The Next Leap for Linux

Nrbelex writes "The New York Times is taking a look at the state of Linux. "Linux has always had a reputation of being difficult to install and daunting to use. Most of the popular Windows and Macintosh programs cannot be used on it, and hand-holding — not that you get that much of it with Windows — is rare. But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing." The article discusses major PC makers' newest offers and compares them to their Windows counterparts."

Comments

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

linux took a first leap? good spin on the article title. another fine job by slashdon't.

Re:what?

[PFI_Optix]

Troll away, but I think it's safe to say that Linux has taken far more leaps than any other OS since OSX and XP were first released.

It's nice to see an article that at least touches on the shortcomings that hold Linux back as a desktop operating system AND about what is being done/needs to be done to resolve those.

I think this sums it up nicely:

After using the operating system for writing, Web surfing, graphic editing, movie watching and a few other tasks, it is easy to conclude that Linux can be an alternative to the major operating systems. But since common tasks like watching a movie or syncing an iPod require hunting for and installing extra software, Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software.

However, trying Linux -- especially if you boot it from a CD -- is a great way to find out what a lot of open-source adherents are so excited about.

Linux is easy to start using, especially distros like Ubuntu that bundle a lot of good apps into a near-turnkey solution. I don't think any other OS is quite so functional immediately after install. Linux is also a dream for the technical-minded power users who love to customize and control every aspect of their digital workspace. Where Linux falls short right now is in the middle ground: going from the basic install to a system that is functionally competitive with Vista Home Premium or OSX without being one of those powerusers is a daunting task that can--and will, given time--be made easier.

Articles like this coming out of the mainstream media can seem like fluff with very little content to the avid Linux community, but they need to be taken seriously. They're a good indication of what the outside world wants to see in the next round of distros, which gives the developers at least a hint of a way to expand the userbase. Based on this article and others like it, I'd suggest two things:

1) Make media easier to start using. I'm sure there are a dozen distro teams working on this right now, so I'm probably preaching to the choir...but it needs to be said, lest no one say it at all. I've had issues making media work in Linux recently, and am sticking with Vista at the moment because I can't find a few consecutive hours to devote to troubleshooting the matter.

2) The current method of documentation is quite informative, but a bit dry and sometimes difficult to absorb due to the format. The Linux community would be greatly benefited by solid tutorials based on the documentation and FAQs that are spread all over the internet. I'm not talking about a text file tutorial...I'm talking about a video, or even (if it's possible) a custom live cd distro for the purpose of instructing users. However it can be executed, the end result should be advancing the skill level of the user beyond that which they might reach with the current documentation. (disclaimer: I have a personal interest in this, as I tend to stall out on Linux projects because I have trouble finding some crucial piece of information that might be better taught than read.)

Re:what?

[Dragonslicer]

1) Make media easier to start using. Unfortunately, this is more of a legal matter in the United States. The two biggest issues I see with Ubuntu working perfectly for the average user right now are things that aren't really under the control of any member of the Ubuntu or Linux teams: media that requires a license to play and video drivers. AMD may end up being the solution to the video drivers problem, which would leave only media formats that the large media companies will probably never let go of.

Re:what?

[turgid]

But since common tasks like watching a movie or syncing an iPod require hunting for and installing extra software, Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software.

Do you ever get the impression that reviewers feel compelled to put something negative about a product in every review, no matter how contrived, just to make it appear more objective?

When did finding and installing additional software ever become a problem for users of Windows and the Mac? Why should Linux be any different? It's not like you even have to go to the store and buy a box with a CD in it, even. Google usually knows where to get all the important and useful Linux (and by extension "free unix") software.

Even us Slackware die-hards can get pre-packaged third-party software on the Intarweb nowadays.

Re:what?

[el americano]

But since common tasks like watching a movie or syncing an iPod require hunting for and installing extra software, Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software.

Yeah, cause it's not like users of Windows XP needs extra software to view DVDs and sync their iPods... oh, wait, they do! WTF is this guy on about?

If the manufacturer is nice enough to include the extra software, then good for him. They can easily do the same for their Linux offerings too. So, you see it's not a Linux problem at all. Maybe you should contact Dell and ask them why they didn't feel the need to customize their Ubuntu offering, or even QA it, in the same way they do for their Windows products.

Re:what?

[PFI_Optix]

If I go buy a non-OEM DVD-ROM, odds are it comes with PowerDVD or CyberDVD. Manufactured PCs will come with the software already installed. And of course an iPod will come with the necessary software for syncing it on a Windows machine.

The point is that 1) the software is not supplied by the manufacturer/vendor, and 2) It's not included in most distros. This means that you have to find and install the software yourself, as opposed to being given a neat little autorun CD to walk you through it. Scoff all you want, but for the average user this is a big deal.

Re:what?

[shellbeach]

1) Make media easier to start using. I'm sure there are a dozen distro teams working on this right now, so I'm probably preaching to the choir...but it needs to be said, lest no one say it at all. I've had issues making media work in Linux recently, and am sticking with Vista at the moment because I can't find a few consecutive hours to devote to troubleshooting the matter. The problem with DVDs (which is what I assume you mean by "media") is that playing them under linux requires circumventing the DMCA. Hence distros that are created in the USA (or in a country with a trade agreement with the USA that includes the DMCA) can't include software such as DeCSS by default.

You want DVDs to play under Linux by default? Go talk to your government!

Re:what?

[JohnBailey]

I think with all the paid for reviews kicking about, there is a perceived need to put something negative in any article. Would you believe a review that had nothing negative to say about a product?

I agree. Downloading applications and codecs is not a big deal. Windows doesn't come with all codecs installed by default, And I would imagine OSX is the same. and every OS needs more apps to make it truly useful. Even Windows and OSX users need to figure stuff out. And anybody who thinks differently is already using their chosen OS long enough to have forgotten the "How do I do this" phase that we all go through.
Computers are only intuitive if you have quite a bit of experience and are using a system that behaves in much the same way as your old one. take away a Windows user's right mouse button and they will have to adjust to a new way of doing something that is default behaviour in Windows.

For someone who has only used Windows, they have to get used to a new concept. The Repository. Instead of going to a multitude of sites, they need to change their habits to search a database of applications and other goodies to install the desired program in the easiest way possible, and in the case of Fedora, find out about the Livna and other third party repositories, and then find out how to get them working with their distro.

Its not hard, just different.

The second string to this problem is that there is no list of equivalent apps to the Windows programs that they are likely to have been used to using. This is a problem for anybody switching OS, so not a uniquely Linux speed bump. If I want a DVD burning app, where do I go to find out what is available and in the repositories for my distro? The forum regulars get so sick of the same old "I wanna burn a CD", "I wanna go to a chat room", etc. which has been answered a hundred times already and would be easy enough to search for.. Except the new user has perhaps only skimmed forums before, and is asking questions for the first time. And that assuming they know about the forums.

I'd like to see a short "welcome to the Linux world" tour. Sort of like the Windows welcome thingy that shows the new user the basic controls and concepts, and gives a quick tutorial on all the little bits that are known hiccups for new Linux users. Like why there are no codecs for popular media types installed by default, how to post a question on the forums politely etc. Nothing in depth.

It might not be a good idea to assume an existing broadband connection, So it would need to be a compact format. Perhaps an Open Office (or whatever similar app is installed) presentation to save space on the install disk instead of a video file or a streamed video. A dry web page with a long index and no screen shots or graphics is fine for existing users who know what they are after, but its just a big block of intimidating text to the noobs. It doesn't even need to be created by the distro maker. The community could do something and allow it to be included with the distro, and update it as required for each new version.

Re:what?

[kklein]

Do you ever get the impression that the Slashdot crowd feel compelled to complain whenever someone points out the obvious shortcomings of Linux?

Linux doesn't work at all without a lot of time and effort put into tinkering. Here it comes...

You must not have tried it recently. It's come a long way!

Yes, I tried it in July. And used it yesterday and the day before on others' systems.

The only people who find it fairly clear as to how to go about things in Linux are those who have Unix and/or programming backgrounds. I have no idea how to compile something, for example. I have no idea what files define what. When my graphics card is only putting out 640x480, and the driver install doesn't help, I'm stymied. And I'm in the 1% of the population that even knows what a driver is.

I used to tell people how easy it was to build your own PC. Then I started trying to teach them. They ask the most bizarre, ignorant questions you could ever imagine. No, actually, that's not true. You couldn't imagine them. They treated hardy components with ultimate care and tossed fragile components on the carpet. They tried to force cables into the wrong connectors. They didn't know the difference between power and data. They forgot to plug things in. They didn't understand things like "master" and "slave." No idea what BIOS is, nor CMOS, nor OS, nor driver, nor the difference between Windows and Office.

These weren't dumb people; these were normal people who didn't have the vast experience and the resulting intuitions regarding computer basics that I had. So for me, putting together a PC is like "well, you just plug this in, plug that in, and you're off!" But each of those steps requires a set of assumptions and knowledge that I take totally for granted.

Linux is like this, but on a software level. I'm sure I could learn. But I just don't want to. I am not interested in the ins and outs of how all of it works; I just want it to work with a minimal amount of fuss. And I am so much more sophisticated than Joe Sixpack it's unreal.

Until at least someone like me finds Linux easy to install and get to running correctly, it is little more than a curiosity. A hobbyist's toy or the tool of the networking professional (or, as the article stated, someone who has no needs beyond what an Ubuntu install offers right away--provided the display driver ever works right).

These aren't stupid complaints about Linux. They're objective observations from a very proficient computer user who has no reason to go out of his way to shoot down Linux.

It just isn't ready yet.

Re:what?

[Inner_Child]

The two biggest issues I see with Ubuntu working perfectly for the average user right now are things that aren't really under the control of any member of the Ubuntu or Linux teams: media that requires a license to play and video drivers. This is an area where Dell could prove they're serious about Linux. How much would the per-user cost of licensing be? Their Ubuntu laptops are already cheaper than equivalent Vista models -- much to my surprise -- so charging a few dollars to the end user for the legal right to use the codecs which would then come preinstalled might not be a bad idea. Sure, anyone can download the codecs for free, but to have them preconfigured for out-of-the-box playing of any (supported) media? It could make Ubuntu an even more attractive alternative, or at least remove one of the major barriers to using it.

Re:what?

[QuietObserver]

I'm not sure Dell really is serious about Linux; why sell the OS only on the cheapest, crappiest machines they manufacture? If they decided to add the option to their workhorses in addition to the ultra-budget models, even if only as a test for market viability, then I'd get the feeling they were actually getting serious about the venture. Limiting Linux to the crap tells me that's their opinion regarding the OS; my analysis might not be accurate, or might even be completely false, but they're showing no evidence that I'm wrong.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/linux/windows/

or

s/linux/OSX/

or

s/linux/cars/

or

s/linux/DVD players/

or even

s/linux/sex/

Re:what?

[Dragonslicer]

I just ordered a Dellbuntu laptop for my girlfriend, and if you at least go by the specs, it's not a very crappy machine. It has a Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz (I think the fastest option they have is 2.0 GHz), 2 GB of memory, and a 160 GB 7200 RPM hard drive. The only part I wish was better was the display, which is only 14", but I can get a 19" LCD monitor fairly cheap if she needs it (her laptop stays on her desk most of the time anyway). The total cost was about $1000 after a bit of a discount for giving them my old university email address.

Re:what?

[PastaLover]

I think the AC post next to me did a good job of pointing out where your post falls flat, but I'd just like to point out that there is little reason to believe that an entirely new system with a different design philosophy, a different background and different developers will ever be intuitive to learn.

I believe the most damage being done to desktop linux right now is by the "it just works" crowd. The traditional way of configuring software in linux has always been plain text files. This works really, really well for a lot of different problems. If you replace that, you need to do it correctly. Either you point out to the user in one way or another where to go to set options, fix problems or whatever or you make it unnecessary to do so. At the very least you don't create three different ways that all sort of work.

One flaw (which I assume is what you're pointing out) in Ubuntu is that they autoconfigure your x server for you, but then hide where you can change this. There are little apps in the interface that suggest you should be able to change your display drivers somewhere in the interface, but they don't allow you to and there's no hint where to go next. Someone used to debian knows he needs to dpkg-reconfigure his xserver. Someone new to ubuntu doesn't know about apt (he has synaptic), doesn't know where to set install-time options etc. because the ubuntu interface has done everything to hide it from him.

I haven't looked at the documentation recently but it used to be extremely lacking in explaining the basics, which would have saved a lot of users a lot of time and grief. Basically if you're using ubuntu you'll have to use a command line interface anyway, which I don't consider a bad thing. News about the death of the cli has been greatly exaggerated if you ask me. At least point that out to users and school them in the basics they'll need (it's not that much). Problem solved as far as I'm concerned.

Any system will need you to do some research, learn some new concepts and learn to apply them. That's not a bug in linux, windows or mac os. The bug is bad interface design, but that sure doesn't mean linux "isn't ready". Most people I know will simply call me if they get stumped somewhere, which is exactly what they did when they first tried windows. (well, I'm not that old that they would've called me, but you get the point) The biggest enemies to linux are those who have spent so much time being a windows "power user" that any action they undertake in any other OS is to be very painful because it contradicts tons of learned behaviour. I know the feeling as I have it daily using windows.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/"your drivel"/"meaningful comments"

Re:what?

[Wolfger]

You must not have tried it recently. It's come a long way! Yes, I tried it in July. And used it yesterday and the day before on others' systems.

Which Linux did you try? Gentoo? Linux from scratch? Sure, those require some knowledge and tinkering. There's a multitude (a handful? well, a few at any rate) of distros that require no Unix knowledge whatsoever to install, and do not require any tinkering so long as your hardware supports Linux.

Step 1: Insert LiveCD (I suggest Kubuntu 7.04) in CD-ROM tray
Step 2: reboot computer
Step 3: Does everything work?
Step 4 (no): Keep running your current OS.
Step 4 (yes): Click to install, accepting all default options.
Step 5: When it tells you to, remove the CD and reboot. You're done.

What the bloody heck is hard about that? It's as easy as a Windows install (which, admittedly, is too difficult for some people), but quicker, has a preview, and contains more software packages.

Re:what?

[snotex]

"The Linux community would be greatly benefited by solid tutorials " I totally agree! Although I have been using 7.10 for just a few months, it is still more of a learning experience than one where I feel comfortable starting a project. A project I have recently started on my xp box is going quite nicely because I was directed to a web site where there is a series of visual tutorials to guide me through the various steps of designing an attractive web site. Whenever I want to work on my project I can go the tutorials and get whatever help I need. Granted there is just as much need for more tutorials like this on windoze stuff, but the point is that taking the time and making the effort to provide visual tutorials will vastly increase the number of people willing to try Linux.

Re:what?

[el americano]

The point is that Microsoft doesn't supply you with that software, so don't expect something different from Linux. I agree that vendors should provide Linux versions of their drivers and software, but I wouldn't characterize this as "linux" falling short. I'm aware of the issue, and this was a big reason I had such high hopes for the Linux offerings from the major retailers, especially Dell, because nobody can get their demands met from OEM suppliers like they can, but so far they are the ones that have fallen short. I don't just want any preinstall, I want a complete and quality installation.

Re:what?

[kklein]

Yeah, "Step 3" is where everything falls apart.

Re:what?

[kklein]

Okay, so you are arguing that people should just cope with having to do command line crap on Linux despite the fact that they haven't done it on the Mac ever and the PC in 12 years.

You are blaming customer expectations (i.e. "it just works"), which they've gotten from proprietary systems, for the failure of Linux to take hold on the desktop.

You are telling people to just cope.

And that, my friend, is why Linux will never take hold on the desktop. It's made by people for whom the CLI is no problem, to solve their problems and meet their needs. It wasn't and isn't designed with normal people in mind, doesn't meet their needs, and makes demands on them no computer ever has before.

The reason people aren't flocking to Linux isn't that they aren't smart enough to understand its worth; it's that they are smart enough to know it doesn't meet their needs and expectations. For 99.987524% of the population, the UI is the OS. That's a fact of life. Until the UI does everything it does on the Man and Windows, Linux is a sideshow.

Re:what?

[QuietObserver]

Okay, so I was wrong to an extent; I'll admit it, but I still haven't seen a lot of evidence that they're selling Linux on any of their true workhorses, and that would, to me, at least, show that they are truly serious about Linux, and not just trying to get Microsoft into a snit because of Vista. And, by and by, that configuration is still low end, though its among the best of the low end; it's a little better than my machine (home built), which has only 1 GB RAM and uses a fairly comparable AMD, purchased almost three years ago, at the time one of the best of the low end machines (and it cost me a lot less than $1000, too; might have been around $750 if I'd bothered purchasing a new video card instead of sticking with the ancient GeForce2 I'd bought for the machine it replaced).

Off a cliff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux can take a flying leap.

-S. B.

Re:Off a cliff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Penguins can fly, you know?

KDAWSON article?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am surprised that this isn't.

Oh wait, it isn't a "x COULD BE y" article...heh

captcha: bowels

Less keystrokes

[jonoton]

to install debian than to type in the windoze license key.

Re:Less keystrokes

[chuckymonkey]

If I had mod points I would make you insightful. I have less problems with my mother's computer now that she has Ubuntu and I didn't have to walk her through the install. When there is a problem all I have to do is ssh in and fix, I do this while she's still using it.

Re:Less keystrokes

[roe-roe]

Christ! How could both of you make the same mistake? It is FEWER keystrokes and FEWER problems.... Are you related?

Re:Less keystrokes

[IndustrialComplex]

Yes that is all you have to do to fix it, but what does she have to do to fix it? The problem isn't that linux is intimidating for the average /. poster. It is that Linux is pretty freaking intimidating for the average computer user.

If acceptance of linux is something that the community wants, then it needs to realize that Windows biggest flaws are also some of its best advantages. Afterall, its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves ;)

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong. Part of it is due to the fact that there are very few versions of Windows, part of it has to do with the vast user base that windows has. You may not like how MS got there, but dislike of the situation won't change the problem.

To those of you who know how to use linux, remember this: While windows may have a steep learning curve when it comes to administrative work, with Linux the curve is a brick wall for most users.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Aladrin]

When something goes wrong with my mother's Windows-based computer, what does she do? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't involve fixing it herself.

How is that any different than Linux, with the exception that with Linux, I wouldn't have to leave my house to go fix her computer?

The only reason I've left her on Windows is that she plays those Reflexive.net games. If they played on Linux, and were easy to install (there's nothing easy about Wine, and it only works on these Reflexive.net games some of the time) then I'd switch her over. Heck, I could even install the games for here remotely, if they'd run afterwards.

Re:Less keystrokes

[somersault]

Fewer of your cheek, please.

Re:Less keystrokes

[somersault]

You can actually do remote assistance invitations on Windows, or install VNC on her computer.. I'm no lover of Microsoft, but that's kind of a poor reason to choose Linux over Windows?

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have modded you up, but you mean fewer keystrokes. "Less" is for singular nouns, "fewer" for plurals.

Back to school for you!

Re:Less keystrokes

[walt-sjc]

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong.

Really? Sorry, but that's just not true. In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box (which may solve the problem, but also wipes all your data, which is not cool at all, and not REALLY a true fix.) It would be like hiring someone to fix a leak in your roof and you come home and find that the roof was replaced, but now all your personal possessions in your house are gone.

To really fix windows problems requires a fairly significant amount of skill / knowledge that MOST end users (and Geek Squad employees) simply DO NOT HAVE. If this guy's mom runs into problems on Windows, she will call him anyway.

Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place.

Re:Less keystrokes

[IndustrialComplex]

When something goes wrong with my mother's Windows-based computer, what does she do? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't involve fixing it herself.


Ignoring that what you described can be accomplished in Windows with some type of VNC, it doesn't matter that in your case your mother doesn't fix her computer. In those cases, it doesn't matter if your mother was using Linux, Windows, Unix, or MacOS. That class of computer users will ALWAYS call someone else to fix their computers. But what about the people with a slightly greater interest in maintaining a computer? For anyone whose level of computer troubleshooting is even slightly beyond 'I'll just call my son.' Windows is much easier to troubleshoot.

Pick a program that isn't native to Windows or Linux default installations. Then try to type in the instructions for installing such a program in both windows and linux. How would the average user install the program on their machine? Could you document the steps for Linux? How would those steps compare to a windows installation?

Re:Less keystrokes

[dave420]

Unless you're using the Windows unattended install, in which case it's 0 keys to press.

Re:Less keystrokes

[ceoyoyo]

It seems to me that "fixing" the computer for the average user is the same for Windows OR Linux: get someone else to do it for you.

The problem with Linux for Joe Blow is not fixing it when something goes wrong but getting it to work with peripherals, or new programs. It's gotten a lot better, but when Joe goes out and buys some device and plugs it into his Windows machine, the manufacturer of that device has made it as easy as possible for Joe to get the thing working. On Linux it's not (always) so simple and he might just have to either become a Linux expert or pay someone else to set up his new widget.

Same with software. There's a lot of stuff available for Linux and it's easy to actually obtain, but sometimes it's hard to find what you're looking for. It's also often poorly documented and sometimes works quite differently from everything else. Joe can't just go to the store and buy a nice shrink wrapped box with a manual in it, and he can't get what all the guys at work use.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that any different than Linux, with the exception that with Linux, I wouldn't have to leave my house to go fix her computer?

Check out gotomypc.com, or the "free forever" logmein.com. And please don't ever use that argument again. You're making those of us truly skilled look bad. Oh, sorry. I just noticed how new you are. Come back when you graduate high school.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

What keystrokes do you mean? And what is this "license key"?

- I buy a new PC.
- I connect the wires
- Push On
- Windows Vista spends, if I bought 2 2Ghz cores and 2GB of memory, maybe 45 minutes to get me to the screens where it asks my time zone and user names and such
- Done

No license key necessary.

Also, if it needs reinstalled I just call a geek (or a squad of them), which is exactly what I'd do if my Linux box broke down.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Tim C]

In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box

Well duh. It's quicker and cheaper, and it's not their data they're blowing away.

Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place.

While I do agree, I also feel I have to point out that the only problems I've had on either Linux or Windows for the last several years have been directly attributable to faulty hardware. If you take a modicum of care over your PC, both Windows and Linux are perfectly stable for day to day usage.

Re:Less keystrokes

[IndustrialComplex]

Really? Sorry, but that's just not true. In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box (which may solve the problem, but also wipes all your data, which is not cool at all, and not REALLY a true fix.)

I think that example has more to do with Geek Squad being a revenue stream for Best Buy rather than as a demonstration of how to 'fix' Windows. If Best Buy sold Linux systems, I would bet money that they would use the same method for 'fixing' the boxes they sold with Linux.

Re:Less keystrokes

[supersnail]

Windows is not easier to install -- its just that Dell/Acer/HP did it for you. Installing an new XP from a shrink box is a long complex process, you usually lose a few devices on the way and spend another half a day trying to locate the right drivers for your sound card etc.

Troubleshooting is not easier in Windows, especialy if an uninstall program f**s up and leaves your startup and registry in a mess.

The only real problem from the end user point of view is the numerous intall package formats, if you are running RED hat you can guarentee that the software you really want is packed for Debian, if you are running Suse its incredibly frustrating when the latest greatest version of whatever is only available at Ubuntu. How hard would it be to get a unified package management system?

