it's Unix, it's worthles because it's not real Unix, it's a cancer, it's communist, a virus, steals M$ IP (whatever this might mean).

Now, if you point out problems in M$ products, it's hell on Earth. We're evil, we're bad. Cannot we discuss a product on its technical merits? Why do we have to hear over and over and over: don't care about the product, M$ has billions with a "b" in the bank, so obviously they are right.

So, he says to the guy: let's part our ways. But do you know what? He won't. For it's not important for Linux if M$ loses or gains. This is important for consumers and the governments, which need to regulate free competition, so that capitalism-markets stand a chance against monopolies.

But we Linuxers we're having fun! And a lot of that, BTW. Most people don't get the simple fact that flautists play for joy, not for fame. This is our Linux life, simple, joyful and fun. Some of us, though, are afraid this might end because they see... M$ partisans won't leave us in peace. We're a danger to them, so they must drive us to extinction. DRM, DMCA, patents, anti-GPL licences, those are some of their weapons... which allow for even imprisoning people. In many countries, this means effectively killing them. Next time you hear: "I'm gonna f... kill him", think for a minute if these words are really hollow.

So there you have it, it's the fight to be free against the greed for power/control and money. 200 years ago the balance shifted to Freedom. But it has been moved towards Greed for some decades now... do you want 1776 or 1984? Can you choose or will you be tamed?

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Can you still remember who said those words, in this time of country annihilation?

Re:why i can't use linux

[xonicx]

I am from India and I have a very old Celeron computer with 64MB RAM. I used Linux on this system till 2002 when I was in univ but not able to use any more when I am out of univ.
Here are the reasons
1. No internet provider officially support Linux boxes. When I got Airtel internet connection(ADSL) at home, I asked the installation guy to install dialer client for Linux. His reply was "just run the exe and it will work". I couldn't say more. Another Internet provider Sify use to provide the dialer for Linux, but it's not supported any more.
2. For India documents = something in ms doc format. Whenever I send my resume in pdf format, I get reply to send in doc format. Job sites and job consultant process resume in doc format only. OpenOffice.org is just good for viewing ms doc, but not good for editing.
3. No Linux based VPN client: the organization where I work doesn't have any Linux based VPN client.
4. No Linux driver available for my old webcam(Mercury Pocketcam)
5. Red Hat 8.0 and other new distributions require at 128MB of RAM. Even though I want to upgrade to at least 128MB of RAM, I don't find SD RAM in market any more or it's very expensive. I cant use DDR as my mother board doesn't support it. If I upgrade the mother board, I need to get a new processor and RAM so it's like buying a new PC.

The pirated Win98 which I am running serves my purpose. I need just Opera (Firefox has discontinued support on Win98), putty (for office work over SSH) and yahoo messenger (IM client).

Linux *has* Control Panel ..

[rs232]

"I think that desktop linux is not ready because it still plagued by a problem of text configuration files. I'm perfectly OK configuring my debian box from various files in /etc directory, however most of the users e.g. normal people aren't"

As a confirmed Debian user I find it strange that you don't know about Synaptic a GUI front-end to the debian package manager. Have you mentioned Xandros, Ubuntu or Linspire to the 'normal people', all three based on Debian and not a text config file in sight.

"as long as proper GUI configuration tools, like Control Panel in windows, are absent from KDE/GNOME desktop environments I don't think that majority of people would like to use it"

As a confirmed Linux user I find it strange that you are not aware of any GUI config tools. This Redhat Menu item (april 2003) looks to me, strangly like a GUI config utility. SuSE provides the YaST GUI install and config utility and not a config text file in sight. According to this Linuxconf has a GUI frontend that runs on Redhat or Mandrake.

Linux needs Control Panel (Score:5, Distro FUD)

Bullshit

[ConanG]

It's too fuckin cold in Cana-fuckin-da.

Re:Bullshit

[that this is not und]

Cold weather tends to freeze out the riff-raff.

Re:why i can't use linux

[that this is not und]

Whenever I send my resume in pdf format, I get reply to send in doc format. Job sites and job consultant process resume in doc format only.

That is because employement 'agents' (headhunters) need an editable copy of your resume, because they are going to edit it to remove out the direct contact information. They don't want potential employers to contact you directly, they seek to 'own' that layer of the communications channel.

Re:why i can't use linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I need just Opera (Firefox has discontinued support on Win98),...

No so. All current released versions of Firefox up to V2.x support Win98. Support will be withdrawn in version 3.x when that is released.

You are not paranoid when they are out to get you.

[twitter]

You really are one paranoid little man. Seriously, anyone who even takes a critical look at Linux to you is a sockpuppet of Gates/Ballmer/Allchin/Satan/me.

You are annoying but you should not think you are equal to your masters. They consider you a pawn to be fucked over and discarded.

Yes, there are plenty of people wasting their life harassing Twitter and Slashdot. It's pathetic, but that's how M$ "competes" through FUD and disruption and it's really all they have. To the point, I quote M$ themselves:

... to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.