Re:Less keystrokes

[CortoMaltese]

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong. Part of it is due to the fact that there are very few versions of Windows, part of it has to do with the vast user base that windows has. Windows easy to fix? You must mean, "Umm, where's that installation CD again?" ;) I've used Windows 10+ years, Linux 5+ years, and my experience is that Windows is difficult to fix. It's hard to find the root cause for problems, and it's difficult to figure out what can be done to fix the problems permanently. You just hack away and cross your fingers. And boot after every change in settings (okay, this has improved a lot lately.)

Of course, Windows has interesting, non obvious features to prevent breakage, such as automatically reverting any modified system files - which can really be a PITA sometimes.

Very few versions of Windows? NT4, 2K, XP, Vista, server/workstation, home/pro, SP n, ...? This hasn't been a good argument for years now.

As to the user base, I prefer quality over quantity. Try asking for help in Gentoo Forums, for example, and you're in for a pleasant surprise.

Re:Less keystrokes

[rbochan]

...In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box...To really fix windows problems requires a fairly significant amount of skill / knowledge...

Yes, and those that have that knowledge usually charge a price. What would YOU rather do... pay someone knowledgeable for 6-8 hours to remedy the situation or pay them for 2 hours to re-image and update the machine? Even plumbers charge $90 per hour.
It's a simple matter of economics.

 

Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place.

I agree, which is why that's often an option for end users. It can actually be a much less expensive option in the long run.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Aladrin]

Opera.

Windows XP: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click Next until you can click 'Finish'.

Ubuntu Feisty: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click ... No wait, that's it. It's done.

Wow, Ubuntu is easier! Maybe you shouldn't have let me pick the program. While there -are- programs that are harder on Linux, any that provide a .deb file are now as easy as on Windows.

Re:Less keystrokes

[AvitarX]

Windows:
1) right click file and run as
2) enter administrator info
3) click next a lot

Linux:
1) Find .deb of file
2) double click file
3) enter password
or (and this is harder than Windows, and often doesn't work with software older than a year or 2)
1) open terminal (or in KDE go to folder in konquerer)
2) cd to folder with installer (skip in KDE)
3) type sudo sh installer (or su -c sh installer)
4) enter password (or root password)
The problem with ituation 2 is that Linux compatibility is a quickly moving target, and companies releasing proprietary software give up or go out of business.

When Loki went out of business SimCity 2000 was dificult to install, getting sound on Wolfenstein:ET is not automatic. But stuff that is regularly updated like the Nvidia drivers is often very easy to install, and if there is no fear of the command line easier to install than Windows drivers.

Explaining things like 'cd' to people who are afraid to type things into there computer, or even those who are not can be very difficult.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes that is all you have to do to fix it, but what does she have to do to fix it?"

irrelevent; she can't fix linux, she can't fix windows, she can't fix mac, she can't fix it.

Re:Less keystrokes

[jellomizer]

It is not about keystrokes. It is not about fancy Graphics, it is about the User Understanding what is happening.

Most people don't know what a Kernel is and what it does, and less know the difference between 2.4 and 2.6

FTP, Mirrors, Build source or from binary?

Boot loaders?

It asks a lot of tough questions for a newbie or someone who doesn't care to learn everything about what their computer is doing. Ubento Is a lot better but still it assumes a core level of compenadence. I am still supprised that they havent made a Major Linux that runs off a file mounted on your windows system? Saving the Risk and confustion of Partitioning their drive, with a handy windows app to load linux from that image.

Re:Less keystrokes

[AmaDaden]

That's all reasonably accurate but things are changing.

Afterall, its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves ;)

It was but with program manager in Ubuntu it's gotten way simpler. From the Article...

An Add/Remove function actually makes finding programs easier with Linux than it is for Mac and Windows. Without having to go to Web sites, it lets you browse through categories of software. It took me only seconds to find several additional music players, a PDF reader and other programs. In addition to downloading the software, this feature installs it and finds any necessary additional files.

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong.

That's somewhat true but only until a hefty number of people use Linux. Since everything in Linux is open it'll be easier to find help for Linux then Windows. Think about it this way, if someone has the same problem you do and they get REALLY pissed at it they can sit down for a day or two, figure it out, and post it in a forum when someone else has the same issue. This sounds kind of dumb and idealistic but I remember many Windows problems I've had where I sat for days trying to figure out what was wrong. If i had the option i would have gladly went through some code. It would have been less frustrating than randomly changing things in the hope that it'll have an effect.

While windows may have a steep learning curve when it comes to administrative work, with Linux the curve is a brick wall for most users.

Oh I know all about that. It's only with Ubuntu that I was finally able to get a Linux distro running that could get me through the average day with out dedicating a month to figuring out everything. But your forgetting something important Linux might seem like a brick wall at first but Windows HAS a brick wall once you get deeply in to it. If you ever want to get a little taste of it look up the Windows Registry in the help for Windows. It's a central part of fixing nearly allspy ware and virus infections and all Microsoft will tell you about it is that "Incorrectly editing the registry may severely damage your system." I remember the day I saw that was the day I realized I can't learn any more about Windows. They just will not let me. It's was years before I was able to make the switch but it was then and there that I decided I had to.

Re:Less keystrokes

[CortoMaltese]

I think that example has more to do with Geek Squad being a revenue stream for Best Buy rather than as a demonstration of how to 'fix' Windows. If Best Buy sold Linux systems, I would bet money that they would use the same method for 'fixing' the boxes they sold with Linux. Except that with Linux it's a breeze to separate /home from the rest of the system, making it possible to re-image the box without wiping all your data.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Lonewolf666]

Really? Sorry, but that's just not true. In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box (which may solve the problem, but also wipes all your data, which is not cool at all, and not REALLY a true fix.) It would be like hiring someone to fix a leak in your roof and you come home and find that the roof was replaced, but now all your personal possessions in your house are gone.

To really fix windows problems requires a fairly significant amount of skill / knowledge that MOST end users (and Geek Squad employees) simply DO NOT HAVE. If this guy's mom runs into problems on Windows, she will call him anyway.

Well, there is the intermediate solution:

Back up the user data (requires some knowledge about the places Windows usually puts user's files). Then re-image the box and restore the data afterwards. That is what I'd do, being a software developer and occasional help desk replacement, but not specialized in Windows support.

Re:Less keystrokes

[khanyisa]

After school I went to university and learned that languages change and prescriptive rules like that are silly :-)

Re:Less keystrokes

[Coryoth]

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong. In as much as it means it's more likely that you know someone who can come and try and fix it for you, yes. But let's be clear, most "average" users like you are talking about do not fix their windows machines, they either get a friend to come, or they call the local computer fixit company. Windows is not easier than linux, it is just more common, and so has a greater chance of finding someone who knows enough to fix it.

Which is the point: the largest barriers to linux making desktop inroads these days are, quite simply, dependent on getting greater market share. If linux on the desktop becomes more common, then you'll find more people who can help you fix it, and the local computer fixit companies will start including linux in their services. If linux on the desktop is more common you can expect hardware companies to start ensuring their hardware works with linux and comes with easy to install drivers. If linux on the desktop becomes more common you can expect to see more commercial software vendors porting their software to linux. And those are the biggest barriers right now for home users: technical support, hardware support, and the availability of their favourite commercial software.

So is there more, other than becoming more popular, that linux can do to fix those problems? Not really. You can argue about "too many distros" making the tech support harder, but they're similar enough under the hood that it mostly doesn't matter, and ultimately only a very small handful are actually popular with people who need tech support (Ubuntu mostly, Fedora and SUSE maybe) so ultimately we're only talking about a few versions anyway. So how about hardware? Linux already does pretty well at reverse engineering, and there's the Novell sponsored driver project going right now -- linux is already going well out of its way to support hardware -- all that is lacking is enough widespread adoption to make hardware manufacturers start taking notice. How about encouraging commercial software vendors? This is the one area where linux could maybe still do more. There aren't, yet, easy channels for commercial software on linux. That, however, is changing. With Click'N'Run integration into Ubuntu you'll have an easy way for commercial vendors to make their software available and easily installable and manageable by a vast chunk of desktop linux users in one fell swoop. So mostly this is taken care of as much as is feasible, it just hasn't fully come online yet...

So really linux has done most of what needs to be done to be a viable home desktop option -- what it lacks can only really be provided by wider home desktop adoption. This is the barrier to entry that has served Microsoft so well, but it is crumbling. Linux has managed to stay on the playing field long enough, and retain a developer community despite its relative unpopularity, and slowly but surely it is gaining wider acceptance. That acceptance will only snowball. There will never be a "year of the linux desktop" when linux suddenly "arrives". Instead there will simply be the slow crawl of wider and wider adoption, coupled with better and better support for linux from third parties, until eventually, without anyone quite realising it had happened, linux will have arrived on the desktop.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you should just install a non-encrypted remote control server on a Windows machine and punch a hole in the firewall to allow external machines to connect to it. What could go wrong?

Re:Less keystrokes

[frog51]

No. There does not have to be a learning curve. It is elementary to set up a linux box so that the user can't tell the difference from windows in most cases. Aside from the fact what happens under the surface suddenly becomes a lot easier for sysadmins etc to maintain

Re:Less keystrokes

[Lumpy]

Yes that is all you have to do to fix it, but what does she have to do to fix it?

what every other person does that is not a Computer expert. Call someone to fix it. Windows PC, MAC, linux. ALL typical users do the exact same thing to "fix it".

they call a telephone number and get a price on fixing the computer. Linux makes it no harder except in finding a competent IT repair shop, just like the pain the Mac people have.

so it's no different to the end user. they simply pick up the phone and call someone.

Re:Less keystrokes

[kwandar]

Pick a program that isn't native to Windows or Linux default installations. Then try to type in the instructions for installing such a program in both windows and linux. How would the average user install the program on their machine? Could you document the steps for Linux? How would those steps compare to a windows installation?

I am a relatively new Ubuntu user and frankly haven't played around with it nearly as much as I'd like to, but as far as I can tell it is far easier in Linux as you just search the entire library of software out there, and it installs it. Windows you have to go from website to website to find what you want. I can't tell you how impressed I was at the ease of finding and installing software with Ubuntu

In fairness, perhaps this didn't answer the question as you state a program that isn't native to Windows or Linux default installations. But then again, Windows only has one default installation and source code, and with Linux (as far as I understand it there are .rpm and .dev (not to mention source code). If we are talking about source code, I haven't compiled software for 25 years, but I'd be willing to bet I'd have an easier time finding the tools to do that on Linux where it is more common for users to compile from source code, than it is on Windows. If I ever get a spare weekend (unlikely - sigh) I'd love to try it!

Re:Less keystrokes

[Lumpy]

Geek Squad does not FIX computers. they make messes that companies like me get to fix after they have been there.

Geek squad makes me more money than viruses and malware does.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

but whilst still wiping all the other software that you've installed that doesn't come with the default installation - if I've spent a year picking this and that out of yast and installing it, so that a bunch of clever gizmos are just there when I come to need them I don't want to be having the whole lot wiped out (because they're not installed in /home) when everything else is re-imaged. And what about stuff that I've compiled from source and had to spend 1/2 a flaming day hunting down the dependencies for because developers STILL can't be bothered to include everything you need in the archive? If you re-image you'll wipe that out. You'll probably also re-image with a new version, so instead of having to find all the pre-compiled bits and move them back into the relevant places so they can be run useably, you'll have to recompile everything as well, and if you have to do that, you'll probably spend forever chasing dependencies down again, or at least making sure to compile each in the right order.

Conclusion: The bits of your linux installation that you'll want to save aren't confined solely to /home, they're buried all over the place. at least with windows you can make sure to save all your installation files in one place and back that up as well.

Re:Less keystrokes

[zsouthboy]

None of those things you quote in your post are necessary anymore.

And as for your last statement, http://wubi-installer.org/ - no partitioning, and it's a real installation.

Re:Less keystrokes

[somersault]

Non encrypted my ass. Get a decent length password on there and it's fine.

Re:Less keystrokes

[websitebroke]

For the install, I've never been asked what kernel version or boot loader I want. 99% of the time, I don't build from source code. On the rare occasions I do, it's because I can't get the very latest version of some game release because it's in package freeze until the next OS release. (which IS a gripe of mine)

If you choose Gentoo, you already know what you're getting in to. All the mainstream distros I've worked with give you GRUB and 2.6 kernel by default, and you actually have to go out of your way to get something else.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except nobody uses that option for home installations. In any case, most Linux distros have that option too.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't used the new graphical installer, but Sarge took at least 15 minutes of choosing stuff with the old one.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit. 45 minutes? My five year old PowerBook took about 3 minutes to get to those screens after booting Tiger for the first time. And that's only because Tiger obviously hadn't cached appropriate kernel extensions. The screens took about 5 minutes to fill in. And I was done.

Re:Less keystrokes

[tchuladdiass]

Install cygwin & sshd, then you can ssh into the windows box. Also configure VNC to only accept local connections and ssh port forward. Instant secure remote admin.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Shotgun]

Afterall, its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves ;)

Sheesh! Would you PLEASE wake-up? The smiley face makes me think that this statement may be sarcasm, referring to the various virus and spy-ware 'applications' available for Windows, but the rest of the post contradicts this assumption. If you really want to see software install itself PROPERLY, you need to get someone to show you Adept or Synaptic or Yum or one of a dozen other similar solutions that various Linux distros have.

Re:Less keystrokes

[mr_mischief]

Step 1 on Linux could be any of:

• apt-get program ... done.
  
• urpmi program ... done.
  
• Search for it in Synaptic or aptitude.
  
• yum install program ... done.
  
• emerge program ... done.
  

Also, if you think troubleshooting Windows is easy, you probably haven't done it much. Try installing WordPerfect Suite, Corel Draw, Photoshop, Crystal Reports, PowerTerm Pro, Lotus Notes, and PagePlus on 10 PCs. Crash half of them by cutting power. Then, troubleshoot the DLL hell and disk corruption that results.

Troubleshooting Windows may be easier for you than troubleshooting Linux. That's not an objective measurement. I'd say both have their strengths and weaknesses in troubleshooting. One of Linux's biggest strengths is that so many production server machines so rarely need troubleshooting in the first place. I've never had a Windows server run for three months without downtime, let alone a year or two.

Desktops of both kinds are more likely to need troubleshooting than servers, because you have more finger-poking happening. A well-administered Linux desktop is safe from lots of this, while most Windows desktops still have to be run as administrator to get real work done. Microsoft is making progress on the limited account front, though. On Linux at least you can remove and reinstall a particular package without trashing the libraries in use by other programs, and without rebooting to release any libraries still in use by other programs. Microsoft's registry is probably a really good idea for the OS, but making it a central
repository for every application is a mess. /etc is a much better solution, and is easier to fix when something goes wrong.

Re:Less keystrokes

[CortoMaltese]

but whilst still wiping all the other software that you've installed that doesn't come with the default installation - if I've spent a year picking this and that out of yast and installing it, so that a bunch of clever gizmos are just there when I come to need them I don't want to be having the whole lot wiped out (because they're not installed in /home) when everything else is re-imaged. And what about stuff that I've compiled from source and had to spend 1/2 a flaming day hunting down the dependencies for because developers STILL can't be bothered to include everything you need in the archive? If you re-image you'll wipe that out. You'll probably also re-image with a new version, so instead of having to find all the pre-compiled bits and move them back into the relevant places so they can be run useably, you'll have to recompile everything as well, and if you have to do that, you'll probably spend forever chasing dependencies down again, or at least making sure to compile each in the right order. I really don't have experience in yast, but I'll warmly recommend to try out Gentoo, if you're not intimidated by the thought of it. There's really not such a thing as a "default installation", but everything you've installed is recorded in the "world file", which is a great help in rebuilding a system. Just save /etc and /home, and you'll get really far. Of course, this has next to nothing to do with re-imaging the box, but for someone like you it might work nicely.

I'm running the stable branch (I don't have enough time for the bleeding edge) and the problems with dependencies have been few and far between. The only piece of software I've needed that I haven't found in Portage (the Gentoo package repository) is Alpine, which is still in alpha stage anyway. Of course, you'll have to compile. And you'll have to compile a lot. But typing './configure', 'make', and 'make install' has pretty much become a thing of the past, 'emerge' does it all for you. And I've never had to move the installed files anywhere. And 'equery' tells you to which package a file belongs to, and which files belong to a package, so you can easily figure that out as well.

Conclusion: The bits of your linux installation that you'll want to save aren't confined solely to /home, they're buried all over the place. at least with windows you can make sure to save all your installation files in one place and back that up as well. You have a point in that /home is not the same as your linux installation, but I'll argue that, for most people, their personal data is way more important than the installation anyway.

Re:Less keystrokes

[value_added]

Windows easy to fix? You must mean, "Umm, where's that installation CD again?" ;) I've used Windows 10+ years, Linux 5+ years, and my experience is that Windows is difficult to fix. It's hard to find the root cause for problems, and it's difficult to figure out what can be done to fix the problems permanently. You just hack away and cross your fingers. And boot after every change in settings (okay, this has improved a lot lately.)

Can't you just run tcpdump to diagnose networking issues, or maybe grep the relevant logfiles for other kinds of problems? Maybe check the manpages for an explanation of ...

Oh, wait ...

Re:Less keystrokes

[IndustrialComplex]

Afterall, its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves ;) Sheesh! Would you PLEASE wake-up? The smiley face makes me think that this statement may be sarcasm, referring to the various virus and spy-ware 'applications' available for Windows, but the rest of the post contradicts this assumption. If you really want to see software install itself PROPERLY, you need to get someone to show you Adept or Synaptic or Yum or one of a dozen other similar solutions that various Linux distros have.


The smiley face was indeed there for that purpose. It's a joke. :)

Re:Less keystrokes

[Knuckles]

Windows is much easier to troubleshoot

Aaaaahahahahaaaaa! *wipestearsfromeyes*

Are you serious? windows is such a bitch to troubleshoot that nobody even tries anymore. Everyone with a clue just reimages when it inevitably starts to act up, home users and corporate IT departments alike. In Linux distros I have wonderful logging by the kernel and the apps, and I can run the apps from the cmd line where they will spit out lots of useful info, and often even have a --debug or --verbose switch. (Not even counting that if that doesn't help, I can recompile with debug symbols and just attach a debugger.)

Windows, in contrast, is so obfuscated that often you cannot even find out what is wrong in reasonable time (i.e., faster than a reimage). The Event Viewer in the computer management app is a sick joke.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be confused about the term encryption. The stream of data that makes up your VNC connection is not encrypted. A man in the middle could watch your entire VNC session, or even inject mouse & keyboard events or take over control of the remote machine. O.K: it's unlikely. But it isn't much more secure than a Telnet session.

The poster below has the right idea: tunnel the VNC session over SSH (which adds the needed encryption) and then only allow the VNC server to accept connections from the local IP address (I.e. from the SSH server on the same machine).

Re:Less keystrokes

[somersault]

Hmm, no I'm not confused about what encryption means, but I had the impression that there was an encryption setting in VNC. Just had a look and no.. same with Remote Desktop. I personally usually use them over VPN anyway, though our outsourced IT support for another part of the company has been setting up machines just by opening up the VNC port.. yuck

Re:Less keystrokes

[HartDev]

Also, Linux is much less difficult to pirate than Windows...haha!

Re:Less keystrokes

[SpiritSniper]

I don't use ubuntu, I use arch (which almost any gnu/linux user will tell you is a lot more difficult to set up than ubuntu.)

In Arch, this is how you install software: In a console ass root you type:

pacman -S package-name

Thats it!

I can't for a second believe it is any more difficult in ubuntu. When I used to use fedora, I just used to use the GUI.

This also automatically checks for updates for all your installed software. Unlike windows where you have a whole bunch of programs checking for updates when they start, or worse - when windows starts, or even worse - via a permanently running service.

Check the difference between installing Gimp in ubuntu or any other mainstream distribution, versus windows. Hell try Gimp in these versus any other photo software in windows. See which takes less user intervention.

Someone does need to do something about the state of the RIAA/MPAA controlled arena of DVDs and crippled music though. I don't think DVDs is a problem for a "non-computer" person. None of the people who ask me for computer help watch DVDs on their computers. But, most of them do use ipods. But I don't see that as a real linux issue. Music needs to be free of limitations anyway!

Re:Less keystrokes

[Hatta]

While windows may have a steep learning curve when it comes to administrative work, with Linux the curve is a brick wall for most users.


Haha, you're kidding right? Right?!? When things don't work on linux you get error messages. Meaningful error messages that you can google, or even point you to the plain text config file that you need to edit to fix. On windows it's "Application has encountered an error and must close" or whatever. How do you diagnose that?

Re:Less keystrokes

[TW Atwater]

If Windows is so much easier to administer than Linux, why does it need Remote Assistance?

I don't know about the rest of you who serve as help-desk for a wide circle of family and frineds, but the average user is completely lost if he clicks an icon and nothing happens. The only reason Linux isn't making inroads against MS on the desktop is that you can't go down to Best Buy and find computers with Linux pre-installed.

More than 60,000 Windows programs won't run on Linux. Partial List here.

Re:Less keystrokes

[norminator]

That's cool, but in using cygwin, ssh & VNC to support the idea that it's easier to securely admin a remote Windows box than to admin a remote Linux box, you just proved that you need extra steps to do the same thing...

Under Linux, you obviously don't need cygwin, and an ssh server is usually installed and ready to go after a default install of most distros. VNC is just as available for Linux as for Windows, although most Linux distributions give you quick access to many VNC flavors through their default package managers, so you don't even have to manually download and install files.

Of course, under Linux, you can just install an NX server/client, which does have its own setup headaches, but once it's installed, using it is just as easy as Remote Desktop. You don't need to establish an ssh connection, then tell the client to tunnel through that connection; it handles all of the ssh stuff automatically and transparently. And with the latest version of NoMachine's NX server/client, you have the option of establishing a new session (even while someone else is running another local or remote session), or attach to a currently running session.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Zonk (troll)]

Opera.

Windows XP: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click Next until you can click 'Finish'.

Ubuntu Feisty: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click ... No wait, that's it. It's done.

Wow, Ubuntu is easier! Maybe you shouldn't have let me pick the program. While there -are- programs that are harder on Linux, any that provide a .deb file are now as easy as on Windows. Why not just select "Applications"->"Add/Remove...", select the "Internet" category, Check "Opera" and hit "Apply"?

Far easier than navigating and downloading through a web site, and updates are handled automatically.

Re:Less keystrokes

[somersault]

FFS, people are going to have issues on any system... and have you any idea how stupid/lazy some people are? The people that I find need the most help, are the same people that I consider to have the most evil personalities :P Could just be a coincidence.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Braino420]

I think Reflexive.net is a poor reason to choose Windows over Linux.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you think troubleshooting Windows is easy, you probably haven't done it much. Try installing WordPerfect Suite, Corel Draw, Photoshop, Crystal Reports, PowerTerm Pro, Lotus Notes, and PagePlus on 10 PCs. Crash half of them by cutting power. Then, troubleshoot the DLL hell and disk corruption that results. WTF? DLL hell doesn't happen anymore. Hasn't for years. And Windows has had a journaling filesystem for years and years too so if you pull the power it's in exactly the same boat as Linux is. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Re:Less keystrokes

[argiedot]

On a debian based system. dpkg allows you to just write all your selections to a file. Something like dpkg get-selections > file, then dpkg set-selections file. I don't remember the exact syntax, but this is trivial. Also, on debian systems, /var/cache/apt will have all your packages if you set the cache to be large, but if you really care about having all your files, just copy every file from here to another location whenever you install stuff. Then you just do a dpkg -i ./* and watch the magic happen. Caution: I'm no linux guru, just a user. There are probably easier, faster ways of doing this.

Re:Less keystrokes

[IndustrialComplex]

That assumes you could do anything at all. Regardless of whether you are running Linux or Windows, sometimes there are errors you can't troubleshoot beyond the point of going: "The problem occured in this program".

I've diagnosed several errors down to a specific bug in a specific application, but there isn't a damned thing that editing a plain text config file is going to fix when the program is tripping over its own feet.

Re:Less keystrokes

[gzerphey]

But isn't that where deb and RPM files come into play. True it doesn't have the same customization that the average /. user likes, but it will work for most average users.

Re:Less keystrokes

[debest]

How hard would it be to get a unified package management system?

I feel absolutely qualified in answering your question...

"Very."

You're welcome!

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Package requires dependency that is not available or incomplete.

Re:Less keystrokes

[mhall119]

Pick a program that isn't native to Windows or Linux default installations. Then try to type in the instructions for installing such a program in both windows and linux. How would the average user install the program on their machine? Could you document the steps for Linux? How would those steps compare to a windows installation? Funny you should ask, I ran into this scenario not too long ago. My favorite editor, on any platform, is JEdit, almost always my first install. Here is the steps to install:

Windows:
1) Download the "Windows Installer", save to disk
2) Run Windows installer, realize that Java 1.5 or later is required
3) Download Java SE 1.5 or later from Sun's website
4) Install Java (click lots of "next" buttons)
5) Re-run JEdit installer (click lots of "next" buttons)

Ubuntu:
1) Download the "Debian Installer", automatically opens in GDebi
2) GDebi informs me that I need Sun Java 1.5, and asks me if I want to download and install that to
3) Click "Yes, download and install Java 1.5", watch the progress for a few minutes, and you're done.

Any .DEB or .RPM package is easier to install on Linux than a .EXE or .MSI package on Windows.

Re:Less keystrokes

[weicco]

You can actually do remote assistance invitations on Windows

And you can do it over Live Messenger which I install to every computer I have to set up.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I am fixing two old machines for someone who doesn't have any money. Single mom with a kid, struggling to get by, etc. and she paid another shop to fix the desktop already (they had NO success) so it's a bit of a charity case. She needed a network card in the desltop so I put one in for her (the PC wouldn't detect it more on that later). She had given up on the notebook because the shop that charged her for not fixing the PC told her the notebook needed a new motherboard (which is correct but when I dug into it the board looked repairable to me).

The notebook needed to be totally rebuilt because the charging circuit failed and the PCMCIA slots completely broke apart internally (I don't know WHAT happened to the thing). Really, what it needed is a motherboard. The notebook took about six hours because the motherboard was in such bad shape. Lots of soldering (and desoldering of broken/shorted headers) the notebook was running fine, albeit without PCMCIA for the rest of its existence. Everything else works fine.

The desktop wasn't working - device mangler would not display anything, hardware would not install, it would not open the CD unless I started explorer with the directory as a command line argument. Of course, she didn't have the media (the machines didn't come with restore media) so I was SOL there without selling her new media (and no the OEM doesn't offer media for these machines any more), but feeling bad for her I dug into it, looking through the registry for spyware, etc. -- interesting thing, I couldn't get into some registry keys under enum. Reset permissions, still wouldn't come up. After much digging I found some rootkits had been installed. What a pain in the ass that was to track down. The average user and the average tech won't ever be able to fix that.

Linux would have been easier to fix, to be quite honest. Where are the startup files? /etc/init.d/ or /etc/rc.d/, right? Oh, and then of course there is the shell initialization script, and possibly an Autostart directory in one's account. All the same, only a few places to hook into the startup routine (aside from kernel modules, but those require PEBCAK to get installed, such as running as root all the time), and trojan horses in your userland tools can be found with chkrootkit or rkhunter, or by scanning with ClamAV. There really isn't 185,271 places to hook into the boot process on a *nix box.

Re:Less keystrokes

[orasio]

When something goes wrong with my mother's Windows-based computer, what does she do? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't involve fixing it herself.


Ignoring that what you described can be accomplished in Windows with some type of VNC, it doesn't matter that in your case your mother doesn't fix her computer. In those cases, it doesn't matter if your mother was using Linux, Windows, Unix, or MacOS. That class of computer users will ALWAYS call someone else to fix their computers. But what about the people with a slightly greater interest in maintaining a computer? For anyone whose level of computer troubleshooting is even slightly beyond 'I'll just call my son.' Windows is much easier to troubleshoot.

Pick a program that isn't native to Windows or Linux default installations. Then try to type in the instructions for installing such a program in both windows and linux. How would the average user install the program on their machine? Could you document the steps for Linux? How would those steps compare to a windows installation? That is a thing you imagine. It is not what actually happens.
My girlfriend doesn't know much about computers, but she feels much more comfortable with her Ubuntu at home than the XP she has at work.
Right now we are 5000 miles apart, and it takes little work, while I talk on skype with her, to fix any issues she could have. Yesterday she needed to shrink some pictures to send by mail. I could help her easily by telling her to install ssh-server, then logging in, installing imagemagik, writing a one line shellscript, and associating it to her nautilus actions.

Telling her how to install sshd was easy: write sudo aptitude install sshd and then your password. Tell me what happens. I just don't thing it would be that easy get someone to grant you remote access to their machine in XP, installing software and all.

She does know how to use synaptic, but there was this easier alternative.

About default installs, I think your metrics are not fair.
Windows default installs don't do anything. The software included does nothing. The case fo installing not provided software while in windows is much more common than with Ubuntu.

In Ubuntu, the process to install software is easy, it's usually four words if you need to say it on the phone, and for slightly more knowledgeable users, there is synaptic, much easier than some random installer with licenses and keys and optional rebooting and stuff.

If you want software not available from the original repos, you need to add the repo, and it's an easy task to learn. Also that procedure is easy on the phone, and easier via IM, a one liner.
And it's just one task you need to learn, for all non included software.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Color me impressed on the whole notebook motherboard fix job. What kind of education do you have? How can I learn to fix broken hardware like that?

Re:Less keystrokes

[Loke the Dog]

How hard would it be for developers to make several different packages of each release? I think that's the real issue here.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said and you've hit the mark with your response. I've been finding myself seriously drift into Linux this past year. It's a funny thing since I've been using the operating system on and off for the last 3 years for various situations. I think what really did it for me was the launch of MS Vista. I didn't have anything that could run it right and purchasing another computer wasn't in the cards.

Anyways; to stay on track, I found many times that the installation and configuration to Linux to be very hard. I describe myself as a moderate user. It really forces you to understand the underlying principles of hardware and software interaction. For me this is okay up to a point. But for my parents and friends( who don't have a cluepon ) who just want things to work; it's a big turnoff! For this reason alone; they will go back to Windows no matter how much it costs becuase someone took the time to learn Marketing and ask "what do people really want?".

I think the best strategy for Linux to truly become widely distributed to the masses is to actaully provide this.:

1.)A simple GUI manager based install with "intelligent" defualt settings(of course an option for a text based advanced install and further security tweaks)
2.)A small operating system(maybe like Damn Small Linux or similar)
3.)Basic applications such as email, web, and office stuff.
4.)An "easy" way to share files between computers.
5.)An option to add other types of software outside of it's base install for future use such as entertainment.
6.)THE END

Anything more than that and it's overkill. The key in it's success will also be easy to read help files custom for this OS. I know that this has been done before and the Operating System was called Windows 98. However, this encarnation will hopefully be less buggy and play towards common needs to the average household.

Re:Less keystrokes

[bigstrat2003]

Installing an new XP from a shrink box is a long complex process That's bull, it's a long and easy process. It takes 30-60 minutes, but it's smooth as butter apart from that. Odds are, you're going to have most of your drivers on the OS disc, if not all, and the few you do have are easy to replace, unless you're missing a network driver. Windows Update is usually decent at picking up those last couple of drivers that weren't on the disc.

Re:Less keystrokes

[jpfalc]

In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box (which may solve the problem, but also wipes all your data, which is not cool at all, and not REALLY a true fix.) It would be like hiring someone to fix a leak in your roof and you come home and find that the roof was replaced, but now all your personal possessions in your house are gone. This is simply false. Yes, there are certain classes of problems that are best solved by re-imaging, but this is FAR from "all Windows problems." The vast majority of problems I see are minor and easily fixed. However there are common problems which almost always warrant a reinstall of the OS. If, for example, a machine is severely infected with malware (conventional or rootkit), it is unethical not to reformat it. Do you think you can get every last piece of spyware out? Do you think that brand X antispyware/virus can? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you... The truth is, attempting a manual fix in this case is doing a half-ass job.

Note that it is against operating procedure at Geek Squad to reformat a machine without first getting approval from the customer - and informing them of the consequences of it. Your comment implies that this is done without knowledge of the owner, which is pretty much just FUD.

Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place. About half of the machines that come into my store have problems caused by bad hardware. Another quarter have issues I can see easily happening if Linux was the mainstream OS. Sorry to bust your bubble, but things like driver issues, networking problems, and spyware infections (almost always the user's fault) will still happen on Linux. Don't get me wrong - Linux is great. But it won't solve problems cause by people not having the time or interest to learn about computers.

Disclaimer: I am a Geek Squad Agent. I can't speak for every store, but I consider myself and most of the employees in my store to be overqualified. I sense a lot of hate here and I think it's best directed at Best Buy Management (we call them 'blue shirts') not a room full of young techies trying to pick up some of the 50 zillion years of experience you need for a respectable IT job.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Super_Z]

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong

Fix a Windows OS problem!? Are you for real?

The checklist that 99.999% of the users use when a windows problem occurs is:
  - reboot machine.
  - reboot once more.
  - reboot once more for luck.
  - reinstall windows.

Most of the remaining 0.001% use this list:
  - reboot machine.
  - reboot once more.
  - stare hard at error message - if any.
  - start removing user-installed software.
  - if no installed software remains and problem still occurs - reinstall windows.

As an aside, the above list is the recommended procedure Microsoft Helpdesk offers their users.

Let me just quote you again for luck:

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong

Dude, not even Steve Balmer has the temerity to utter that.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking retard. If you were on a mac running OSX would you select the windows install of itunes? Give me a fucking break. Windows apps run on windows. Linux apps run on linux. Now you can go and install opera using the Add/Remove in the nice applications menu. What is so hard about that. Yeah imagine that, an Add/Remove that actually adds AND removes programs you want. Your argument carries no water and you're a fucking retard. Your solution for Linux is so basically be windows so what's the point. Notice I leave out the insane idea of using Wine to run those exes.

Get the fuck off the discussion and go troubleshoot your Vista.

Re:Less keystrokes

[MeditationSensation]

Tell her that she should learn to love Tux Racer.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah terrific, trust your remote access to a fucking third party. You windows assholes really need to rethink your 'solutions'. Oh and you can come back when you're not a complete douchebag, which I am sure is much harder for you than the GP finishing High School.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that with Linux it's a breeze to separate /home from the rest of the system, making it possible to re-image the box without wiping all your data.

First, I think that many people consider things like "settings that make my computer work the way I want it to" as part of "their data", and this means a lot more than /home. Simple example...you run the ssh server to allow your Linux tech to help you remotely. Well, after the re-image, he almost certainly isn't going to be able to log in, unless you're using some bizzare Linux that stores /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow under /home. Likewise, you won't even be able to log in, at least not without re-creating the user.

Second, it's really not that hard to do the same "separation of /home" on Windows. My XP machines boot off of C:, and that's where "Windows", and "Program Files" are, but "Documents and Settings" is actually D:\UserProfiles. It's still got the same issue that system-based settings are stored on the C: drive (in the registry under HKLM), but all user settings and data are separated. I can blow away C: with a re-image anytime I want, and then just restore the registry backup and pretty much end up with a clean system that still works like it should with my setup.

Because I have done this type of setup, it's probably no co-incidence that I don't re-image my Windows machines very often. The only time I have done so is when bad RAM did a major corruption dance on the data on the drive. I lost very little due to backup, but could not trust the exe files. I'll also drop my raw image down onto new hardware and then add the couple of new drivers I need, but that's not "re-imaging"...that's "installing".

Re:Less keystrokes

[Dragonslicer]

In Arch, this is how you install software: In a console ass root you type:

pacman -S package-name

Thats it!

I can't for a second believe it is any more difficult in ubuntu.

It isn't if you're installing something from the repository. The person you replied to intentionally described the two uncommon methods for installing programs in Debian/Ubuntu. Assuming pacman is a package management system similar to apt, your method wouldn't work if the package wasn't in the Arch software repositories, just like apt.

Re:Less keystrokes

[cstdenis]

Terminal server (which remote assistance uses) is encrypted.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Remusti]

I used to work recomissioning ex-lease machines for sale, and I can tell you that is not accurate. Unless you have the OEM restore disc, which never happened for us, you are stuck hunting for drivers almost every time. Odds are, most machines will have at least one item which requires searching to find if you do not have the hardware driver discs. We had a rather large database of drivers which simply were not installed with Windows or Windows Update.

Re:Less keystrokes

[HiThere]

A committee was chosen and decided. They picked RPM. Debian and Ubuntu didn't stop providing alien...so they claim compatibility. I'm not sure about Slackware, but *MOST* Linux variants can claim standard compatibility via one weaseling or another. (And, of course, Red Hat didn't have to weasel at all. They merely chaired the committee. [Joke. May or may not be true.])

This is the committee that created the Linux Standards Base, or LSB.

So your wish has already been granted.

Re:Less keystrokes

[HiThere]

In Ubuntu you can just use apt-get...but it's easier if you use the package manager, because you often don't know the name of the package, only enough to search for it. Personally I always choose synaptic for this, but Ubuntu does have a simplified variant (called, I think, package-manager).

Actually, these GUIs still just generate and execute the apt-get's for you, but they make it easier if you need to look up "Now what did they call wxWidgets for Python?"

Re:Less keystrokes

[bigstrat2003]

And I've installed a lot of XP machines in my day as well, from a virgin disc (ie, the OEM disc you get off Newegg, with no extra drivers on it). My experience is the complete opposite of yours. The percentage of drivers not on the disc is quite small.

In reality, there's absolutely no way to tell who's right here. All either of us has is personal experience, which can't settle a dispute like this.

Re:Less keystrokes

[wifitek]

I absolutely agree with this. I use both windowz and Linux all windowz at work and mostly Linux at home I still find my self pulling, no; Ripping! my hair out over something that should be so simple but I have to resort to Google or some dreaded forum to figure it out. Yes I am learning but I'm tired at this point so I'll just boot my pirate copy of XP...Sorry. :(

Re:Less keystrokes

[pembo13]

um.. isn't that overkill?

Re:Less keystrokes

[HiThere]

I *THINK* I understand what you're complaining about. But bad packaging happens on all systems.

Also, on all systems with any consideration for disk efficiency, you'll have sets of programs that can't be installed together, even though, separately, they install without problems. This can frequently be solved by installing one of them in a non-standard location. If that won't work, run it in chroot.

N.B.: None of this applies to "clueless users". This is medium to high tech stuff.

P.S.: Perhaps you could solve it in MSWind...I've honestly got no idea of how to, however, short of VMWare.

Re:Less keystrokes

[l0cust]

Installing an new XP from a shrink box is a long complex process

Hmm never had that problem. All I do is burn that unattended install ISO to a CD and.. er..wait

PS: Posting Anonymously for a reason.

PPS: Oh shit..

Re:Less keystrokes

[Blakey Rat]

How is that any different than Linux, with the exception that with Linux, I wouldn't have to leave my house to go fix her computer?

Why do you have to with Windows?

Remote Assistance has been on every computer since, what, 2001? It sounds like your Mom need to find someone more knowledgeable about computers. ;)

Re:Less keystrokes

[HiThere]

For that very reason I used to make /usr/local a separate partition.

I don't bother any more. If it's at all important to you, make it a separate partition. Usually you can do it at install time. (I generally create about 10 partitions at install time, if I cound swap partitions. This is because I like to have several distros installed at once. My general rule of thumb is:
1 partition for /
1 partition for /home
2 partitions for swap
1 partition for backup
1 partition for each intended additional install.
Mount everything except swap in all of them.

P.S.: You need enough disk space for this to be practical. This is for a desktop system.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong.

Sure all you have to do is "Contact your system administrator". (I swear to god that is exactly the error message that I was looking at last night).

Re:Less keystrokes

[Knuckles]

That's patently not true, or only true on very standards-compliant machines. For example, the driver to work around a laptop's usually broken ACPI implementation is with high likelihood not on the Windows CD. So are other laptop drivers.

And even if a Windows installation is done in 60 minutes, what can you do after that? Write in Notepad, i guess. To install all the applications and assorted crap like codecs that a general user will need usually takes a few more hours. In contrast, an Ubuntu installation is also done in 60 minutes tops, but is then ready to go with all applications for general usage (and codecs will be downloaded on demand, unlike Windows, *cough* Divx *cough*).

Of course, only when your Windows CD is old do you understand how crappy Windows is. I recently had the honor to install Win XP Pro SP1, and boy was that annoying. Of course there are many downloads with such an old release, a linux distro would not be fundamentally different (though it seems to me that for the amount of patches Windows downloaded, it should have included apps too, like a distro does). But I assure you that a linux distro would not reboot 20 times in the process. Boot, log in, Windows Update finds patches. Dl, install. Reboot. Login, it finds more patches. Dl, install, reboot, login. It finds more patches, and so on and so on. Why the fuck can't it download everything at once?

Re:Less keystrokes

[walt-sjc]

Yes, but as a developer you have more skills than average.

Let's say your mom has a problem. How is she going to back up her data? Her machine may be in such bad shape that it doesn't even boot properly. If she CAN backup, does she even know WHAT to backup? Does she know how to restore it once the geek squad reimages the thing? Keep in mind that her system is probably teaming with rootkits, viruses, spyware, and dozens of other malware too. Even if she manages to backup data to a recordable CD or USB drive, is the backup any good? Will restoring just reload the malware again?

The fact is, she has to go to someone else for support ANYWAY. It doesn't matter AT ALL what OS she runs. That was my original point. Windows is no easier because it, like EVERY OTHER OS, requires certain skills to solve problems - skills that 95%+ of the population just does not have.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Wylfing]

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong.

Bwahahahahaha. Oh, man. I'm wiping tears from my eyes.

So when you connect 3 Windows machines to a local network and put a printer on one of them, and neither of the other two can print on that printer, and nobody knows why, and nobody can even suggest a fix other than rebooting all 3 computers (which doesn't work), and it consumes 3 or 4 days of time of people trying unsuccessfully to solve the problem...I guess that is "very easy" in Windows-speak.

Oh wait, how about when Mom's laptop gets too flaky for her to tolerate anymore, and she asks for help on an online forum, and they all tell her to re-install Windows. So she pops in a Windows install disk, struggles past the license key and the impossible-to-answer questions (which involve a lot of phone calls), and finally gets to the end of the install, only to find that virtually none of the laptop's hardware works due to missing drivers, including the network driver, so there is no way for her to download the missing components. I guess that is "very easy" in Windows-speak too.

In the interest of balance, I will say this, as an example: almost no one wants to try installing bleeding-edge video drivers under Linux. I understand how to do it just fine, but I know that 95% of people don't. What I'm getting at is that after using Linux and Windows on the desktop for the last 5 years, the number of intractable problems have been equal. Don't paint this kind of overly-rosy picture for Windows about how it's so "easy" to fix things. It isn't any easier than any other system.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

"...is pretty freaking intimidating for the average computer user."

Uh, yeah, and you conducted a national survey of every computer user to come up with that.

"If acceptance of linux is something that the community wants, then it needs to realize that..."

The correct way to punctuate this sentence is with a period after the word "that". Blah blah blah, bullshit bullshit bullshit is all that ever follows. If Hillary wants to get elected president, she needs to realize that she has to grow a pair of nuts. If Islam wants to be accepted as the world's religion, it needs to realize that it has to start molesting kids like the Catholics do. If red wants to be the new black, it needs to realize that green isn't the new white. Yada yada yada, who the fuck asked you and when can we shoot them?

"windows makes it very easy to fix your machine"

Fullest load of bullshit yet. Tell that to me after I'm done scraping the 20,000 infected files out of it that got past the SIX anti-virus programs.

"...Linux the curve is a brick wall for most users."

No, just to idiots like you. Which is a good thing.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Almahtar]

Those are some ok options, but VNC isn't very secure (5 digit max pass length, no punctuation allowed in them), and remote assistance invitations require a lot of things to be working - like your mouse and keyboard, your graphics drivers, your GUI layer, and your messenger so you can send the invite (or whatever program you use to send those. I've never used them).

With ssh, the only thing you need running is network. The entire gui could be down - bad graphics driver, etc, and you could still tunnel in there and poke around. "Mom, your keyboard isn't plugged in, that's why it's not working." It's also nice that you can be logged in fixing things and her activities needn't be disturbed.

For a lot problems the remote assistance invite is sufficient, but ssh has all the bases except network trouble covered.

Re:Less keystrokes

[init100]

The only reason Linux isn't making inroads against MS on the desktop is that you can't go down to Best Buy and find computers with Linux pre-installed.

No, the reason is that consumers cannot run their pirated Photoshop CS3, or their pirated Windows games, on Linux.

Re:Less keystrokes

[ndansmith]

Yes, you should just install a non-encrypted remote control server on a Windows machine and punch a hole in the firewall to allow external machines to connect to it. What could go wrong?

I'll tell you. In this case, it was a Mac, but the hilarity is no less:

A coworker just got done telling me this story, and it is too good to pass up sharing with the world. So, without further ado, here is my paraphrase:

We purchased a new iMac for my mother-in-law. She knows next to nothing about computers and we live about 1000 miles away, so I decided to set up a VNC server on her machine and leave it open and running so that I could easily access her computer in order to offer support.

He didn't mention this at this point, but the machine was connected directly to the internet, and there was no software firewall, and the VNC connection was not password-protected. The geeks among us are already cringing at this point.

Late one night she was walking back from the restroom and noticed the computer monitor was on (which was odd since it was set to sleep after inactivity). When she peeked in to see what was going on, she noticed that there was a quite a bit of pornography open in a browser, and that the mouse was seemingly moving itself around the screen.

She was of course quite alarmed, so she called me in a panic and asked me how to get it to stop. I told her to sit at the computer and close the program. However, the VNC user on the other end sensed what she was trying to do and fought back, jerking the mouse away from the VNC server's dock icon so that she could not close the program. After some time of wrestling for control, she finally was able to get it closed.

I will have to go down there sometime soon and try to clean up all that person may have done to her machine.

I recommend that he buy a hardware firewall and use a password for VNC sessions. And I suppressed my laughter. This is a perfect example of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous.

I just can't stop chuckling about the idea of an old woman wrestling an anonymous VNC driver for control of the mouse. Warms the soul.

Re:Less keystrokes

[mr_mischief]

When did proper version tracking of shared libs happen on Windows? That's right, it didn't. The application vendors put the DLLs they need in the application's directory and use extra disk space and memory. That's not a shared library any more, is it? Avoiding the problem by taking a step back in time is not the same as solving it. The .NET framework tracks its own libraries that applications based on it use, and that alleviates some of the pain as well.