Re:You are not paranoid when they are out to get y

[Anonymous Coward]

> there are plenty of people wasting their life harassing Twitter and Slashdot.

I too have been victim of personal, ad hominem attacks. My honesty and mental health are put under suspicion. Luckily I've been posting anonymously, so they can't really affect me.

Be patient.

The message is not good, so they resort to "kill the messenger" tactics, now...

Re:You are not paranoid when they are out to get y

[jb.hl.com]

Didn't you just prove my point, by carrying on with all this bollocks about me working for MS when that patently isn't true?

let's change focus!

[Add_Water]

Every time I read about linux's growth, and what should be done to attract windows user to gnu/linux, i get really pissed. Linux should never be compared to windows, nor should they compete for the same "market". The phylosophy behind them is different, it was made, from ground up, with a different goal in mind. This "is linux ready for desktop?" thing is leading linux towards what linux users hates most: windows. What the Linux community should focus on is: how could we make linux more appealing to *us*, the linx community. The people that already chose linux instead of other oses. Every new distribution, every new linux software I see, is trying, very hard, to be more windows-like, to emulate windows features, to be more "user-friendly". And most of the people using linux sees this as a positive thing. It's not! Linux applications are getting bloated, slow and insecure, hence "easy". Isn't that the things we're trying to run away from, isn't it the very reason we bash windows and its applications? So why on earth should we care about linux gaining market, if it utimately leads to emulate windows in every (bad) aspect? Not even WINE wants to emulate it! ;) I think what i'm trying to say is: forget the market, we don't need it. As long as we keep using it, working on it, linux we'll be fine. No drivers for this new wi-fi device? Up our sleeves! Let's focus on making it good, making it like we really think it should be. And if it leads towards broader acceptation, fine. If not, who cares?

Useability not quite there...

[obeythefist]

I know I'll get smacked for this, but I've installed Edgy Eft to build a modest home theatre PC with MythTV. I did this because I wasn't 100% happy with the Vista Media Center.

It's still not working correctly because of some pretty glaring issues with useability and interoperability in Linux.

Installation - whilst installation was in fact a breeze and as simple as a Windows install (although, Vista offers better hard disk controller management, so if things go screwy with your install, Vista would be the safer bet).
Applications - I needed to connect to my windows server at home where my movies are stored. Linux won't "just work" with Windows - I had to install Samba. Then I discovered that even if you install Samba, you can't connect to a Windows Server 2003 share with it anyway. The complete stabbing agony of it - I had to use a terminal session, enter command lines, and edit text files to make it work enough to find out it's not possible anyway. Linux isn't ready.
Interoperability - Microsoft saves the day. I updated my server to Windows Server 2003 R2, which includes file services for Unix, allowing me to create linux-mountable shares. At least now I can access network resources from my new linux box, but it took Microsoft to do it.

Until Linux frees itself from the horrible terminal/command line dependencies, eliminates text files for configuration (how the heck is the average joe supposed to know which one of hundreds of config files he needs to edit just to connect a network drive??) and gets some decent interoperability happening, it's irresponsible to suggest using it in anywhere but a 24/7 technically supported environment.

Re:Useability not quite there...

[petrus4]

Depending on your hardware, try FreeBSD. VLC works a treat via ports, and installs a heap of codecs as well. Granted, the Open Sound System perhaps isn't quite as nice as ALSA, but it offers perfectly good stereo, and there are actually a number of sound filters available for XMMS at least which do various different things, so if you want something that boosts volume or cleans sound up in some way, you can probably get that from ports too.

I wouldn't bother with Samba, personally...use FTP. You can put an ftpd on the Windows box, make the directories you want accessible, and then do a batch wget from the Linux/FreeBSD box to transfer whatever files you need over. If you need to send files the other way, there are any number of GUI ftp clients for Linux or FreeBSD available; either search here for Linux or here for FreeBSD.

Until Linux frees itself from the horrible terminal/command line dependencies, eliminates text files for configuration (how the heck is the average joe supposed to know which one of hundreds of config files he needs to edit just to connect a network drive??)

What do you advocate as a replacement? The Registry? ;) The Registry uses text in places...the DWORD is actually an assembler variable...but it also uses a lot of non-text and is completely non-transparent in places. There are good reasons why UNIX (and hence Linux) uses text config files...you can read about those here if you want.

Your problem wasn't text config files...it was knowing which transfer protocol to use for what you want.

Also realise that Microsoft created the interoperability problems themselves...it's very convenient...first they make something completely closed and proprietary, and then they can use their obviously greater level of familiarity with their own system to make it marginally more workable with Linux.

Unfortunately, things like DRM which people talk about so much on here go hand in glove with people wanting Windows to do everything for them. If you willingly surrender self-responsibility to Microsoft, they're going to use that power to make some bad decisions...it's human nature. You can't reasonably expect them to give you something which works without you investing any effort at all on the one hand, and not have them include things with it which are actively harmful to you on the other. I realise that is going to sound self-righteous, condescending, and offensive...but unfortunately, it's also true.

If you want a system which does what you want, and only what you want, you're going to have to accept some responsibility, and do some work...that isn't Linux's fault. It's simply that you've got used to having most things done for you on the one hand, but also being abused on the other.

Re:Useability not quite there...

[obeythefist]

What do you advocate as a replacement? The Registry? ;) The Registry uses text in places...the DWORD is actually an assembler variable...but it also uses a lot of non-text and is completely non-transparent in places. There are good reasons why UNIX (and hence Linux) uses text config files...you can read about those here if you want.

Ideally, as an end user in this particular case, I should have no idea whatsoever where the configuration is kept. It should just be "done for me" through GUI dialogs. At least the registry gives an elegant answer to the question "Where's my configuration data?" "In the registry.". As a side note, you don't need to open regedit.exe and directly edit the registry if you want to connect to a network resource in Windows. In Linux, you do have to open a text editor to edit fstab or whatever. Advantage: Windows.

FTP is good for transferring files yes, but I have a TB of storage on my server and about 120GB on the Ubuntu box - it doesn't make sense to move the video files from where they're stored onto the Ubuntu box when I should be able to just connect to the shared network resource and go with it.

I do appreciate that Microsoft are famous for making interoperability a pain, but from a usability perspective it should at least be possible. I daresay that until interoperability is seamless, Linux has a long way to go. I wonder if OS X has the same interoperability problems, and if that doesn't, why is it that Linux does?

Re:Useability not quite there...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have Windows Vista already and Windows 2003 server at home (so you are very Microsoft centric) and tried half heartedly to use Linux, and when you got problems you solved them using Windows.... I sense a troll...but...

Hard Disk Controller management ... Will not save you if you hard disk fails? using a partition format that is accessable might

Interoperability - So Linux has problems talking a closed protocol? Surprise Surprise? Getting a Linux Box to talk to another Linux box is easy... Getting a Windows Box to talk to another Windows Box is a nightmare! (From my experience)
Samba works in spite of Microsoft not because of it and there is no equivalent from Microsoft the Linux Mountable shares are Microsofts way of restricting connectivity as compared to Samba

The command line is far more powerful then any GUI but should not be used by an ordinary user same as the registry editor should not be ... BTW the registry is dying in Microsoft OS's and being replaced by XML files (structured text files), I've lost count of the number of machines that have died because the registry is corrupt, eggs in one basket springs to mind

The GUI configuration that can be done on Linux (at least in a descent variety) is much the same, the difference is in "Admin only" tasks which in windows are hidden in obscure parts of the control panel and in Linux systems are command line only

British burned Washington DC in the War of 1812

[aschlemm]

> And to be true to the facts, the US has never been invaded by land, air or sea,..

You might want to take a history class or read up on some facts before posting. The U.S. was invaded by the British who burned Washingon DC during the War of 1812.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Again, Romans 12:17-18

[Keith Russell]

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

And again, GET HELP!

Re:You are not paranoid when they are out to get y

[Anonymous Coward]

you are equal to your masters. They consider you a pawn to be fucked over and discarded. [...] harassing Twitter and Slashdot. It's pathetic, but that's how M$ "competes" through FUD and disruption

Jesus christ, you need a shrink like pronto.

Re:You are not paranoid when they are out to get y

[Macthorpe]

AHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!

AHHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

*breathes*

HHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!

*collapses*

I'm pretty sure the people at MS have better things than to harrass one guy on a message board. You've proven over and over that you have a very tenuous grip on reality, prone to snap if anyone says "MS" without creatively replacing that S with a dollar sign. I've said it before, but the line between you being a good troll and a terrible person is very fine indeed - seeing your responses to people like Keith Russell push you into the "total turd" zone.

I'm rather hurt that you didn't include me in your list of MS-employed harrassers. I wish I did get paid to do something I love so much, like painting or gaming, but unfortunately this is still just another hobby for me.

Catch you later, Twit! I hope you enjoy your paranoia-induced hallucinations! I'll be keeping an eye out for your wankery, as always.

Re:Outside the US for now (This is exactly right)

[Ken Erfourth]

• And that's where your hurdle comes in. Change is neither easy nor painless. Imagine a pain meter on a scale from 1 to 10. Let's say that Windows is a 5 and Linux or Mac is a 2. But the adjustment of switching is an 8. People will opt to stay with the 5. They know the 5. They know they can tolerate the 5. Because even though the 2 is promised, the 8 looms large in the immediate future.

I can't add anything to this post except praise. You have exactly described the barriers and inertia to moving from the Windoze platform to anything different. Ironically, the introduction of Vista, even assuming it is a vastly superior OS (big assumption), actually is an opportunity to move market share to other platforms, since the switching inertia applies to moving to either Vista or MacOS or Linux.

What a world, eh?