If NTFS has gotten as good as ReiserFS and ext3 at recovering from crashes, I've missed it somewhere. It's a far leap past FAT (12, 16, or 32), but it still has some way to go AFAICT. It's pretty close I guess, but I'm not sure I'd say it's in the same boat. Maybe in the same harbor. When was the last time you crashed a Windows box with a RAID 5 array and didn't at all worry about it cleaning up after itself? I as a matter of fact kicked the power loose on a Linux box with a RAID 5 data mount this morning, being my clumsy self. No problems at all.

I'm not a Linux freak who won't touch other OSes. I use XP and Linux both every day. I also use OS X semi-regularly. I have Amiga OS, OS/2, DOS, NetBSD, and a few other OSes on my collection of older and unusual hardware. Windows is one of the best OSes out there for the desktop, regardless of application availability. I don't think it's _the_ best, and I'm not sure it ever will be. The applications sure help its case, though. Windows definitely isn't in my top 5 for server OSes, and it might not be in my top 10 if I took the time to make the list. I'd put it in the top three or four desktop OSes, but I still don't think it's any easier to troubleshoot than, say, Ubuntu, Mandriva, or PCLinuxOS. Easier than Gentoo or Slackware, sure, but those are not valid comparisons for mainstream desktop use.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Aladrin]

Because I keep her computer safely behind a firewall with no incoming ports open. She doesn't need any, and I don't have to clean adware and viruses off her computer every month.

Re:Less keystrokes

[halber_mensch]

Yes that is all you have to do to fix it, but what does she have to do to fix it? The problem isn't that linux is intimidating for the average /. poster. It is that Linux is pretty freaking intimidating for the average computer user.

Everything is intimidating for the average computer user. A vast majority of "average computer users" also don't know what the fsck to do if their windoze machine breaks, except to call their nephew that's a "whiz with them thar computer doohickeys". So the two really are on even ground here. Any person capable of rescuing themselves from a windoze malfunction has problem solving skills, or at least knows how to use google, and has just as much probability of success on both platforms.

Re:Less keystrokes

[AvitarX]

Your directions require:
1) package is in the repository
2) leave out simple steps I listed

Stuff in the repository is real easy to in Ubuntu.
It has add/remove programs like Windows, but you can actually add pretty much whatever program you want.

For stuff not native to the distribution I chose to include everything not in the package manager for my install directions. If Linux ever gets wide commercial support for desktop apps I don't think the situation will be as good though (see SimCity 2000 problems, which I assume pacman does not include).

For this reason I actually don't think Linux will ever be a great games platform, the oldies but goodies will be hard to install, even when not too old.

What the person posing the hypothetical was asking is a hard thing to compare, because pretty much everything in Linux is native to the distribution or unavailable. The few instanced I am familiar with that arn't are:
1) Loki games (some other company too), with Loki getting it to run on the new glibc at the time (about 5 years ago? moving to 2.6 maybe?) was a chore.
2)Nvidia driver, real easy, if you are wiling to type. the typical user may be afraid to CTR+ALT+F1, killall gdm, cd to correct directory, sudo sh NVIDIA-Installer
"cd" is a trickey command to people who are unfamiliar with the command line, even browsing through folders is hard for a lot of people. I suppose an install CD could be setup to run gtk-sudo or whatever it is, and already have executable set, it a double click install would work (not for graphics drivers though).
3)Wolfenstewein:ET, installs great, sound is OSS, so must do some wierd voodoo to make it work (I hit up a couple times, so I don't recall what it is at work), this is better than the Loki games problems, but still there.
4)Opera Browser, download .deb and double click, enter password. Opera packages at least 3 files (RPM, TAR.GZ, DEB, maybe many more).
5) f-prot, run a shell script and it's done.

I have found that even though people claim it is so hard to get things to install consistently, everything that installs as a shell script has worked for me (except glibc problem, and now Wolf:ET). I use fairly mainstream distros though (Redhat -> SUSE -> Debian -> Mandrake -> Ubuntu with slackware in parallel on a server at work) which may help.

Re:Less keystrokes

[b0bby]

If she had Windows, you could use logmein.com to do the same thing. The less problems part is a better argument, though I've switched the kids' from 98 to kubuntu & there are a few issues with things like sound (important for games) which aren't much fun. Also, I had gcompris (games suite) lock up X requiring a reboot; I'd have been more understanding if it was one of the Windows games running under WINE, but there's really no reason for something native to do that. Sure, I can fix stuff when it breaks, but by this point I'd have hoped the Linux desktop stuff would be more bombproof.

Re:Less keystrokes

[fritsd]

dpkg-repackage, IIRC. That's a very old program; I don't think it's even in Debian anymore.. Pity though.. It would collect all of the relevant files scattered around your disk and make a new .deb package out of them.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

You malodorous nitwit!

By the way, I'm working on a new version of English where that means "What a clever and insightful point!"

Re:Less keystrokes

[blazerw11]

Even plumbers charge $90 per hour.

How much is your data worth?

Re:Less keystrokes

[JensenDied]

Decent length being at most 8 characters http://www.realvnc.com/support/faq.html#password8can
vnc is useful, but encrypt the entire stream.

Re:Less keystrokes

[sgholt]

Just using a computer is pretty freaking intimidating for the "average computer user" windows or not. I think you need to define what is a "problem". "its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves" sure they can, but when it crashes they have no idea what to do. The issue here is, that the majority of computer users have very little technical knowledge and would be helpless with any operating system when faced with an crash or blue screen...etc. Of course they can just reboot, that tends to fix some errors...but I bet the majority have no idea why. The learning curve for linux is the same as windows, the user just has to try learning it. Most people start with windows with their hands held, they figure things out, they learn a few tricks and then assume they know all there is to know. They are reluctant to change and tend to rationalize why windows is better than linux.

Re:Less keystrokes

[ILongForDarkness]

Windows is usually easier to find someone that has a "fix". Usually it is reboot, and see if it still happens. When you have a real problem though, say a corrupted boot sector or something, few people will know how to fix it. You can find out if you can get on the internet and find it, but wait a minute your computer is broke right? (Incidentally, who has gone to work and spent hours reading up on troubleshooting tips to try to fix their home computer?)

Anyways, in my experience, in Windows land, you have a user with a crapped out computer, and you tell them the harddrive is corrupted and you need to reinstall, they suck it up. But if you talked them into running linux, and their filesystem craps out, they blame it on linux, or you. That is just the way it is. The mathmatics of friends and family tech support:

windows = easy = my problem

linux = your idea = your problem

Re:Less keystrokes

[rtechie]

That's cool, but in using cygwin, ssh & VNC to support the idea that it's easier to securely admin a remote Windows box than to admin a remote Linux box, you just proved that you need extra steps to do the same thing... I hate this kind of FUD.

First, Remote Desktop *IS* encrypted. It's RC4, so it sucks, but it's still encrypted. Win2k3 Server and Vista use FIPS 140, meaning RDC from Vista to Win2k3 server or Vista to Vista is probably more secure than an SSH link. If you're really fucking paranoid, you can SSH tunnel this traffic using any number of Windows apps (you don't need cygwin). Or use IPSec. Windows has native IPSec support from 2000 on and it's faster than SSH.

Second, Which distro has an SSH-tunneled NX server running out of the box? None? If that's the case then Linux isn't "easier" because all XP boxes have Remote Assistance out of the box. VNC is widely available as well, and some versions offer encryption. If you're going commercial, there LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of secure remote-control apps for Windows with every feature you could ever want.

We are long past the NT4 days when remote management was significantly easier on Unix.

Re:Less keystrokes

[kionel]

Sadly, I'm ashamed that, in order to make ends meet, I actually wrote ad copy for Geek Squad for a while. Worse, it involved Vista. When the first available long-term tech writing gig came my way I nabbed it. Then I bought a Mac. And lo, I felt better. Just wanted to share my shame.

Re:Less keystrokes

[cyberstealth1024]

I was thinking the same thing...

[/grammarnazi]

Re:Less keystrokes

[Blakey Rat]

If Windows is so much easier to administer than Linux, why does it need Remote Assistance?

If Linux is so much easier to administer than Windows, then why does it need SSH and/or VNC?

Re:Less keystrokes

[e40]

When something goes wrong with my mother's Windoze computer, I use CrossLoop.com to get in and fix the problem. A very nice solution.

Re:Less keystrokes

[TW Atwater]

"No, the reason is that consumers cannot run their pirated Photoshop CS3, or their pirated Windows games, on Linux."

Most of the folks I support neither play games nor use Photoshop. Among the ones I take care of, calls for help from Windows users are at much higher frequency than from Linux users. It's not that Linux users are smarter, they just have fewer problems.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Altus]

presumably if your data is worth enough you have backups.

HA HA HA HA... yea... I know, nobody makes backups

Re:Less keystrokes

[Matt Perry]

to install debian than to type in the windoze license key.

I was curious about this statement so I decided to test it. The MS license key on my laptop is 25 characters in length. Here are the keypresses I made to install Debian Etch:

1. Enter at the boot menu
2. Enter for the language
3. Enter for the country
4. Enter for the keymap
5. Enter to accept the default hostname
6. Enter to accept the default domain name
7. Enter to use guided partitioning
8. Enter to select the hard drive to partition
9. Enter to accept "All files in one partition"
10. Enter to accept "Finish partitioning"
11. Left arrow to select "yes" for "Write changes to disk"
12. Enter to accept "write changes to disk"
13. Enter to select the default (Eastern) time zone.
14. Enter one character for the root password
15. Enter to submit the root password
16. Enter one character to verify the root password
17. Enter to submit the verification for the root password
18. Enter to skip full name for new user
19. Enter one character for new account username
20. Enter to submit new account username
21. Enter one character for the user's password
22. Enter to submit the user's password
23. Enter one character to verify the user's password
24. Enter to submit the verification for the user's password
25. Right arrow to select "no" for "use a network mirror"
26. Enter to submit "no" for "use a network mirror"
27. Enter to submit "no" for "Participate in the package usage survey"
28. Tab to select "continue" on the software selection screen
29. Enter to submit "continue" on the software selection screen
30. Tab to select "continue" on the video selection screen
31. Enter to submit "continue" on the video selection screen
32. Enter to install grub to the master boot record
33. Enter to complete install and reboot the machine

As you can see your statement is not correct. It takes more keystrokes to install Debian than it does to enter the MS license key. In fact, a user is likely to use even more keystrokes since they'll probably want to set the appropriate timezone and keymap, use more than a one character root password, user name, and user password, use a network mirror, etc.

Re:Less keystrokes

[CoreDump01]

Unfortunately this is pretty much impossible w/o running each "universal" package inside its very own jail or mini sandbox.

Different library and userspace application versions and compile-time options between different distros are the problem, not the packaging format (RPM, DEB, whatever).

Re:Less keystrokes

[Tacvek]

Of course, only when your Windows CD is old do you understand how crappy Windows is. I recently had the honor to install Win XP Pro SP1, and boy was that annoying. Of course there are many downloads with such an old release, a linux distro would not be fundamentally different (though it seems to me that for the amount of patches Windows downloaded, it should have included apps too, like a distro does). But I assure you that a linux distro would not reboot 20 times in the process. Boot, log in, Windows Update finds patches. Dl, install. Reboot. Login, it finds more patches. Dl, install, reboot, login. It finds more patches, and so on and so on. Why the fuck can't it download everything at once? Or how about patches that you need to install before Windows Update even offer the latest service pack to you? The service pack is a cumulative update! There should be no prerequisite patches. granted that when installing SP2 via windows update, some files may be skipped if they are irrelevant (already up to date), but I have personally found that on at least 5 different systems, Windows Update was not able to install SP2. I had to download the huge offline install EXE to install SP2, so I'm definitely re-downloading all the old updates. (I always try using windows update first, instead of heading directly for the service pack, for no really good reason. I guess I'm just optimistic that Windows Update might just work this time for installing SP2.)

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually worked for Best Buy on the Geek Squad for a little over a year. I'll give you a little idea of what a normal day was like: I'd come in around 8am to open the store. I have 2 hours before the store opens. I go to our queue of computers and take about 30-45 minutes figuring out which computers need to be worked on first, pull them out, start working on them, and filling paperwork out for each one. Now, I won't have any help until around 1pm when the closing guy comes in. I work on the computers as best I can before 9:45am comes around and we have the store meeting. Then the store opens at 10am and I am constantly dealing with customers. I regularly have a line 2-5 customers long while also having to "set up" new computers sales... take them out of the box, hook them up to our stations, turn them on, install any software they have paid for, box them up.

I'll do this until 1pm comes around and I have some backup. Then I let the closing guy handle the customers for a bit while I take a break and try to work on some of the machines I wanted to get done a few hours before. I may or may not get anything accomplished on more than a couple machines in any given day.

The reason "the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging" a box is because it gets them done quicker. I assure you I have the experience and knowledge to fix just about any problem with a Windows installation. However, I don't have the time to do that with every single box we have in queue which could be anywhere from 10 to 50 at any given time. Maybe if I hadn't had to deal with customers, I could have actually gotten something done...

~~Anonymous

Re:Less keystrokes

[quill_n_brew]

I just got a nice, new HP box with Vista pre-installed, tried it for a couple hours (knowing the likelihood of the ubiquitous new OS of being quickly usurped). I then installed Ubuntu 7.10 beta, which required even fewer tweaks than its predecessors for my doings. I'm not a developer, or web designer, or Audi mechanic, or anything other than your average consumer of Big Macs and Friends episodes. But I can say in absolute honesty it took me a hell of a lot longer to "intuitively" navigate Vista to do basic stuff than it has ever taken me to multi-task on Ubuntu.

Further, some months ago a workmate complained that his Dell laptop had to be reformatted, but he had no Windows emergency discs supplied with it. I loaned him what I had left along with a drivers CD, supposing he might get lucky with it. No dice -- turned out to be an exercise in migraine manufacturing and nothing else. Finally, I gave him a copy of PCLOS, which he installed in less time THAN a Friends episode, and he hasn't looked back since. In fact, the money he was planning for a new Mac he chose to put into a high-end digital camera instead.

Critical mass may never be reached, but I know at least one more dedicated Linux user. And his friends are pretty geeky...

Re:Less keystrokes

[Chemicalscum]

Ubuntu Feisty: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click ... No wait,

You really are a fscking moron. Aside from it being simpler to install on Linux from the applications menu, it's easier than Windows on the Opera website. I go to the Opera website and click download and it immediately comes up with: "Opera 9.23 for Linux i386" and has "Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn" already selected.

Guess what it has correctly detected from Firefox that I am running Linux on the Intel 32 bit architecture and have Ubuntu Feisty Fawn installed. So all I have to do now is hit the download button and I get a new little package icon on the desktop. So I now double click on it and the Gdebi installer starts. I click on the Install Package button and it installs.

Simple eh?

Re:Less keystrokes

[bckrispi]

In a console ass root you type

Sorry, I'm not typing anything into your "console ass root".

Re:Less keystrokes

[bob.appleyard]

Granted, I've always built my own boxes. However, whenever I've done so, and installed windows, there's been a post-install process where I've gone around looking for drivers for my sound card, my video card, etc, etc...
While it was confusing to being with, all I had to do to get it all going in GNU/Linux was two lines.
rpm -ivh [livna repo url]
yum install kmod-nvidia
Everything else worked fine.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Remusti]

Not so much a dispute, I would say merely a disagreement. We have had different experiences. As I said, most of the negative experiences I had were with ex-lease and therefore old machines, most of which were sold with xp, but were not designed for it. I have had reasonably good luck with more modern machines. So we can say that things have improved a lot.

Re:Less keystrokes

[EdelFactor19]

too bad no one uses vista

and too bad that using remote desktop kicks the local user OFF the machine

with linux and ssh we dont have to disturb the user

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes that is all you have to do to fix it, but what does she have to do to fix it?"

I'm not the one you asked, but I bet you 20 to 1 she has to do *exactly* the same she did when she used windows and, by the way, just the same at least 80% of population does: call you techie friend/relative/even paid technician to take care for it.

"Linux is pretty freaking intimidating for the average computer user"

I see this once and again. I bet many slashdotters must hold degrees on Statistics since they know so well waht "average whatever" knows or feels. I know my mother, and she is not freaking intimidated with her Linux installation; I know my girlfriend and she is not freaking intimidated with her Linux installation; I know myself and hell no, I'm not freaking intimidated with her Linux installation. I don't know how the "average computer user" feels about Linux, but I know 100% people using Linux I know about (not those I *imagine* how they feel, but those I know, I can ask and I can see how they behave) are *not* freakingly intimidated about Linux.

"its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves"

As if installing then in Linux were *any* more difficult. Well, there's certainly a significative difference: it's so easy to intall programs on Windows that they do it themselves in just too many ocasions.

"with Linux the curve is a brick wall for most users"

That's nothing but FUD; it won't become true just because people like you repeat it once and again.

Re:Less keystrokes

[EdelFactor19]

linux needs SSH because it is a central feature to the multi user networked computing paradigm linux is a part of. If you want to connect to another machines console you use SSH. sure the general joe average may not do it much... but any CS major, software dev, or anyone who has several machines networked together couldnt live without it.

thats like saying ok lets connect our windows computer to the internet but first we will delete IE so that there isnt any possible way to browse the internet...

why does windows need IE? why do cars need spare tires? why why why

not to mention SSH and the ssh key ring are usually the root for setting up other awesome tools like SCP which windows needs and has never done right...

in short SSH is for a lot more than administrative purposes

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second, Which distro has an SSH-tunneled NX server running out of the box?"

All of them. It's only they won't use an NX server (what for?). You just connect using `ssh -XC user@remoteserver` and that's all.

Anyway, yours is still a very lame intent. Are you *really* trying to stand for your point on Windows being easier (or at least "playing in the same leage") to remote administrate than ssh into a Linux box by means of a p2p ipsec tunnel, installing third party apps like VNC or even the freaking Cygwin, then looking for the (specially in the case of privative apps) probably misleading documentation just to see if the channel is trustworthly cyphered, etc.? What d'you smoke, man? It must be damn good!

Re:Less keystrokes

[EdelFactor19]

ps excluding winSCP of course :-) why cant that come installed by default?

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Your flaw on this idea is that you're using a Windows computer to download the Linux version. If you don't want to do it through Add/Remove programs on Ubuntu Feisty, what you need to do is this:
Go to Opera.com, download the Ubuntu Feisty deb file, open with default application (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Click "Install Package", enter your password. Done.

Sounds about equivalent difficulty if you choose the HARD way of doing things, and much easier if you just use the add/remove programs so you don't have to download a file off of a website. Maybe you shouldn't have picked Opera, there -are- programs that are harder on Linux, but you just didn't choose one of them. Google Earth is actually one of the harder things, as to get a deb you need to use the google repository, and if you just click download on the website, you end up with a bin file, and you need to right click, go to properties, and set to executable before you can double click and end up with a similiar setup to Windows.

Re:Less keystrokes

[turbidostato]

"Installing an new XP from a shrink box is a long complex process"

You can be damn sure. Just this morning a junior tech was trying to install XP SP2 on a computer. He came to me because he thought the SATA hard disk was fried. I pointed out that BIOS start messages showed it properly; then he told me the problem was that XP install just hanged. I told him, "just take the netinstall CD from Debian and run it to the point it offers to partition the hard disk and we'll see" and I returned to my stuff. 25 minutes later the boy came to tell me Debian was perfectly installed in the system, with GUI and all; just few "ENTER" keystrokes (I don't remember but I think five keystrokes will do it). It seems that somehow the SATA chipset is not of the likes of the Windows XP SP2 install CD; I let the junior to find his way out of the mess; we'll see.

"if you are running RED hat you can guarentee that the software you really want is packed for Debian, if you are running Suse its incredibly frustrating when the latest greatest version of whatever is only available at Ubuntu. How hard would it be to get a unified package management system?"

If you are running Ubuntu you can guarantee that the software you really want is packed for Windows. How hard would it be for Microsoft to get along everybody else and get a unified program system?

Re:Less keystrokes

[turbidostato]

"It isn't if you're installing something from the repository."

Are you somehow arguing that installing a program not packaged for Windows on Windows is somehow easier than installing a program not packaged for Ubuntu on Ubuntu?

Sorry, but I must disent.

Re:Less keystrokes

[El_Oscuro]

I have a lot of experience in Windows. I manage hundreds of Windows servers at work and can fix a friends crapware infested PC without reinstalling. One friend had a computer with all kinds of crap installed on it, old ISP software, AOL, MSN, IE toolbars, etc, every one loading its updater into the tray. There must have been 100 entries in the Add/remove software. It took 15 minutes to boot. My process went something like:

10 Remove using Add/Remove programs - Ignore requests to reboot (remember it takes 15 minutes)
20 Windows equivalent of rm -rf "c:\program files\some_crapware"
30 reg /delete hklm\software\some_crapware
40 Every 10 programs removed, run regseeker or ccleaner to clean out the registry and maybe reboot if I feel like it
50 goto 10
60 When done, install FF and NAV, remove all IE icons from system. When they try the computer they are amazed at the speed. And I didn't even have to reinstall Windows!

Imagine my surprise when the keyboard on my daughters machine stopped working. I couldn't type on it in Windows. The BIOS didn't report any errors and I could dual boot into Mandrake and the keyboard was just fine. Google was no help. Her Windows was unusable for a month and couldn't figure anything out. I was ready to reinstall. Frustrated, I pressed and held a bunch of keys. One typed. Eventually, I figured out that if you pressed and HELD a key for 5 seconds it would appear. Googling that revealed the sticky key feature. Finally! It was turned on (probably accidently by pressing a button on a game too fast). Turning it off fixed the problem and I still didn't have to reinstall. But Windows was unusable for a month because something that got enabled automatically and had no indication that it was on. Microsoft, couldn't you have made sticky keys something you went to control panel to turn on or at least have an icon or something indicating it is on? I wonder how many Windows computers have been reloaded because of problems like this?

Re:Less keystrokes

[turbidostato]

"if I've spent a year picking this and that out of yast and installing it"

You'd do `rpm -qa > myinstalls.txt` and so you'd get a complete list of packages installed on your system.

"And what about stuff that I've compiled from source"

It's all on its own partition, /usr/local, just as /home is.

"You'll probably also re-image with a new version"

The first trick will work all the same; it's only it will install current versions of your cherry-picked programs too. About your locally compiled programs, that's true, they *may* break after an upgrade, but they'd break after *any* upgrade, not only because you lost your system. I you do really care, just take care about your install CD just like you'd do about your Windows 95 one; they will install the very same version then and problem vanished.

"you'll probably spend forever chasing dependencies down again"

Dependencies will be provided either by packages, and then you'll already have the complete list the way I already explained, or they'll come from source packages you downloaded too, so they'll be under /usr/local and won't be weeped out.

"The bits of your linux installation that you'll want to save aren't confined solely to /home, they're buried all over the place."

Sorry but that's WROOOOOOONG. There's the FSH that will solidly tell you what your "all over the place" comes down in reality. I'll tell you one secret: no matter what your distribution is you are safe by backing up the following items:
1) Your package list
2) /etc
3) /home
4) /var/lib
5) /opt
6) /usr/local

That's all. Print it down if you don't find yourself able to remember it.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Dragonslicer]

Are you somehow arguing that installing a program not packaged for Windows on Windows is somehow easier than installing a program not packaged for Ubuntu on Ubuntu? Nope, I'm stating that installing most programs in Ubuntu is the same as was described in Arch, i.e. simpler than the original description of hunting down .deb files. "It" referred to installing programs in Ubuntu, which someone asked if it was more difficult than in Arch.

Re:Less keystrokes

[turbidostato]

"I've diagnosed several errors down to a specific bug in a specific application, but there isn't a damned thing that editing a plain text config file is going to fix when the program is tripping over its own feet."

Then you'd be done on privative software for windows. But on open source software for Linux there's still one more step you can walk.

Use the source, Luke.

Re:Less keystrokes

[pogson]

The problem isn't that linux is intimidating for the average /. poster. It is that Linux is pretty freaking intimidating for the average computer user.

Nonsense! I teach grade 1 to 10 students to use PCs running Debian GNU/Linux and the only real problem they have had was logging in and pointing and clicking a mouse. I use scripts to log the grade 1s and 2s in automatically on bootup as they are the first classes of the day. The others just do it. If these unsophisticated newbies can handle it, almost anyone can. Sure, there are exceptional technophobes, but they are certainly not your typical user. Teachers are your typical user and they wander into my lab looking for a PC and they are off. Few even realize they are using GNU/Linux. People change their desktop backgrounds all the time, right? There are icons and folders and menus all over. Where is the problem? No one needs to RTFM to use a GUI. M$ and Apple copied the GUI from Xerox Parc, so it is a pretty standard interface these days.

Re:Less keystrokes

[wirelessbuzzers]

Pick a program that isn't native to Windows or Linux default installations. Then try to type in the instructions for installing such a program in both windows and linux. How would the average user install the program on their machine? Could you document the steps for Linux? How would those steps compare to a windows installation? I'll go with Ubuntu, since that's what I'm most familiar with, and assume that you're trying to install AbiWord. We'll ignore the fact that the Ubuntu default installation has many more programs than a Windows default installation.

On Ubuntu, you click Applications -> Add/Remove. Then you click the Office category and scroll to AbiWord (it happens to be at the top, because the list is alphabetical). Check AbiWord, hit "Apply Changes", type your password, and it'll install. What's more, it'll keep AbiWord up to date automatically.

On Windows, you find it on the internet, download it, double-click it, click through the "You're running a program off the internet" dialogs, type your admin password, and it'll install. But it won't keep the installation up to date. You have to do that yourself.

Of course, if the package isn't in the Ubuntu package system, you have to ... find it on the internet, download it, double-click it, click through the warning, type your admin password, and it'll install. But it won't keep the installation up to date. You have to do that yourself.

Re:Less keystrokes

[msromike]

And that sums up the average Linux zealot mindset. "If it's not something I would personally do then it's not important and therefore the fact that I can't do it on Linux is equally unimportant."

Because the people that develop Linux are the ones that think this way, the multitude of apps and ease of use that the average Windows user demands will be a long time coming to Linux.

Re:Less keystrokes

[JohnBailey]

That's bull, it's a long and easy process. It takes 30-60 minutes, but it's smooth as butter apart from that. Odds are, you're going to have most of your drivers on the OS disc, if not all, and the few you do have are easy to replace, unless you're missing a network driver. Windows Update is usually decent at picking up those last couple of drivers that weren't on the disc. When was the last time you did a full install from scratch, as the previous poster specified? Not a vendor supplied special build, but a real from scratch install on a non formatted hard drive with a real copy of Windows. And the Windows update drivers are not the same as the real thing. They are at best in my experience, cut down versions. Vista may have drivers for some newish hardware, but in a few years, that will also be obsolete as newer hardware comes along to replace it.

A few weeks ago I upgraded my PVR.

Asus a8v motherboard,
1 gig RAM, known to be compatible,
Pioneer DVDRW,
Nvidia 5200 video card.
500Gig SATA hard drive(the only never used component)
So nothing too exotic there.

Just to see if the SATA drive was supported, and to verify I had set the right options to make it boot from SATA, I popped a Fedora Core 6 DVD in. The whole process was done in less than an hour. Blank drive to working desktop.
Formatting the hard drive took minutes. I wish I had timed the process. As it was a quick install, I just went with all the defaults. It verified that I had a working set up for my SATA drive, as this was the first one of this interface I had installed.
I did have to boot to DOS and use fdisk to remove the Linux partitions, as Windows wouldn't recognise them, and refused to even remove them. Unlike Linux, which can recognise, resize and make a default set of partitions out of the box.

For Windows XP home SP2 OEM.. to the same hardware set up stage on the exact same hardware.

Make SATA driver disk.
Install Windows.
Install drivers for chipset.
Install drivers for built in network card.
Install drivers for sound card.
Install video card drivers so I could get beyond 800 by 600.
Set up network access.
Install firewall.
Install virus scanner.

Partition the rest of the drive and format it....

Several HOURS later.. I was done with this stage. Formatting a big NTFS partition is sloooooooow! I didn't include the updates or configuring extra software and hardware, as this was skipped with the Linux install. I did however have to swap out the USB keyboard and mouse that Linux recognised no problem, but needed drivers for Windows.

This got me to the same point as a freshly installed and untweaked copy of Fedora 6.

Windows from a rescue disk is a doddle I'll agree, but Windows from scratch is not as easy and most definitely not as fast, as installing most if not all versions of Linux. Plus, Linux gives way more software out of the box than Windows ever has. Codecs and media players and getting DVD playing set up are trivial once you know which packages to download. And with Codec buddy, which is already in Ubuntu, and I just found out will be in Fedora 8, makes the process stupidly simple. Even your grandmother's grandmother could do it. And the only thing you need to reboot for is the kernel update which is part of the video card driver installation.

In the time I took to set up Windows, I could have a Linux box installed, fully configured for web access and multimedia, downloaded a few games and apps, restored all my backups, set up Amarok to manage my music collection, installed and tweaked Beryl to the way I like it, and be reading slashdot. And I'm still a noob!

Re:Less keystrokes

[Knuckles]

Exactly. It did download SP2 for me, but it was funny, in a way, to watch the add/remove software application. First it would download patches after patches, and the list in add/remove grew longer and longer. After some rebooting it found and downloaded SP2, and after installing it, the add/remove list was short because it had removed all those patches again. I mean, wtf?

Re:Less keystrokes

[JohnBailey]

How hard would it be for developers to make several different packages of each release? I think that's the real issue here. But they don't have to. Making packages for specific distros is only really required for RPM or DEB files, which may be the best way, but are not the only way. Firefox and Thunderbird being very well known examples of a method of installing Linux Apps painlessly.

1) Download the tarball.
2) Unpack the tarball to your chosen directory.
3) Run your app.
4)????
5)profit.

They don't get linked into the automated update check that a distro specific app would from a repository would, but both these apps update themselves. Other app makers will do various things differently, but it is distro agnostic, and doesn't require hunting all over the place for dependencies when you try to compile from source. And in the case of games, they can be closed source if required, so keep the publisher happy.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

sudo apt-get install opera

Re:Less keystrokes

[bigstrat2003]

When was the last time you did a full install from scratch, as the previous poster specified? Why does everyone assume that I've only installed from OEM discs? The last time was probably a year or so ago, when I installed XP on this machine. Before then, I used to work at a computer shop, and did full installs from scratch all the damn time.

Re:Less keystrokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Does you know how hard it is to find a program that is *not* packaged for debian?

Serious question.

Re:Less keystrokes

[JohnBailey]

Because you seem to underestimate the ease and speed of installing a copy of Windows. And given the size of hard drives these days, the kind of times you are talking about would be for pre partitioned pre formatted drives. I wasn't intending to be insulting, just setting the record straight.

Re:Less keystrokes

[somersault]

Hardly, since the guy is complaining that there are no remote assistance options in Windows, when in fact there are (built in and otherwise). Are you trying to argue that you should just leave your OS vanilla and not install any extra apps other than what came on the OS CD? No games, no office suites, blah blah blah?

Re:Less keystrokes

[PastaLover]

Er if you reread the GP you'll see he made a mistake in his ubuntu example and really meant to say the ".deb file" instead of windows installer. You're of course right on the whole, google earth is slightly harder if you use the .bin.

Re:Less keystrokes

[LordVader717]

The SATA problem is an old joke, and I would have expected a tech guy to know this at least. Any hard drive I've seen has come with a floppy with a driver for exactly this reason.

I don't buy into any of these "OMG Windows is sooo hard to install" comments. Sure, there's going to be a few problems here and there, and I don't want to defend Microsoft for the inexcusable fuck-up of not putting a damn SATA driver on their install CD, but all in all, installing Windows is a fairly easy and straightforward process.

I remember installing SUSE once, and it never got past downloading a certain update, so I had to restart. And it tried to help me configure my printer which wasn't going to work anyway because it doesn't have Linux drivers, and printing out 20 test page isn't something I want do before I've got my system running.
Basically, all systems have issues. And I think it's very counter-productive if as soon as someone mentions a shortcoming of a Linux system the response is "but Windows has problems with this and this"

Re:Less keystrokes

[Frozen Void]

thats for you.Value systems are subjective and what is important to you:e.g. stability,security,unlimited configuration options would not matter to his mom.
People want their games,apps and widgets to work.Windows is the best option on the market so far.Wine and emulators don't come close.
Now when linux advocates point on alternatives: most alternatives are not popular enough on windows if they are cross platform. Does that tells anything?
What is alternative to some game?
An feature-rich application without analogues on linux? There is just too much stuff which requires windows,that changing would be
removing yourself from most of the software
world.

Re:Less keystrokes

[BrianGKUAC]

I believe the analysis in your disclaimer to be correct. While there are a lot of techies that don't know what they're talking about, one way or another, they get [filtered out/promoted to management] anyway. A generalization cannot be made about everyone associated with a particular company in such a way as is consistently done around here.

We've all been through that stage in our lives when we were doing phone support or PC repair at 7-10 bucks an hour.

Besides, if you know what you're doing enough to compile packages and tweak them to your needs, as I saw in a previous post, what the hell would you be doing taking your computer to Geek Squad, anyway?

Re:Less keystrokes

[micheas]

http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned

Is a good starting place :-)

Re:Less keystrokes

[Akaihiryuu]

RPM is a *terrible* package manager. It suffers from dependency hell like nothing else I've ever seen...and unless you know enough to grab source tarballs and packages, and make your own RPM's with them, forget installing any RPM's but the ones the distribution manufacturer provides you. Sure there are GUI frontends and automated tools that can help with some of the dependency hell issues, but those are a royal pain...I shouldn't have to use a GUI to install programs. I'm not always in a situation where I can be at the terminal or VNC in, and in fact one of my boxes doesn't even have X installed on it. The Slackware way of ./configure ; make ; make install isn't TOO bad, but then you don't have anything that tracks what versions of packages you have installed. If you want real actual package management that doesn't suffer from these issues, there's only one choice: Portage. There isn't anything else right now that even comes close to where Portaeg was in 1999. I know the Gentoo way is usually compiling from source, and there are a lot of situations where that won't work, but it is very possible to use Portage to delivery binary packages. There are many binary packages available. Of course, if you use those they won't be optimized for your system, but then neither are RPM's or Debian packages unless you compile them yourself.

I have to update Redhat, SuSE, and Debian boxes where I work now, and it is absolute hell...so much so that automated tools are created to do it for you. On Gentoo, completely updating your box is very easy: emerge --sync ; emerge -uDNva world

http://www.gentoo.org/

Re:Less keystrokes

[rtechie]

and too bad that using remote desktop kicks the local user OFF the machine No, it doesn't, but it does seize control of the session. And since we're trying to provide remote support here (have you read the thread?) that's a GOOD thing. It means the local user and remote user can collaborate on the same desktop.

However, I'll generally accept that this is a real problem with Windows XP: you can't have multiple users "active" simultaneously. This is a licensing issue from Microsoft (they consider multiuser a "server" feature), and it sucks. This same limitation exists in Vista, but I think they may be addressing this in a Service Pack.

Also remember that the OP claimed that XP DIDN'T HAVE remote management features, and then someone else claimed they were completely insecure. I'm not arguing that Linux doesn't have good options for remote management, but that Windows DOES have options for remote management, that they work fairly well, and that they are not insecure.

Re:Less keystrokes

[EdelFactor19]

im aware vnc on windows seizes control only but whenever i use windows remote desktop from even my own windows machine to another of my windows machines (hey i was young and stupid once) when the remote gets connected i get logged out locally and taken to the login screen, and if i login my remote connector (myself on another machine) gets logged out. not very helpful.. i havent done remote assistance ever which might address this.

vnc is usually more entertaining on windows. during the pre-VMware days we had a common windows machine for coops in my cubicle for submitting and printing time sheets on (for whatever reason no one could get the office printer to work on linux at the time and the time sheet program wasnt linux friendly either and had to be done from IE) so we would take turns using vnc on this machine... it was always funny when all the sudden you lost control of the mouse to someone else and you both tried to move it opposite directions,

Re:Less keystrokes

[Thundersnatch]

Windows terminal services sessions are encrypted with 128-bit RC4. The Remote Assistance feature utilizes WTS. The shared secret (the password) is used to protect the terminal services session key, so password strength is an issue.

I'll grant you that VNC sessions are not encrypted, but that's true on Linux as well. You need to use an SSH wrapper (also possible and just as easy on Windows as it is on Linux), or a VPN of some sort.

The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[jkrise]

Itself means Linux has made a good 'Next Leap'. Seriously! Until a few months back, the only Linux news used to be about the SCO case, Microsoft - Novell patents FUD etc. The nature of the GPL has meant that the cat is now well out of the bag, and the mainstream press outlets are compelled to sing the Penguin March.

Poor network performance in Vista, the OOXML vote and now, the Excel 2007 calculation howler have made bad press for Microsoft. Not a day passes on Digg without Ubuntu articles getting over thousands of Diggs. So now, the NYT, Forbes, Gartner, Yankee and the rest must join the Linux bandwagon. Or be left behind.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[darthflo]

You're right about the mainstream press 'Next Leap', but apart from the Excel 2007 "problem" I don't see Digg, Vista's network performance, the OOXML fiasco or all those freedom politics helping to get non-techies to consider switching. Even the Excel trouble didn't get too much bad mainstream press 'round here.
Linux's biggest mainstream advance over Vista will probably stay it's lower price for the next few years.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[Finallyjoined!!!]

How about this, found on digg: http://troubledramblings.com/2007/10/02/why-my-mom-can-use-ubuntu/

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[morgan_greywolf]

Itself means Linux has made a good 'Next Leap'. Seriously! Until a few months back, the only Linux news used to be about the SCO case, Microsoft - Novell patents FUD etc. The nature of the GPL has meant that the cat is now well out of the bag, and the mainstream press outlets are compelled to sing the Penguin March. I don't disagree with you that the mainstream press' recent positive attention to Linux is demonstrative of Linux on the desktop becoming a success story of its own, but I don't really see what the GPL has to do with it. The license itself makes no difference as far as 'compelling mainstream outlets to sing the Penguin March.' All that matters in this regard is that Linux can get the job done and is proving itself as a viable desktop operating system. The license may have contributed to that by invigorating the developer base (a matter that's up for debate), but the GPL really has nothing to do with Linux's success -- the success is a result of the hard work of developers, testers, documenters, and community volunteers that help spread the word.

So now, the NYT, Forbes, Gartner, Yankee and the rest must join the Linux bandwagon. Or be left behind. These groups don't have to do anything of the sort. They merely report on trends in technology. If one of those trends is Linux, so be it. They'll report. Gartner and Yankee in particular aren't going to end their Microsoft bias anytime soon though.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[jkrise]

... positive attention to Linux is demonstrative of Linux on the desktop becoming a success story of its own, but I don't really see what the GPL has to do with it. The license itself makes no difference ...

Er.. how many BSD licensed distros have made it to mainstream press? The simple truth of the matter is that GPL has ensured that users get the most benefit from the Freedoms. Else, the corporate idea-thieves would've long ago taken over Linux, and made colourful, bloated clones.. back to Unix days. GPL is the best thing that ever happened to Linux.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[darthflo]

It's a nice story and perfectly proves my point (Linux being installed not because of bad OOXML press, it being free as in speech or Ballmer throwing chairs but because it's free as in beer and less of a hassle to install). EasyUbuntu looks nice, too.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[plague3106]

Else, the corporate idea-thieves would've long ago taken over Linux, and made colourful, bloated clones..

Ya, thank god there's only one LInux distro!

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[morgan_greywolf]

Er.. how many BSD licensed distros have made it to mainstream press? The simple truth of the matter is that GPL has ensured that users get the most benefit from the Freedoms. Else, the corporate idea-thieves would've long ago taken over Linux, and made colourful, bloated clones.. back to Unix days. GPL is the best thing that ever happened to Linux. You make it sound like there's only GPL and BSD to chose from in free / open source licenses. There are something like 60 different licenses listed on opensource.org. Are you suggesting that if Linux had been distributed under, say, the Artistic License that it wouldn't have been as successful? And the answer to your original question: How many BSD licensed.... is at least three. FreeBSD, Mac OS X and Darwin.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[TuringTest]

Ya, thank god there's only one LInux distro! You weren't there during the UNIX wars, were you?

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[plague3106]

Yup, I was. And the Linux situation isn't much better.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[domatic]

The original Artistic license REALLY would have been a problem. You see the endless arguments about even simple licenses like BSD? Imagine the wrangling a kludgy license like the old Artistic license would have caused. It definitely would have been sand in the gears as projects fought each other over the proper interpretation of the license. Even the version of BSD with the "nasty" advertising clause is infinitely superior in this regard. Although, I seriously doubt a purely BSD licensed OS would have had the success distros like Ubuntu and SuSe are having. Just when things start getting good, someone will either take his toys home or fork the entire OS. Sure there is Darwin but you're better off with FreeBSD if OS X isn't your cuppa.

All that said, FreeBSD or DragonFly could bootstrap themselves into a much larger market/mindshare with the doors opened by widespread Linux use if they play their cards right.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[jokersmild]

We should all remember that Linux has hotter chicks. http://picasaweb.google.com/odomsbar/ShillBuntu

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[a.d.trick]

The license may have contributed to that by invigorating the developer base (a matter that's up for debate), but the GPL really has nothing to do with Linux's success — the success is a result of the hard work of developers, testers, documenters, and community volunteers that help spread the word.

I'm not quite sure what the GP was trying to get at, but this is a bit misleading. The chief innovation of Linux was not technical, it was social. It's not like Linus was the first decent OS architect, but he (and RMS) founded a great community which made a great operating system (and a compiler, text editor, and much, much more). It was the community that made the software, but it was the license that make the community possible. The GNU GPL still draws far more developers than any other open source license, and this isn't all due to RMS making zombies out of us :-)

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[iabervon]

With all of the people ditching Vista for XP (enough that OEMs bother to support it), Linux has the clear advantage that nobody tries to force you to use bad versions and that there's more flexibility in what you can upgrade independantly.

I think a lot of Linux distributions fail to push this advantage as much as they could (upgrade your system, and everything will be exactly the same, unless you switch to a new theme, except that newer hardware will work, more features can be enabled, and stuff will work more smoothly), but they're still far ahead of Microsoft, which has a slew of arbitrary regressions and reorganizations when they have new versions (e.g., in XP, dragging a file into a batch file window waiting for a filename will insert that filename; in Vista, this doesn't work).

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[garett_spencley]

I don't think price will ever factor into it. Most people pirate Windows or it came with their PC and they don't realize they've paid the MS tax. Of course, as hardware prices lower the MS tax will become more apparent, but if someone wants Windows I don't think paying an extra $100 on a $300 purchase is going to make *most* people consider using something with draw backs such as not being able to run their games or apps.

I think Linux' biggest strengths for mainstream computer users are the following:

1. No malware / virus crap. No having to install an anti-virus program that slows down and bloats up your computer.

2. No registry bloat and having to re-install every 6 months.

3. No Windows genuine advantage and installing stealth updates etc. I remember when MS first released the WGA patch in Windows Update that informed you that your copy was pirated and annoyed the hell out of you. I fell prey to it and so did a lot of other people. I did a bit of reading and learned how to uninstall it and afterwards I set Windows Update to notify me but not auto-install and I started going through the list of updates and unchecked anything related to WGA ... but I had to "fix" quite a few relatives' computers and that sort of thing *really* annoys people. No one likes having their lives, routines, property etc. fucked up by "big brother" and MS sure made themselves look like a bully with that tactic. Of course this only applies to people who pirate Windows but that is a large number of people.

4. "coolness" factor for the hormone raging teenage male who wants to show off how leet he is by being different and using something that's kind of 'mysterious' to the average windows user (used to only be a geek trait but I'm amazed how much I'm seeing it in places you wouldn't expect to, like myspace and guitar player forums etc.)

5. Desktop FX and "eye candy". I know that it's cliche on /. to hate such things and condemn them as "un-necessary" and "bloatware" etc. but the fact is that a lot of people like that kind of thing. When I installed Ubuntu on my wife's computer the first thing she asked me is "how do I make it do the squiggly windows like yours used to ?" (I played with it on my desktop for a while but it started to annoy me after a while and I disabled them). I remember watching a couple youtube videos demonstrating Beryl and I read through the comments and a lot of people were saying "wow I'm gonna have to give Linux a try! That's way better than Vista's FX!"

The drawbacks are discussed all the time but I think the most important ones are:

1. Lack of games.

2. Inability to run Windows applications seamlessly.

3. Inability to go to any store, buy a new device or software package and be 100% guaranteed that it will "just work" when you bring it home.

4. The insanely huge amount of software out there that "sort of" works. Even the more feature-full and stable applications that have been in development for years can still annoy you a little. For example, on Windows I ran MSN messenger and ICQ. Unfortunately I am absolutely required to use ICQ because it's for business. On Linux I'm using GAIM and it works pretty well for the most part. Only I can't send messages to people while I'm in "invisible" mode. WTF! ... My wife can't use her MSN emoticons and graphics. Sure all us /. techies will roll our eyes at that but they are very important to her and she has actually said she's considered switching back to Windows for that alone (I told her to try running Messenger in VMWare first since she needs to run Windows in VMWare anyway for a few business apps that she needs to use every day and won't work in Wine).

4a. The other part of this is that when you want to install a software package to do something you have to sift through massive repositories and try to sort out the beta and alpha packages that are half developed etc. When I installed Ubuntu I was very impressed that it came with

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

I'm late to the party but, the other day my dentist asked me if it's too complicated with Linux - or if it's worth it. (I had been reading Linux Journal in the reception - since I found it in the local candy shop. All the other English language mags were gamers' stuff, this is in Sweden.)

Anyway, the reason he asked is that he can't bear XP any longer, and neither can his friends. To them, Mac is not an alternative - and so he asked if it was terribly complicated, or if I thought he could manage. He's reasonably intelligent (or I wouldn't let him dig around in my mouth), so I said go for it.

Vista's bad network performance isn't its problem to mainstream users. That it is Windows, and thus associated with viruses and malware is a way bigger problem. At least to my dentist.

Hardware still an issue

[BlueParrot]

Based on my experience with Ubuntu, I'd say that the biggest issue is by far hardware vendors. When given ideal hardware Linux will pretty much "just work" but there is a lot of hardware that is not just less than ideal, but quite frankly unusable. I eventually bought a new PCI wireless card because I couldn't get my existing one to work, even with ndiswrapper.

Unfortunately there really isn't a whole lot the developers can do to change this unless hardware vendors start opening their specs. The good news is that a lot of vendors do realize that having the FLOSS community write the drivers is pretty much the cheapest way to outsource development. As a bonus these drivers tend to be a lot more stable as well.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Max Threshold]

Hardware? Really? My biggest problem with Ubuntu (currently running the 7.10 beta) is with developers trying to squeeze in the latest and greatest upstream versions at the last minute, causing regressions and general strife and turning what could have been the Windows killer into an embarrassment for anyone who's trying to promote Linux.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Laebshade]

I have a similar problem. When I built a new PC earlier this year, of course I went with the best [that my wallet could handle]. All of the equipment is compatible to Linux... except the sound card, a Creative X-Fi. It has no support on linux whatsoever and probably won't until at least next year.

Wait, let me stop myself there. I had to check the Creative open source page to confirm, and there are beta drivers now! But, a Gentoo forum thread shows that these are really just alpha drivers. Still, some progress is better than none. Maybe we can get nVidia to release specs for their video cards...

Re:Hardware still an issue

[blackbirdwork]

I don't agree. I installed Ubuntu on my new machine and everything worked out of the box. I tried to install Windows XP and it didn't detect my SATA drives, i had to use floppy drives (god, in 2007 we still have to use floppy drives!). After that, my Webcam, Hauppage WinTV-150 card and HP printer worked without doing anything in Ubuntu, in Windows I had to install drivers. So please tell me why is easier to install and setup hardware in Windows?

Re:Hardware still an issue

[oliverthered]

My greatest problems were the significant lack of gui configuration tools for all but the most simple things, oh, and the kernel update screwed things up. I went back to gentoo since I didn't see any less hacking required under ubuntu.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Bert64]

But you are running a beta... It's expected to have problems.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[blackbirdwork]

Gutsy 7.10 beta is a BETA. You shouldn't be using it if you are not a beta tester or developer. Try with 7.04

Re:Hardware still an issue

[nschubach]

I think you pretty much answered your own issue there. You did say it was a Beta version, right?

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Bert64]

The situation is almost certainly going to improve tho...
There was talk recently of at least one major OEM demanding that hardware they buy must have linux drivers available, and i doubt they will accept anything marked as beta. Component makers can't afford to lose large OEM contracts.
With companies like Dell now offering Ubuntu, it doesn't make financial sense to maintain completely different sources of components for linux and non-linux systems, they will try to use as many of the same parts across the board as they can. If some hardware has no linux drivers, that's a big disincentive to buy that hardware and then have to separately buy something else for other systems.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[CastrTroy]

It's amazing how many features get left out of windows, that would be so easy to support, yet for some reason never seem to make it in. One feature is loading RAID, SCSI, and IDE Controller card drivers off something other than a floppy disk. The other that really drives me batty is the inability for you to set an image as your wallpaper, and have windows resize it so that the image fills the maximum amount of the screen, without changing the aspect ratio. Seriously, this has been available in Linux for at least 5 years, and Vista still doesn't do this. The algorithm would take 1 person a maximum of 1/2 a day to program, and test, even if they weren't a good programmer. Spending 6 years on Vista and they can't even add simple features like this, that would make so many home user's lives easier, is just terrible.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Nicholas Evans]

I think his point was that, hey look, it's 2007-10, and they need to release this soon. Why are they trying to assfist in all of the bleeding-edge stuff *now*? Why can't it wait for 8.04?

Re:Hardware still an issue

[darthflo]

You're in a bit of a dilemma here. Running beta software will cause some instabilities there (as mentioned by all others responding to you), but going back to stable 7.04 will probably get you the hardware-related problems GP was talking about (if you're running exotic or really new hardware anyways, Gutsy really fixed tons of issues there). I'm happy with Gutsy and a few problems, hope you are too :]

Re:Hardware still an issue

[blackbirdwork]

That's because they can't copy Linux code anymore :)

> The algorithm would take 1 person a maximum of 1/2 a day to program, and test, even if they weren't a good programmer. Spending 6 years on Vista and
> they can't even add simple features like this, that would make so many home user's lives easier, is just terrible.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Perl-Pusher]

My greatest problems were the significant lack of gui configuration tools for all but the most simple things

Amen to that! A wiki should not replace a good configuration tool. I've used YAST in SuSe, Mandrivas tool are pretty good too. But for me the best little setup has got to be PcLinuxOS it has the same configuration tools as Mandriva , but uses Synaptic to download software. And there are a ton of packages available. You never need to install a new version, it is completely upgradeable via synaptic. And the packages are thoroughly tested and just work. Its a live CD so you know it will work before you install it. It really is impressive for a small distribution and it looks great too. It doesn't have a company behind but it does have a community of volunteers.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Yer Mum]

Maybe because companies like Dell and others now offering Linux want something nice and shiny for Christmas.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[dave420]

You just mentioned how ndiswrapper didn't work properly, then said open source drivers tend to be more stable. I hope ndiswrapper is the exception to the rule, or that doesn't make a great deal of sense ;)

Manufacturers want other folks to write their drivers, as otherwise they have to spend the money themselves, on a market that is well under 10% of their prospective customers. Windows was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Linux doesn't have that luxury, unfortunately.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[ericrost]

What the heck are you guys talking about? I've been running the beta for a week now, and have had only a few minor issues as they get the new laptop power management stuff figured out.

It BETA folks, there are going to be regressions. When you run Gentoo unstable to get up with the same package versions as released Ubuntu repos, you're going to have regressions every day (why I switched) once Ubuntu's out of beta, I haven't had a single regression the entire time I've been running w/it (granted only 6 months, but that's a far better track record that Gentoo).

BETA with a big warning saying don't mess with it if you can't figure out dependencies. If you want "Just Works" wait 2 weeks for the release.

Jesus.

(Captcha majestic)

Re:Hardware still an issue

[GalionTheElf]

Ndiswrapper isn't really a driver though is it, it's just a stop-gap hack to use the Windows drivers under Linux. So no, that would not be a good example of a Linux driver.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[dave420]

True, but it's the de facto solution to wireless functionality on Linux. The fact that it's the de facto solution AND relies on a massive hack (and Windows drivers) says an awful lot about the state of hardware support in Linux.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Etyenne]

Because 8.04 will be a LTS release (Long Term Support), and it is expected that the Ubuntu developers will be conservative with the feature set they allow into 8.04. As such, if you have a feature that is somewhat experimental, you need to push it now (to get it tested and polished before 8.04), or wait until 8.10. At least, that's the theory. In practice, I am fairly certain quite a few experimental features will find their ways into 8.04 anyway.

Managing releases at fixed date and coordinating with upstream project release is probably the toughest challenge Ubuntu is facing. But on the other hand, this is exactly what gave it the edge in the distro war. So far, the execution have been pretty good and Ubuntu reap the benefits.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello /. poster,

We see you made a post with the following phrases:

"assfist"

"bleeding-edge"

Please refrain from putting these words in such close proximity in the future.

Thanks,
Mgmt.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya I know, betas should totally try to squeeze in the oldest stuff possible /sarcasm. WTF are you talking about, and do you know what a beta is?

Here is a good definition of beta for you: "developers trying to squeeze in the latest and greatest upstream versions". The whole point of the beta is to find the regressions and "general strife" (wtf?). I mean, did I miss the sarcasm in your post or are you just a moron?

Posted AC so I don't have to see your dumbass respond to my rhetorical questions. Read more, post less. kthx.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[TheCoelacanth]

True, but it's the de facto solution to wireless functionality on Linux. The fact that it's the de facto solution AND relies on a massive hack (and Windows drivers) says an awful lot about the state of hardware support in Linux.

No, it's not. ndiswrapper is only the defacto solution for Broadcom wireless cards. Get a supported card, like an Intel or an Atheros and you can use a stable, native driver. I have an Atheros that works perfectly with a mostly open source driver with a small binary blob, that is currently being replaced.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Techman83]

....BETA? Isn't that what BETA versions are all about...? At least it is labelled correctly. I can see vista being BETA until well past Sp2 and don't get me started on Hardware compatibility!

Re:Hardware still an issue

[tcolberg]

Perhaps you guys could explain the problems you're having with Ubuntu a little bit more? I've been seriously considering Ubuntu as of late (I even booted with a LiveCD) and either need to make enough room for a partition or use an older computer. But it's these sorts of discussions that cause me trepidation. I like to hear what's wrong with something before I engage with it, it lets me consider whether I can handle those difficulties. With Windows, I know all the things that are wrong with it and how to deal with them, but reading you all talk about regressions and difficulties with install packages makes me a bit wary.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[DMUTPeregrine]

Try Wubi, it lets you mount Ubuntu from your windows NTFS hard drive. If it works, it works, if you have issues you can just boot to windows, go to Add & Remove Programs, and remove it. I'd recommend a normal install for actual use though.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[makomk]

Only for certain cards. Also, it's not a surprise that it has issues - I used to use it with my 802.11b/g USB network adapter (with a few regressions in some versions, often due to the fact that its SMP support wasn't that well tested and it had to reimplement things like spinlocks due to assumptions on the part of certain drivers about their internals). I later tried to check the Vista support for the device - some quick Googling indicated that it wouldn't work. If even Microsoft can't write something that works reliably with all the drivers out there, what chance does ndiswrapper have?

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Max Threshold]

Problems, yes. Serious regressions less than two weeks before the scheduled release date, no.

Re:Hardware still an issue

[Max Threshold]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! A distro meant to be widely usable (like Ubuntu) should focus on working out the bugs in the integration of stable, tested versions of the included packages. It should not try to include cutting-edge versions of packages that have problems of their own, to say nothing of their integration with a usable desktop environment. If anything is incorporated from the newest package versions, it should be backported bug fixes. That's how RH used to be managed, a fact to which they owe much of their early dominance, IMO.

Correction

[smartin]

But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing.

Those reasons disappeared years ago, what needs to disappear now are stories repeating them.

Re:Correction

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The same reasons still exist... a lot of the professional software used by many folks, still only exist on windows, and hardware vendors are not quick to support linux.

Its been that way since i installed slackware 1

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Its still not perfect, and I guess never will be. Installation is really easy, but you still get a lot of options that a non-techie user would baulk at. (a question like 'which language do you want to use?' is fine, ones like 'choose a filesystem: ext3 or reiser fs?' or 'enter your IP address, subnet and gateway' aren't).

Many of these questions are fundamental to the working of the system so cannot be removed, but a few could be moved to a better hand-holding wizards that have a lot more explanation of where to find which values to enter.

So, I think the installation topic is as good as solved as its likely to get - there is room for it to get a little better, but its fine.

The biggest problem I have with linux now (apart from having to guess which damn directory packages install their files to) is configuration of those packages. I know 'linux' can be described as 'not those add-ons' but in the mind of every user Linux means Kernel + Apache + everthing else.
If these packages are difficult to configure (and they range from tricky to downright impossible) then that's a huge turn-off for users.

Re:Correction

[Aladrin]

When was the last time you tried? Download (K)Ubuntu Feisty and install it, and then check your complaints. I think you'll find that they are -all- addressed.

Filesystem choice? The installer defaults to 'auto' mode and chooses for you.

Network? Last time I installed, it didn't even -ask- me about this. DHCP automatically. (I'd have prefered it ask, since I use a static IP on my network. It was easy to change afterwards through the KDE app for it.)

Package configuration? The only configuration that needs to be done is for advanced packages, like Apache. Everything else is auto-configured by the installer.

There's even a graphical interface for the package installation.

Re:Correction

[Nosklo]

apart from having to guess which damn directory packages install their files to if you are using debian-like:

dpkg -L packagename

or right click the package in the package manager and choose "properties".

Re:Correction

[dave420]

Those reasons haven't disappeared. You still can't do 100% of what you can on Windows on Linux. Until that changes, there are real, tangible reasons for people not to switch. People don't like to compromise. There is no way any of the companies I've worked for could become 100% Linux, as there are key pieces of software that many folks use every single day that are nowhere near available on Linux. It's a shame, and it's getting better, but to say it's "there" is doing Linux a great disservice, as it entices people to sit on their laurels and not strive to actually close the gap.

Re:Correction

[Heddahenrik]

But you also have to remember that a lot of the professional software only works or only works well on Linux and/or Unix.

OK, one can run MySQL and Apache on Windows, but preferably not, so then the servers tend to run Linux.

I'm not sure about Gimp, Mplayer or Emacs, but I know many who use them on Windows, so I guess they on their own aren't enough reason to use some force to stay in or switch to Linux. I think the strongest reason is that many people know Unix and Linus better than they know Windows, so then they want it at their desktop too. And then their friends get no free support on Windows from them and they start to switch too.

Re:Correction

[gbalaji]

>> You still can't do 100% of what you can on Windows on Linux.

huh? really? keep the FUD machine running...

Re:Correction

[bmcage]

hmm, do you think I can do 100% on windows as I can on Linux? Think again.

I suppose I 'work' in a different sector than the window shops.

Re:Correction

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

i completely agree that a lot of professional software is on linux. But we're talking about winning the desktop, or atleast breaking even here. I work in 3d character animation and post production. There are linux versions of the major 3d applications etc but there are photoshops, video editors, zbrushes, mudboxes, etc.

There are lots of very highend server applications on linux etc... Linux excels at this, no one is denying it. The issue is the desktop, the workstation. Windows and Mac are beyond linux in this area by far and we need to stop pretending that linux is even close.

Linux covers some very basic desktop uses... but excels at server uses.

The same issues that i mentioned in my OP, are still true to this day for linux. They will be universally true of any non mainstream os and its not linux's fault. Its just how this dam industry works. Beleive me, i dont like it myself.

Gimp is absolutely horrible for professional use.

Linux improves, it is usable, it is nice.... it is not perfect, it is still rough around the corners, it is still difficult in a handful of ways that will annoy the hell out of anyone trying it....

And what i've always said is... Is that frustration worth overcoming, when the applications you use, are not there yet?

Thats for an individual to decide. I've decided to stick with windows. I'm running vista 64 with 8 gigs of ram and for the most part its not horrible. Its pretty nice in many ways, but it does need some honest work... but it still runs the applications everyones familiar with, and the hardware support is pretty dam good.

Especially since MS requires hardware manufacturers to write 64bit drivers as well as 32 now. I mean come on, we have to get out of the 32bit world ASAP.

That makes it even harder for linux hardware suppport, because the manufacturers dont even want to write drivers for 32bit linux... when will they get to 64bit linux drivers?

It's such a tooth pulling experience, and i hope in time... sooner than later, linux gets the wide spread support it deservers. I'm glad many do run it as their desktops. I'm sure it fits their needs quite fine. It does not fit everyones though, and that still needs to be addressed. I understand theres a lot of propaganda at work to help linux succeed, some of it true and some of it tired and old, BUT... i know its a good fight.

Impact of the article ...

[foobsr]

From TFA: "Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software"

Which basically translates to not for me for the average person, being neither a geek nor wanting to have the self-image of being 'basic'.

CC.

Re:Impact of the article ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you know that the bundled software with Linux are mostly everything known to mankind, the meaning now totally changes. Basic needs should be read whatever someone would ever need.

Re:Impact of the article ...

[mysticgoat]

From TFA: "Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software"
Which basically translates to not for me for the average person, being neither a geek nor wanting to have the self-image of being 'basic'.

TFA's choice of words was unfortunate and inaccurate. It was especially bad since it is the kind of quick sound bite that cursory readers of TFA are going to take away with them.

Taken in context, what TFA was trying to say is that dweebs who have to have the very latest $500 pocket toy as a crutch for their low self-esteem should stick with Windows unless they are technically savvy.

And in the paragraphs before that sound bite, TFA did say that anyone who is not pocket toy dweeb will find that migrating to Linux is easier than re-installing their current Windows or migrating to Vista. And that finding, installing, and upgrading quality FOSS applications is a lot simpler and very much less expensive than the Windows way of doing these things.

Now how do you say all that in 25 words or less?

Re:Impact of the article ...

[DragonWriter]

From TFA: "Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software"

That's probably somewhat true, if by "bundled" they mean "included in the standard repositories".

Of course, the set of people who are not "technically savvy", yet have needs that require software that isn't available in, say, the standard repositories for Ubuntu is small if not actually empty.

Linux Dell cheaper than Vista ?

[eulernet]

Ok, so why is it not advertised on Dell's site ? From the TFA, Vista is 50 to 80 dollars more expensive. Does this only mean that Dell wants Microsoft to reduce its license price ?

Re:Linux Dell cheaper than Vista ?

[darthflo]

Ok, so why is it not advertised on Dell's site ?

Because Dell know(s (We talking about the company or Michael here? ;))) most people expect Windows to ship with their PC. Plus they are extremely probably making a few bucks on each copy of Windows shipped and a few more on each piece of crapware included. And the Dell support helpdesk (including their field staff, I'd imagine) probably isn't ready to support a huge wave of Linux-related questions which they would have to if they rolled out Ubuntu on a really broad basis.

Evolution of Linux

[Fireflymantis]

I first got linux running back in '97 with Mandrake 5 point something, and back then I used it more with a 'shove it to MS' attitude. Things were clunky, slow, and broke easily in the GUI side back then. Definitely needed xkill as a shortcut, accessible at all times. X was a nightmare to configure and good luck getting sound working. OSS was 'the next big thing' for dealing with sound cards. *shudder*

10 years later, there are some things that are still a bit rough around the corners, but at least now I am using it full time because I find it genuinely more usable and I can get a lot more work done using it than I ever could on windows. It is more stable, and short of accidentally hitting the switch on the power-strip with my feet, never have to deal with system crashes or BSODs.

Right now, we are starting to see some 'really' neat things taking off like next-get UI's (compiz/beryl) and zeroconf that when refined over the next many years will undoubtedly make Linux systems the leader of the OSs. Additionally, due to the compound effect when more users switch over, more companies will release more goodies onto 'nix.

Over the next decade I really think that there will be massive proliferation of Linux desktops and that maybe finally the IT industry can start the long journey to finally rid itself of nasty kludges presented by Redmond year after year. Of course though, we will have to watch out for self contrived idiocies such as political breakdown within the wizard circles (kernel, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc) and also try and sanely resolve niggling issues like the current GPLv2 vs GPLv3 dilemma.

So far since my indoctrination to the Linux world I have seen such vast improvements it boggles my mind, and I expect nothing less for the next 10.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to pick a nit, Mandrake was first released in Summer 1998.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[dave420]

If everything stayed the same, then yes, in a few years Linux would dominate every other OS out there. Unfortunately that's not the case. Other OSs, with larger R&D budgets allocated to them, with comprehensive guidance from a single entity, will push the face of OSs forward, and Linux will still be playing this game of keep-up. I've seen some fantastic improvements to Linux, but the basic aspects found in most distros are still not even at the Windows 2000 level when it comes to operation, usability, support for hardware, or even ease of use.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[Fireflymantis]

My mistake, I just checked the Mandrake's history and it would have been 5.2 in '98. I was in Gr.8 at the time which was 97/98.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[Fireflymantis]

Other OSs, with larger R&D budgets allocated to them, with comprehensive guidance from a single entity, will push the face of OSs forward Kind of like Microsoft with Vista? Quite frankly I see (K)Ubuntu Gutsy getting pretty close to even in terms of the 'catchup' and while MS spends teh next 7 years working on their next Windows, Linux will just keep on steaming ahead, collecting more and more talent running the engines as it goes.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[dave420]

Vista, for all its faults, is a great operating system. I know this is slashdot, and I'm supposed to jump up and down foaming at the mouth whenever Vista is mentioned, but I can't. I've been using it for a few months now, and it's solid as a rock. Considering it runs all my applications, whereas any Linux distro you pick can't, that rules out Linux entirely for me, and those in my office. It has the performance I want, does what I want, and gives me the hardware support and accelerated GUI I want. Considering Linux hasn't even caught up with Windows 2000 or XP, how it's suddenly going to leap ahead, get full Windows compatibility, get full hardware support, AND get killer apps developed solely for it, is beyond me. It will be playing catch-up on the desktop until we blow ourselves up.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[Fireflymantis]

Well, just as there are horror stories regarding people switching to linux, there are horror stories regarding people moving to Vista. I have used it fairly extensivly and there was just a whole lot to not like. It took well over 3 hours to get a HP C5150 printer working on it, and even after that, I cannot access any of the card reader slots or use the scanner on it. This is doubly annoying as Vista does not support the digital camera I hooked up to it and was screwed over trying to get some pictures off of it. Fortunatly I had my laptop with Ubuntu that when I plugged in the camera everything 'just worked'.

I'm not trying to flame, I am simply saying that just like Linux, Vista, 'usually' works fine but as soon as you hit an edge case or some unsupported hardware you can plainly see some very broken bits of it. As for the killer apps you speak of, I can't really think of anything besides some very nice games that I miss. Photoshop would be handy at times, but only for converting files from PSD to something Gimp can handle more elegantly. (Yeah... I am broken... I actually 'like' Gimps interface. Knowing this feel free to discard all of the above :)

Re:Evolution of Linux

[moderatorrater]

So far since my indoctrination to the Linux world I have seen such vast improvements it boggles my mind, and I expect nothing less for the next 10 I couldn't agree more. I started with Mandrake several years ago (6 or so), and it was nearly unusable when compared with Windows 98 (which is saying a lot). Linux lagged behind windows in every way applicable to a desktop experience (yes, the programs crashed a lot and often brought the rest of the system down, possibly because of my inexperience).

Years later and Linux is nearly as usable as windows/osx in every way and has surpassed both in things like multiple desktops, cool window effect, and program installation. The only thing the linux desktop is really missing is exclusive software, which will probably never happen because of the GPL.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

97? Mandrake? It started in 98.

Re:Evolution of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I'm seeing the opposite.

1) Can you really say that the IE7 UI does not look rushed and amateurish compared to FF (aside from being a year late to the game)?

2) My buddy recently gave me his webcam because there are no XP drivers for it. I plugged it into my Ubuntu box and it ran flawlessly after a reboot--no download needed.

3) I wanted to install motion-detection SW for the camera. After figuring out what I wanted ("motion"), I clicked the package manager, found "motion" in the list and clicked it.

1) A for-profit entity cannot justify spending money where they already have a lead or their offering is even just "good enough", consequently while a for-profit company may take the lead in an area, they cannot possibly hold it in all areas. Open source also has more developers than MS can hope to hire and a huge resource base (many eyes and shared code for example) that is less available to the MS business model.

2) MS relies on HW vendors to do most of the heavy lifting. Once the HW product is delivered, the vendor has no direct reason to provide support for that product. Many hardware products are essentially identical from a software standpoint because they are based around the same part (chip or chipset). Mfrs need to focus on the product differences to differentiate their products. "User developers" can focus on the similarities so they automatically gain a leverage equal to the number of products based on that part. Also, since a relatively tiny number of drivers covers almost all instances of a particular type of hardware, the drivers can be packaged with the OS at a very low (disk) cost.

3) Since there are relatively few licensing issues, the entire license key process goes away. This creates a more simpler, much more consistent and much less error prone installation process. It also means that almost no budget ($ or hrs) needs to be dedicated to licensing and support related to licensing.

The net effect is that proprietary development needs to do more with less and has fewer opportunities to leverage existing work or similar tasks.

Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

Two things make even considering Linux for normal users absolutely prohibitive:

Usability is a nightmare. The UI is cluttered with useless, confusing icons and half of the functions behind them don't even work properly. But configuration is the worst problem, why is it so hard to make a system architecture and drivers that don't require constant hand holding regarding even the most basic settings?

Second, supporting Windows apps is a huge problem, too. For all intends and purposes Wine just doesn't work, at least not of you don't know how to tweak and trick it into doing the right thing. At least SuSE comes with XEN, but it's pretty much unusable. The idea of mere users setting up something that works like Parallels on Mac is just completely out of the question with the way this stuff needs to be configured.

Of course it doesn't help that Linus himself is a big antagonist when it comes to making a system that saves the user some time with useful configuration models and efficient UI.

Who has time and energy to spend days setting up his workstation? (Servers are another matter, they're ridiculously easy to set up!) I'm a fairly good developer and I'm under the comforting illusion that I have at least a basic understanding of what goes on under the hood. So when I say that even I am regularly getting discouraged by the obscene amount of hoops Linux/KDE/whatever make their users jumpf through to get anything done, that should mean something.

Re:Not really mainstream

[morgan_greywolf]

Usability is a nightmare. The UI is cluttered with useless, confusing icons and half of the functions behind them don't even work properly What are you talking about? Have you seen a recent GNOME or KDE desktop? Lots of thought and care were put into uncluttering the desktop and making icons and menus make sense -- on both of the major desktops.

But configuration is the worst problem, why is it so hard to make a system architecture and drivers that don't require constant hand holding regarding even the most basic settings? It's not. I haven't had to compile a custom kernel in gods-knows-how-long. Most common hardware devices are supported out of the box on modern, polished distros like Ubuntu or Fedora. For the four computers in my house, I only ever needed to manually configure ONE piece of hardware -- a USB wireless adapter on my laptop. The other machine with wireless has an Atheros wireless NIC, and I literally had to do nothing other than configure WPA. The digital camera, Web cam, scanner, printer, wired NICs, nVidia video cards, USB storage devices, mice, trackballs, keyboards (some with special keys), etc. were all literally supported out of the box with no manual configuration or driver installation whatsoever.

Second, supporting Windows apps is a huge problem, too. Really? Why is that a problem? Notice no one ever says "supporting Windows apps is a huge problem for Mac OS X". That's because 1) most people don't need Windows apps when there are plenty of nice alternatives, and 2) there are options like Parallels and Boot Camp for Intel Macs. Likewise, there are options like XEN and QEMU on Linux. Ever tried QEMU on Ubuntu Feisty Fawn? Other than the need to compile a custom kernel module for full virtualization (admittedly, a bit hard), there are applications like the QEMU Launcher and the QEMU Control Panel, which make it drop dead simple to setup and run QEMU for someone who knows what he's doing. Not that setting up Parallels is a cakewalk, either, though. It still involves installing a second OS in virtual machine, no matter what. And XEN is very usable.

Re:Not really mainstream

[FireFury03]

Usability is a nightmare. The UI is cluttered with useless, confusing icons and half of the functions behind them don't even work properly. But configuration is the worst problem, why is it so hard to make a system architecture and drivers that don't require constant hand holding regarding even the most basic settings?

You're talking about Windows, right?

Second, supporting Windows apps is a huge problem, too. For all intends and purposes Wine just doesn't work, at least not of you don't know how to tweak and trick it into doing the right thing.

But the majority of people don't need Windows apps - they need a web browser and a word processor. These are things that are available for non-windows platforms - the uptake of OS X (before Parallels appeared) should prove this.

At least SuSE comes with XEN, but it's pretty much unusable.

I have no recent experience of SuSE (although I have heard lots of bad stuff about it and for political reasons I wouldn't use it), but Xen under Fedora 7 is quite usable.

Of course it doesn't help that Linus himself is a big antagonist when it comes to making a system that saves the user some time with useful configuration models and efficient UI.

Whether or not you agree with Linus's opinions, he does not control the direction that individual distributions take the userland.

Who has time and energy to spend days setting up his workstation?

For one thing, even if I have to set up a workstation from scratch it doesn't take days. However, these days I tend to just copy my Beryl and Emerald config onto new workstations so there is no real set up to be done. One thing I _am_ sure of though it that if the OS restricted me as much as Windows does I would waste far more time having to deal with a bad unchangable configuration on a daily basis than I do in configuring a workstation _once_. One of the reasons I use Linux is because I can tweak the config to speed up operations I have to do frequently - Windows does not allow this to the same extent.

So when I say that even I am regularly getting discouraged by the obscene amount of hoops Linux/KDE/whatever make their users jump through to get anything done, that should mean something.

Yup, Linux makes people jump through an obscene amount of hoops. Guess what - so does every other OS, get over it.

Re:Not really mainstream

[darthflo]

Usability is a nightmare. The UI is cluttered with useless, confusing icons and half of the functions behind them don't even work properly.

When was the last time you tried a fresh copy of Ubuntu? 7.10 seems way less cluttered than Vista to me and I think it's quite similar to 7.04 and 6.06 (never tried those, but Screenshots look similar).

Of course it doesn't help that Linus himself is a big antagonist when it comes to making a system that saves the user some time with useful configuration models and efficient UI.

Unfortunately you may be right here. Linus really is focusing on Linux's potential as an "Enterprise" OS, but that's why we need people like ck, Miguel de Icaza and Mark Shuttleworth.

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

Well, at the risk of losing even more karma even replying to this, but...

What are you talking about? Have you seen a recent GNOME or KDE desktop? Lots of thought and care were put into uncluttering the desktop and making icons and menus make sense -- on both of the major desktops. Personally, I like KDE, I even like Gnome, but I'm a geek. And I'm not denying that desktop environments didn't come a long way towards usability. At the same time, I think it is necessary to refine them relentlessly. Anyone who thinks KDE is ready for their mom or your average office worker is clearly kidding themselves and I invite them to conduct their own study.

It's not. I haven't had to compile a custom kernel in gods-knows-how-long. Most common hardware devices are supported out of the box on modern, polished distros like Ubuntu or Fedora. Huge issues for me are multihead configuration and other graphics integration issues. This stuff shouldn't be so hard. Granted, most distros work fine on a standard single-screen system if the hardware isn't too fancy. Again, we've certainly come a long way here. But this needs to go so much further, up to the point where no user has to even touch a configuration text file, ever again.

Really? Why is that a problem? Notice no one ever says "supporting Windows apps is a huge problem for Mac OS X". It is a big problem because there needs to be legacy support for business apps and other expert software that can't be ported but has to be used for some time to come. Just saying "fuck this, you don't need this app" is not really the solution.

And supporting Windows apps is indeed a problem for Mac OS X, but not a huge one. Why? Because you can install stuff like Parallels even if you are just a mere human.

Re:Not really mainstream

[DaveCar]

At least SuSE comes with XEN, but it's pretty much unusable. The idea of mere users setting up something that works like Parallels on Mac is just completely out of the question with the way this stuff needs to be configured.

You could always just use VMWare Server. Free (as in beer), easy to use, and doesn't require hardware virtualisation support for 32bit guests.

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

You're talking about Windows, right? I'd say Windows is marginally better, but still horrible.

But the majority of people don't need Windows apps - they need a web browser and a word processor. These are things that are available for non-windows platforms - the uptake of OS X (before Parallels appeared) should prove this. I believe we in the open source community have developed quite a bit of complacency around the opinion that if something is alright for me as a geek, it should be perfect for everybody. Or the classical variation: "it certainly runs on MY hardware, so if you got problems you are obviously an idiot".

Fact is, there is still a huge user base out there that hasn't been reached. They are Windows users, lots of them. All I'm saying is maybe there is a reason why they are still on Windows other than the assumption of they being retards?

I have no recent experience of SuSE (although I have heard lots of bad stuff about it and for political reasons I wouldn't use it), but Xen under Fedora 7 is quite usable. I'll try that out then!

Whether or not you agree with Linus's opinions, he does not control the direction that individual distributions take the userland. Granted, but that makes it all the more bizarre that this mindset is so entrenched in the community. Every time somebody talks about usability they get a severe beating. So naturally, there are not many people still around to keep telling you there may be a problem because nobody wants to hear it anyway.

For one thing, even if I have to set up a workstation from scratch it doesn't take days. However, these days I tend to just copy my Beryl and Emerald config onto new workstations so there is no real set up to be done. One thing I _am_ sure of though it that if the OS restricted me as much as Windows does I would waste far more time having to deal with a bad unchangable configuration on a daily basis than I do in configuring a workstation _once_. One of the reasons I use Linux is because I can tweak the config to speed up operations I have to do frequently - Windows does not allow this to the same extent. Somehow I must have come across as a Windows advocate which I'm clearly not, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. There are tons of stuff I absolutely love about Linux/KDE/Gnome, but there are also lots of barriers and little frustrations adding up. And since we are talking about "The Next Leap for Linux" here anyway, maybe it's time to acknowledge that these barriers do in fact exist?

Yup, Linux makes people jump through an obscene amount of hoops. Guess what - so does every other OS, get over it. And I hate every single one of them. Somehow, telling users to "get over it" is not exactly the most productive way to go. Pretending something can't be changed because that's the way everybody else does it and because that's the way we've always been doing it... I don't see any potential for growth in this kind of attitude, I'm sorry.

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

When was the last time you tried a fresh copy of Ubuntu? 7.10 seems way less cluttered than Vista to me and I think it's quite similar to 7.04 and 6.06 (never tried those, but Screenshots look similar). I must admit that's still on my to do list, but I'll try it out very soon (looking forward to it, actually)

Unfortunately you may be right here. Linus really is focusing on Linux's potential as an "Enterprise" OS, but that's why we need people like ck, Miguel de Icaza and Mark Shuttleworth. And I know there are tons of people who already made a huge difference, but I'm afraid that the developer community's mindset has to change a lot if we are to take this thing to the next level. Making something usable and efficient is not the same as dumbing it down, contrary to community opinion!

Re:Not really mainstream

[ozmanjusri]

The idea of mere users setting up something that works like Parallels on Mac is just completely out of the question with the way this stuff needs to be configured.

Credibility and you just don't get on, do you?

Virtualbox on Linux is as easy to use as Parallels on Mac.

Re:Not really mainstream

[Ajehals]

Anyone who thinks KDE is ready for their mom or your average office worker is clearly kidding themselves and I invite them to conduct their own study. The biggest benefit and possibly also the biggest issue that any given Linux distro has is that it is massively configurable, as such a default KDE installation may look a bit blocky and may not be the most intuitive thing to use it is certainly easy to get it looking and working in a far superior way to the normal windows desktop for almost any class of user.
The issue here as always is that people are *used* to windows, the various distros could I suppose mimic XP 10% and be done with it, but I don't think that's a good idea (the XP desktop may be familiar but its hardly the best solution). KDE in particular can do everything XP can do and more (as related to the UI), configuration is easy, it is considerably less resource intensive and potentially much prettier.

Just like when you go and set up XP for a non technical person you install a firewall, anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-spyware and all those programs that they actually need and mess with the various settings to make it nice and simple to use, well you need to do that with Linux as well, after you have installed whatever distro you have chosen (I always go for Debian as it is stable and only takes about 20 minutes to install - no massive updates required.. and what does the distro matter if the user is non technical.) set it up porperly, get that desktop looking welcoming, spend half an hour installing all the various office/graphical/audio applications etc... then purge the kmenu for unneeded cruft and make sure everything works, it will take less time than XP and the end result will be significantly better.

(Obviously for office machines use this as the basis for your skeleton home directory and document what you did!!)

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

Credibility and you just don't get on, do you? Maybe my stupidity knows no bounds but at least I'm not responding with personal attacks by default whenever somebody voices an opinion I don't like.

Virtualbox on Linux is as easy to use as Parallels on Mac. I'll try that out. And if I come back and tell you why it's not user friendly, you can trash me a bit more for having no credibility. Because, you know, that's a good way to respond to criticism.

There are two types of disgruntled users. The first just think something isn't working out and leave quietly in disgust. The second type are the guys who try to tell you that there maybe room for improvement. I'm not sure having all your critics in the first column is a good strategy when you're shooting for widespread adoption. Just a thought.

Re:Not really mainstream

[sqldr]

To be honest, I'm dreading the day when linux becomes so userfriendly that retards start using it. It would be like the september that never ended.

Re:Not really mainstream

[FireFury03]

Fact is, there is still a huge user base out there that hasn't been reached. They are Windows users, lots of them. All I'm saying is maybe there is a reason why they are still on Windows other than the assumption of they being retards?

When did I say anything about retards?

I believe there are a number of factors which keep the majority of home users on Windows (business users are rather different anyway):
1. The machine came with Windows, they have no clue that there is an alternative. Much the same as to many people IE is "the internet", for a lot of people Windows is an integral part of the computer and they have no concept of changing it any more than you would change the tube in your TV. (No, that does not make them retards, it makes them uninformed)
2. It is what they know and they are afraid of change. Even when Microsoft dictates change with an upgrade, the changes between two versions of the same bit of software are perceived to be smaller than the jump between different bits of software (whether or not this is true).
3. They are not interested enough to change - their computer does more or less what they want and they don't want to go to the effort of changing (even if the change would make things better for them in the long run).

The "not running windows software" really shouldn't feature as a reason for a lot of people since most people really don't use their computer for anything that a modern Linux distro doesn't do out of the box anyway. I'm not saying that *no one* needs to run Windows software, I'm saying that a lot of people don't.

Granted, but that makes it all the more bizarre that this mindset is so entrenched in the community. Every time somebody talks about usability they get a severe beating. So naturally, there are not many people still around to keep telling you there may be a problem because nobody wants to hear it anyway.

You get this anywhere - at my old job I more or less gave up with arguing for usability because no one was interested - it afflicts the whole industry, Free software or not.

FWIW, Linus _has_ bashed people on usability grounds - most notably the Gnome developers for their belief that removing commonly used configuration options from the UI and forcing people to edit their equivalent of the Windows registry is a usability improvement.

Somehow, telling users to "get over it" is not exactly the most productive way to go. Pretending something can't be changed because that's the way everybody else does it and because that's the way we've always been doing it... I don't see any potential for growth in this kind of attitude, I'm sorry.

Your original post came across as a "Linux sucks compared to Windows because it does $lots_of_things_windows_also_does". I'm all for improving Linux, but citing these sorts of problems as a reason why Windows is "better" (even though Windows has exactly the same problems) seems the wrong attitude.

I think the main way Linux can get into the mainstream is for it to be shipped as standard on machines (similar to what Dell are doing) *where appropriate*. Obviously shipping it to people who need Windows specific software is just going to piss them off, but there are a large group of users for whom Linux does everything they need as standard. I'm not convinced that further improvements to the software itself are going to push Linux much further into the mainstream at this time.

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

The issue here as always is that people are *used* to windows, the various distros could I suppose mimic XP 10% and be done with it, but I don't think that's a good idea (the XP desktop may be familiar but its hardly the best solution). KDE in particular can do everything XP can do and more (as related to the UI), configuration is easy, it is considerably less resource intensive and potentially much prettier. I agree that the potential is huge. But for average users, accessing this potential is still too painful. And experienced users also come across little obstacles all the time and this frustration adds up to the point where they go off and use something else.

KDE having all these nice features that are burried or misconfigured by default makes it all the more tragic.

Just like when you go and set up XP for a non technical person you install a firewall, anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-spyware and all those programs that they actually need and mess with the various settings to make it nice and simple to use, well you need to do that with Linux as well, after you have installed whatever distro you have chosen (I always go for Debian as it is stable and only takes about 20 minutes to install - no massive updates required.. and what does the distro matter if the user is non technical.) set it up porperly, get that desktop looking welcoming, spend half an hour installing all the various office/graphical/audio applications etc... then purge the kmenu for unneeded cruft and make sure everything works, it will take less time than XP and the end result will be significantly better. This is where experiences vary wildly. When something goes wrong during a Linux install (and things do go wrong), there is often no other choice but to work through horrible text files and cryptic error messages as if you're on some kind of quest, and that can take many hours.

I'm willing to concede the point that my experience may be different because I'm clinically retarded or that my computers are constantly punishing me for my generally low cosmic karma. Anyway, I always seem to come across huge barriers and nothing ever works like it should on first try. On the other hand, installing servers for Linux has always been a breeze in my experience...

Re:Not really mainstream

[morgan_greywolf]

Personally, I like KDE, I even like Gnome, but I'm a geek. And I'm not denying that desktop environments didn't come a long way towards usability. At the same time, I think it is necessary to refine them relentlessly. Anyone who thinks KDE is ready for their mom or your average office worker is clearly kidding themselves and I invite them to conduct their own study. I have. Neither my computer illiterate wife nor her 86-year-old mother have any problems using GNOME. The only people I've seen who've had problems have been people who are used to Windows. Those people have just as much of a hard time with Mac OS X.

Huge issues for me are multihead configuration and other graphics integration issues. This stuff shouldn't be so hard. Granted, most distros work fine on a standard single-screen system if the hardware isn't too fancy. Again, we've certainly come a long way here. But this needs to go so much further, up to the point where no user has to even touch a configuration text file, ever again. I agree that it needs to improve, but the average user doesn't use a multihead configuration. PCs come with one screen. They don't understand why someone would want or need two.

The only other problem I see is in switching to a graphics card that uses a different driver. This usually involves either A) editing xorg.conf or B) reloading the OS (which avoids editing xorg.conf, but has its own problems).

Both problems can be resolved by the development of a comprehensive xorg.conf editing front-end. I recently considered writing such a front-end using Python and PyGTK, but I'm not sure if others are already doing this work and I don't want to duplicate effort.

is a big problem because there needs to be legacy support for business apps and other expert software that can't be ported but has to be used for some time to come. Just saying "fuck this, you don't need this app" is not really the solution. Legacy support for business apps and other expert software has nothing to do with 'mom' and 'grandma.' The article is about Linux on the desktop. Corporate businesses willing to make the switch to Linux on the desktop will seek to do development or business process improvement to eliminate custom apps. Most large businesses I've seen are already on a rampage to remove in-house developed apps and replace those with COTS anyway and to eliminate vertical market applications and replace them with functional equivalents where possible to reduce costs. And there are plenty of pre-existing solutions for legacy documents, including one setup I've seen that uses a server and some automation to convert Microsoft Office documents to ODF.

And mom and grandma usually don't care much about what program they use to write letters, so long as they have one.

And supporting Windows apps is indeed a problem for Mac OS X, but not a huge one. Why? Because you can install stuff like Parallels even if you are just a mere human. Here's a business proposition for you:

1) join the Microsoft reseller program for Windows XP and/or Vista,
2) start packaging up pre-built QEMU and/or XEN VMs, each tailored for different purposes.
3) Create a custom front-end for auto-building and installing the approrpriate kernel modules
4) Bundle the whole thing together and start selling it.
5) Profit!!!

See? There's not even a ??? part.

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

1. The machine came with Windows, they have no clue that there is an alternative. Much the same as to many people IE is "the internet", for a lot of people Windows is an integral part of the computer and they have no concept of changing it any more than you would change the tube in your TV. (No, that does not make them retards, it makes them uninformed)

2. It is what they know and they are afraid of change. Even when Microsoft dictates change with an upgrade, the changes between two versions of the same bit of software are perceived to be smaller than the jump between different bits of software (whether or not this is true). True, but publicity helps. However, I'm a little afraid that average people (let's get away from the retard image) when they finally say "hey, I'm gonna try this Linux thing" are in for a disappointment. I'm talking for example about people who love to tinker with their computer in their spare time. There are lots of them and they tend to be huge influencers on their social surroundings. And I know we can't win a huge portion of them over, just because nobody cared enough to make this a priority.

3. They are not interested enough to change - their computer does more or less what they want and they don't want to go to the effort of changing (even if the change would make things better for them in the long run). I think there are huge numbers of people who are frustrated with Windows, if only for the sheepish reason that they read about the security problems. But chances are your average users has quite a bit of experience with spyware and viruses and software that you have to sell major organs for to use it legally. That is potential right there. Plus, now that so much stuff is happening on the web, the OS becomes more interchangeable. But for this change to occur, people have to be able to configure their system more effortlessly and a lot of them want to bring their pet application with them when they move in.

Your original post came across as a "Linux sucks compared to Windows because it does $lots_of_things_windows_also_does". I'm all for improving Linux, but citing these sorts of problems as a reason why Windows is "better" (even though Windows has exactly the same problems) seems the wrong attitude. If it came across this way I hereby apologize. And I'll try to hide behind the fact that I'm not a native English speaker.

I think the main way Linux can get into the mainstream is for it to be shipped as standard on machines (similar to what Dell are doing) *where appropriate*. Obviously shipping it to people who need Windows specific software is just going to piss them off, but there are a large group of users for whom Linux does everything they need as standard. I'm not convinced that further improvements to the software itself are going to push Linux much further into the mainstream at this time. Agreed. But it really comes down to momentum. Massive change happens only with momentum. And momentum only happens when opinion makers get in line behind Linux. Instead of telling them to piss off, listening to their concerns may be a necessary evil.

Re:Not really mainstream

[thasmudyan]

I have. Neither my computer illiterate wife nor her 86-year-old mother have any problems using GNOME. The only people I've seen who've had problems have been people who are used to Windows. Those people have just as much of a hard time with Mac OS X. Oddly, it's users like my mom who have the least difficulties. It's m colleagues at work and a large part of my geeky friends that hit such roadblocks.

I agree that it needs to improve, but the average user doesn't use a multihead configuration. PCs come with one screen. They don't understand why someone would want or need two. Apart from my conviction that multihead usage will go up significantly, I'll grant you that for now this may be my pet peeve. Other people have other problems. But maybe it's time to acknowledge the fact that they do have valid problems and that this is hindering adoption in areas where barriers of entry are really unnecessary.

The only other problem I see is in switching to a graphics card that uses a different driver. This usually involves either A) editing xorg.conf or B) reloading the OS (which avoids editing xorg.conf, but has its own problems). If it was so simple. Believe me, I've had a fair number of workstations with a fair number of different hardware pieces. There were always severe problems, this is not a fringe condition that can be cured by changing some value in xorg.conf.

Both problems can be resolved by the development of a comprehensive xorg.conf editing front-end. I recently considered writing such a front-end using Python and PyGTK, but I'm not sure if others are already doing this work and I don't want to duplicate effort. Obviously there are numerous front-ends, but they don't do the job except in very limited scenarios. I think you should start to roll your own, things can only get better. A part of the problems are architectural though, I'm afraid.

And mom and grandma usually don't care much about what program they use to write letters, so long as they have one. I think a fairly large number of users do have pet applications that they will want to carry over. Sometimes, a corresponding Linux tool is good enough or even better. And sometimes it is not. That's not heresy, just reality.

Here's a business proposition for you:

1) join the Microsoft reseller program for Windows XP and/or Vista,
2) start packaging up pre-built QEMU and/or XEN VMs, each tailored for different purposes.
3) Create a custom front-end for auto-building and installing the approrpriate kernel modules
4) Bundle the whole thing together and start selling it.
5) Profit!!!

See? There's not even a ??? part. I'm not sure there'll be a profit, with market share numbers below one percent on the desktop. Anyway this is the part where I cowardly leave this idea for real businesspeople, such as yourself perhaps?

Re:Not really mainstream

[Tribbin]

That is sort of a paradox.

Once somebody tries to use linux I have a hard time looking at that person as a retard.

Re:Not really mainstream

[Culture20]

http://otero.harrison.k12.co.us/Linux/lab.html
An LTSP lab that was being used (in part) by special education.

Re:Not really mainstream

[Ajehals]

As an aside it makes me laugh when people complain that to 'fix' a Linux issue is usually more difficult as it involves editing text files, whereas repairing windows issues more often than not either involves editing the registry, manually replacing various system files or re-installing.

But most of your other points are valid, that's why I talk about an experienced individual setting stuff up, much like you would want with windows to get things right, its all about experience not inherent deficiency.

Re:Not really mainstream

[Risen888]

Anyone who thinks KDE is ready for their mom or your average office worker is clearly kidding themselves and I invite them to conduct their own study.

I sell custom-built Kubuntu boxen to Joe (and Qamar, and Chamath) Average in my inner-city, low-income, not-quite-the-ghetto neighborhood. They buy them because I sell them cheap, and in my neighborhood, that's important. They keep them because they're better and last longer and work as advertised for the life of the hardware. As a desktop, KDE's more "ready for the masses" than Windows is. I am kidding neither myself nor you.

And supporting Windows apps is indeed a problem for Mac OS X, but not a huge one. Why? Because you can install stuff like Parallels even if you are just a mere human.

I play a lot Civ 4, it's the only reason I keep a copy of Windows on my machine. Ubuntu's installer automatically detects XP and sets up dual-boot without a bit of user input. You push the "On" button. If there is an easier way, please enlighten me.

Re:Not really mainstream

[yuna49]

Try VirtualBox which lets you run most any Windows flavor, plus a number of Unix/Linux OS's like FreeBSD, on top of Linux, Windows, or (beta) OS X. VirtualBox has rpm and deb packages so installation on the mainstream Linux desktops is a breeze.

Just the thing for those times I need to look at a web site with Internet Explorer.

Re:Not really mainstream

[yuna49]

Shoot, something went wrong with the link in the only post I haven't previewed in weeks, of course.

Here it is: VirtualBox.

And, yes, this time I previewed.

It is as difficult to install windows.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Most people buy windows pre installed. But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is. When Redmond releases the next version and calls it an upgrade some chumps try to buy the install disks and attempt upgrading their machines. Or more frequently, a virus or something hits and they only thing that will really eradicate it is to format the hard disk and reinstall the OS. Even with a restore disk specifically created for that machine, many of the prompts during the restore process and install process are arcane and most users can't do anything other than accept the defaults. So why people harp on "Linux is difficult to install?", compare Linux install to windows install. Or compare pre installed Linux to pre installed Windows.

Another disappointing thing about the article is that it positions Linux as a "cheap" alternative. The main point of Linux is not that it is cheap, it could be or it might not be. The real power of Linux is avoiding the vendor lock.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[Loke the Dog]

"Most people buy windows pre installed. But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is."

Exactly. Only people who have installed windows knows that it's not very simple, but most people have not. This is why it's completely irrelevant to compare installing linux to installing windows. Installing linux needs to be as simple or simpler than booting up a fresh copy of windows vista for the first time, which incidentally requires no effort beyond pressing the power button. Yes, that's impossible, so you're gonna have to accept that installing linux will ALWAYS be considered hard. What you don't seem to understand is that life is unfair, especially for the linux missionary. It isn't enough to make linux as good as windows, it needs to much, much better.

"Another disappointing thing about the article is that it positions Linux as a "cheap" alternative. The main point of Linux is not that it is cheap, it could be or it might not be. The real power of Linux is avoiding the vendor lock."

Ok, so you're saying that for users who don't give a fuck about vendor lock, linux really has no point? In my experience, what interests the average user about linux is that its cheap. If you can find average windows users who think the cost issue is unimportant and vendor lock in to be a big issue, I must say that is fantastic. Just because that's how you see it doesn't mean the readers of this article will generally agree with you.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[Tim C]

But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is.

I guess I must have missed something then, as I've installed various flavours of Windows over the years and have never had any issues. Of course, I've never had any issues installing Linux either...

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[imcclell]

So why people harp on "Linux is difficult to install?"

I'll tell you why. I have a Dell Inspiron 6400 with an ATI graphics card. When I went to install ubuntu, the install won't even come up. It kills X right away and there's an extra 20-30 mins involved, and a bunch of commands you have to type, and that was after I found the solution rather quickly. Now, what I had to do to fix the problem was not terribly difficult with the docs in front of me, but I couldn't have left it to my wife (who has done some of our XP installs).

Now, with windows, everything may not have been perfect, but the install would have happened with basic drivers like vga. It wouldn't have died before the first screen.

I'm sure someone will make some comment about hardware compatibility or this being ATI's fault for drivers. And you know, you may be right. The problem is, I don't care. I don't care who's fault it is that it happened, and neither do most people. The laptop didn't do that in windows, and it did in linux. Linux's fault from their point of view. I'm personally not going to let that deter me, but a lot of others would.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Ok, so you're saying that for users who don't give a fuck about vendor lock, linux really has no point?

Most people would not mind paying more, if they can use the PC as reliably as they use the VCR. The reason why most common consumers use Windows is because, they are familiar with it at work, so they buy the same thing for their home. They seem to reason, "ok I use this machine at work and have built some level of expertise. Same machine at home, I can handle it. If there is a problem, I can ask collegues or the help desk at work."

The windows monopoly is sustained by giving huge discounts to big businesses. Companies the size of Home Depot or GE or Pepsi pay a flat fee and get unlimited use licenses. They pay slightly less than what it would cost them to switch to Linux/Sun whatever. The medium and small businesses are forced to be compatible with the big companies. And all the employees get familiarity with Windows. That is why most people buy Windows on their own. Right now the big companies don't really care about vendor lock and as long as Pepsi is sure that Coca Cola is spending the same level as itself, they would not rock the boat and fight on other turfs.

And investing to achieve vendor lock, has a longer pay back period than a year or two. That is 8 quarters. No CEO/CFO/CIO is going to make a sustained effort over that many quarters. For all he knows, it is the next guy on his seat that is going to see the cost savings. But all it would take is for a couple of companies to make a switch and show a little profit. All other companies would hedge their bets, and eventually behave like a herd. Much like they were asking, "What is our India strategy" in the context of out sourcing, they would stampede like herds with "What is our Linux strategy?". When other systems come into the work place, it will find its way to homes too.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[dave420]

I don't want to question your computer ability, as installing Windows, or even upgrading it, is as easy as it gets. Pop in the DVD/CD, click "Upgrade Windows", sit back, and you're done. To install from scratch? Pop in the DVD/CD, restart the computer, press Return a few times, and it's installed. Also, Windows has the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard", which allows you to seamlessly copy all your personal data/application settings across from one version of Windows to a newer one, or even back to the same one should you want to. Most folks don't give a rat's ass about "vendor lock", as they just want to use a computer. Avoiding "vendor lock" is not a good enough reason for people to ditch support for some of their hardware and a good deal of their software. Most people don't use their OS as an ideological expression, but as a tool.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[domatic]

Now, with windows, everything may not have been perfect, but the install would have happened with basic drivers like vga. It wouldn't have died before the first screen.

This much at least is getting fixed. The latest versions of X.Org can failsafe to VGA mode if the automatic driver config (also new) doesn't work. If you say some such capability should have been there from the start I'd agree with you.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[domatic]

I've done upgrade installs from 98 to XP, from NT4 to Server 2000, and from Server 2000 to Server 2003. None of them lasted for than year before having extremely serious problems. The usual thing that would happen is that the machines will boot to a desktop but most of the items in the control panels, administrative tools, and half the installed software won't start. Either the registry gets full of crufty timebombs or files from the old OS are left laying around. Either way, I can't EVER recommend an upgrade install of Windows. You'll always be better off backing up the data and reinstalling the new OS from scratch.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[Jedi Alec]

Most people would not mind paying more, if they can use the PC as reliably as they use the VCR.

So you're saying they're willing to pay for a screensaver that flashes 12:00 all day long? Sounds like a business opportunity.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[pcgc1xn]

I second that.

Kubuntu is now significantly simpler to install than XP.

My wife's laptop (XP) went pearshaped in a way that MS said the only thing that could be done was reinstall. I chose to go dual boot, XP & Kubuntu.

XP was a nightmare, with instructions that didn't make sense, and left you with an incomplete setup - internet not working, drivers to find etc. Kubuntu (other than the fact that when you were assiging partitions, did not tell you that it wouldn't kill the other partitions) was a dream. A few simple questions, and you were done.

For me the killer though was hardware support. I couldn't get my scanner working. It is an old scanner, and HP has no working XP drivers.

I have seen this a couple of times. If you feel the need to run the latest and greatest everything, then go windows. If you don't see the need to buy all new hardware when one part dies, then Linux is the way to go.

It still doesn't change the fact that reinstalls are a dog any time, and Windows has the advantage in it comes preinstalled.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[richlv]

what about drivers, pdf readers, disk burning software...
the point isn't getting system to boot, but to get it in a usable state.

Re:It is as difficult to install windows.

[AndyCR]

I don't want to question your computer ability, as installing Windows, or even upgrading it, is as easy as it gets. Pop in the DVD/CD, click "Upgrade Windows", sit back, and you're done. To install from scratch? Pop in the DVD/CD, restart the computer, press Return a few times, and it's installed. Yes, then WINDOWS is installed... NOW you get the fun of trying to find and install all the drivers, office software, IM client, etc. where if Ubuntu supports it, it's almost certainly simply already there.

Also, Windows has the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard", which allows you to seamlessly copy all your personal data/application settings across from one version of Windows to a newer one, or even back to the same one should you want to. "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard" has nothing on copying /home/yourname. It can't copy custom settings from most apps, it can't this, it can't that... Why? Because Windows wasn't designed correctly with a single folder for all settings to begin with.

Avoiding "vendor lock" is not a good enough reason Sure it isn't now, but it will be in a few years when they can't open their files anymore.

Most people don't use their OS as an ideological expression, but as a tool. Agreed - which is why I use Linux. I used to use Vista. It was dog slow and many things didn't work at all. As such, I downgraded to XP. It was usable for 2 months, after which it ate my partition table (and no, I am not an idiot - the last thing I did to it was reboot it, and Linux could still read the partitions but Windows or its install disc could not...). I switched to Ubuntu and am very, very happy - especially with Compiz-Fusion and a look as good as Vista or better with all the speed of XP.

Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Difficult to install? That's only for Linux from Scratch. All other distros are easier than Windows to install. Have you tried to install Windows XP on a new machine? It's a pain in the ass... remember to have a floppy drive before trying it.

Re:Difficult?

[El Lobo]

Hmm? Do you KNOW what ytou are talking about? When was the last time you installed Windows? XP (and for that matter NT4, 200 and Vista) comes with a bootable CD, so floppy is not needed at all. Hell I yesterday installed XP on a floppy-less Dell Inspiron 8000.

And moderators, how the HELL is that lie rated INSIGHTFUL? Oh, we are on slashdot, so we know the level of intelligence we have here.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

It seems you never did an advanced installation of Windows XP for hardware with RAID or SATA controllers not supported by Windows...

Re:Difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Just boot straight from the install CD. Easy.

Re:Difficult?

[darthflo]

That's only for Linux from Scratch.

Somebody's forgetting Gentoo here... ;)

Re:Difficult?

[El Lobo]

Well,duh, try to install Linuzzz on a hardware without the controllers drivers... How in hell you will install it then without the drivers on some media? How is that different?

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Well, I think Gentoo is more "time wasting" than "difficult" :)
But yes, I think it should be difficult for a desktop user.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Usually, lastest Linux distros have more drivers than Windows XP out of the box without the need of extra floppy disks or cds...

Re:Difficult?

[El Lobo]

Sure, whatever you say.

Re:Difficult?

[dave420]

You don't need a floppy drive to install Windows. It's simple. There are about 5 options to choose, and the default options on all of them will install Windows fine. Unless typing a product key constitutes a pain in the ass. And then there's the unattended install, where you don't even have to type anything.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Try to install Windows on a server with Raid or on a simple New PC with new SATA controllers, you will need drivers on a FLOPPY disk.

Re:Difficult?

[mauthbaux]

It's not just about having media to install from, it's that the windows installer will *only* accept media from a floppy drive. No USB drives (unless your BIOS allows you to map it as a floppy). No CDs. No files from another Hard drive. No networked or internet files.

I assume that Microsoft fixed this in Vista, but years of dealing with it in XP has been a source of sufficient frustration that my next install will likely be Ubuntu.

Re:Difficult?

[El Lobo]

Be sure to use Ubuntu or some other NEW linuzzz distro. I remember having the same problems with mandrake and even mandriva some years ago. The point is: XP is now what...6 years old... and yes, it had those limitations. In vista you can now choose the source from CD/DVD (just replacing temporarly Vista DVD), or from network if you have configurated the TCP protocol. If your Bios allows you to map a USB drive, this can be selected as well. GP is comparing a 2007 Linuzzz distrubution with a 2002 Windows release. OK, lets compare Vista with Caldera 2.0.

Re:Difficult?

[Lumpy]

with your old out of date hardware yes. Xp will install from the CD.

have modern hardware without IDE but SATA? gotta have a floppy drive.

Why dont you buy a modern PC and try it instead of living in the land of old outdated hardware.

Why microsoft shipped XP install without the ability to mount and read a USB thumb drive is mindboggling. Vista installer is the same way. god help you if you are using a unsupported raid card for your install/OS disk.

Re:Difficult?

[dave420]

Nope. Any server admin (or even home user) who knows his stuff will have a streamlined CD for that task. Most servers (and even home PCs), when bought with Windows, come with such a disk. And considering Vista has drivers for the vast majority of the new SATA and RAID controllers, that's not a problem in the slightest.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Windows XP asks you for a floppy, not CD for drivers (we are talking about low level drivers, like Raid or SATA controlers that will frustrate your installation of you don't have them). And Linux has this problem solved years ago, Vista is NEW.

Re:Difficult?

[HoosierPeschke]

Well, I think Gentoo is more "time wasting" than "difficult" :)

I must say that I have learned exponentially more using Gentoo than any other distro and I definitely don't consider learning anything wasting time. Besides, while I'm doing updates, it's not like I can't use my computer or even just leave it be and play with my kids.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

I used Gentoo some years ago (a LOT) and I don't agree with you. Using emerge for Downloading the sources, and waiting until it finishes compiling is not "learning" in anyway. "Learning" is downloading at hand the sources and compiling it at hand (also the dependencies), not using emerge.
BTW, I still like Gentoo for some servers, but not for a workstation or desktop computer.

Re:Difficult?

[ZachPruckowski]

It's not the GP's fault that Windows took 5 years to release a new version, or that Windows can't install those drivers and re-boot easily.

Re:Difficult?

[masdog]

Blackbird, admins have the ability to "slipstream" updates and drivers into an install disk so you won't be asked to provide a floppy disk.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Ok, that's a nice solution for advanced users. But where is the "Windows is easy to install for a normal user" there?

Re:Difficult?

[msimm]

instead of living in the land of old outdated hardware

Ya, that's the kind of trolling that keeps me coming back.

Re:Difficult?

[masdog]

That's a non-argument. Very few "normal users" will be using RAID controllers in their machines, and those that do have RAID controllers will have no trouble learning how to slipstream. SATA cards may pose a problem, but unless the "normal user" has a whitebox machine, the drivers will be slipstreamed into the media that came with the computer.

Re:Difficult?

[blackbirdwork]

Yes it is. I'm a Linux user since 1996. The other day I wanted to install Windows XP on a brand new machine and I couldn't because Windows didn't detect my SATA controller. I don't have a floppy drive and that was my first and last eXPerience with XP. So, I don't think Windows XP is easy to install for a regular user, booting Ubuntu from a CD is.

Re:Difficult?

[toddestan]

The thing about needing a floppy and only a floppy for the drivers was retarded back in 2001. It's only stupider in 2007 when a majority of new PCs do not have a floppy drive at all. Sure, some random distrobution from 2001 also won't recognize SATA and most RAID cards, but atlesat I can install it without busting out some floppy disks.

I've never understood why Windows wouldn't just install anyway by talking to the drive through the BIOS. Of course, the performance would be terrible, but once you got it up and running you could install the drivers then. It worked for Windows 95 and 98.

Re:Difficult?

[toddestan]

Why microsoft shipped XP install without the ability to mount and read a USB thumb drive is mindboggling. Vista installer is the same way. god help you if you are using a unsupported raid card for your install/OS disk.

The worst part is, XP's installer *will* recognize USB devices! Try running the install disk with a thumbdrive plugged in. When you get to the step where you choose the install location, you'll see the thumbdrive listed as one of the devices you can install to! Further proof that the installer can talk to USB devices is that it will accept a USB floppy disk drive for the driver disk (though it's fussy, and will not recognize all drives). There really isn't a good reason for needing the floppy that I can tell.

*it will even work, provided the drive is big enough and the computer can boot from it.

Re:Difficult?

[HoosierPeschke]

"Learning" is downloading at hand the sources and compiling it at hand (also the dependencies), not using emerge.

I didn't necessarily mean learning as emerging, but Gentoo does force you to get into the command line and config files. Just that base is enough to manage just about any *nix/BSD type system.

Granted, I would learn magnitudes more from doing the sources by myself but writing ebuilds does teach a bit as well. I've stuck with Gentoo simply because I love the control I have over my computer. Most people think it doesn't matter if none, some, or all flags are enabled but I love having the choice. To me, that choice is what Linux and FOSS is all about.

Re:Difficult?

[Akaihiryuu]

No kidding! I was waiting for someone to mention this. I have a 2 and a half year old Athlon XP system (KT880 chipset, 2 SATA ports, DDR400 RAM, AGP 8x, etc). This isn't cutting edge stuff anymore. I have SATA hard drives. I mainly run Gentoo on that system, but I put an XP install on it also for ease of playing WOW while I worked on getting it working with Wine. During the XP install I had to go and hunt down a floppy drive so I could install. It absolutely cannot be done without a floppy drive, due to my SATA hard drives. Now, I do understand that a 6 year old OS can't possibly have ever driver for every new component available. But *why do they insist that SATA/SCSI drivers have to be on a freaking floppy disk*?!?!? Why can't I put them on a CD, or a USB stick, or SOMETHING? No, Windows will only accept it if it's an "approved" driver disk on a floppy with the correct directory structure. Finding this was relatively easy, it's simply in a directory from the unzipped drivers that I downloaded from the chipset manufacturer...but having to go and hunt down a floppy drive from an old computer just so they could be installed was ridiculous. Sure, maybe USB sticks weren't popular enough in 2001 to warrant their inclusion in the boot system, but CD's certainly were? But no, Windows can only install to a SATA drive if you have a driver disk in drive A.

Re:Difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a fresh install of vista on a vista-compatible machine, and it was easy and pretty straightforward, but not as much as installing Ubuntu on the same machine. vista also took much more time to install.

on the other hand, I had no problems with vista so far. I'm pretty sure that when Firefox freezes it's because of the flash player, and that it's not an OS fault. with Ubuntu, I've had many problems with both Compiz and Beryl, although the Beryl plug-ins that did work properly were still better and more numerous than the effects in Vista, and maybe the same was true for Compiz as well. however, the effect in Vista were better integrated with the rest of the desktop.

my main problem is with grub. installing Ubuntu side-by-side with Vista was easy, but there is no GUI tool to configure the boot-loader, and I need Vista to load by default.

another problem is that I can't set the log-in screen to allow certain user accounts to log-in without a password.

with both platforms, there is software that the other platform has that isn't available for it that I need. with windows I need Evolution Mail. with Linux I need MS Office and Internet Explorer. I might be able to install IE on Ubuntu with IE4Linux, but I don't want to mess with that. Evolution is available for Linux, but only in alfa or beta versions.

as for performance, I don't see any significant differences (again, same hardware), although Ubuntu with Beryl seems to be running at least as fast as Vista with Aero. in fact, Beryl didn't feel any slower than Metacity.

both have faults, but for my personal needs, Ubuntu is usually (but not always) better. this is true both for every-day tasks and administrative tasks.

Shouldn't the TFA have been titled

[amishdisco]

"2008: The year of the Linux Desktop?"

Encrypted music?

[Anonymous Coward]

One challenge for Linux users is finding media players that work with encrypted music
Who would want to listen encrypted music?
Oh, wait... Bruce Schneier! but he is about the only one.

Mod parent funny. Metamod negative mod down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons with mod points ALWAYS try to ascribe trollish intent to posts when they don't "get" a joke.

Re:Mod parent funny. Metamod negative mod down.

[somersault]

Steve should have just put Linux on a chair and thrown it off himself

Drivers are a money loser for vendors

[MarkEst1973]

Why Closing a Driver loses its vendor money

ESR may or may not be popular on Slashdot, but he covered this topic pretty well in the Cathedral and the Bazaar.

Linux must tackle this first

[bogaboga]

In my opinion, Linux distros must provide a means of doing away with text configuration files, but still retain the ability to access them for those who wish. Everybody I have asked to edit some configuration file has loathed the idea. They are just used to pointing and clicking. They look terrified when presented with a configuration file. Some kept asking me where they should save it!

The other thin Linux distros must do is to make the default install beautiful. I knoe beauty lies in the hands of the beholder but an ugly app does not help matters in this way at all.The upcoming KDE release looks promising.

Here's another: In the server world, if one has to install a mail server for example, not less that 4 pieces of software have to be installed! This is insane. The installation should be handled by *one* script, that takes care of all components needed to create a fully functional mail server. If you wanted to install an ISP style mail server, an exercise in frustration awaits those who have not done it before.

In my early days, I had trouble with the Courier/POP/IMAP configuration since I did not know that one even needed it to have a working mail server. It does not have to be this way. I am an expert now by the way.

Last but not least; Marketing. Linux distros can do a better job at marketing.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[Dr. Manhattan]

Everybody I have asked to edit some configuration file has loathed the idea.

I know what you mean! My elderly parents have no problem navigating to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run and tweaking a REG_SZ value, but ask them to open up Gedit...

(Yes, this was sarcastic.)

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[Bert64]

Most things a typical user would want to do can be done in a graphical way, but it's good to have the configuration stored in hand editable text files. Having a fallback is always good incase something serious goes wrong, usually when something serious goes wrong with windows people reinstall which you could do with linux too, but having the choice is much better.
Most of those users who hate having to edit a text file, would hate having to change registry keys too.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[betterunixthanunix]

"The other thin Linux distros must do is to make the default install beautiful. I knoe beauty lies in the hands of the beholder but an ugly app does not help matters in this way at all.The upcoming KDE release looks promising." Fedora? Ubuntu? Mandriva? We aren't talking about the BSD installers here...and Beryl has definitely gotten a lot of people I know interested in Linux. "Last but not least; Marketing. Linux distros can do a better job at marketing." Marketing to whom? Red Hat does an excellent job of marketing, just not to consumers. How do you think Red Hat got to the top?

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[bogaboga]

Red Hat does an excellent job of marketing, just not to consumers. How do you think Red Hat got to the top?

Well, I gues you understand that whatever the market or environment in the computer world, there will always be someone at the top. Even amongst the least significant Linux vendors, there is a vendor at the top of those.

Question is: What is the percentage of RedHat's share among its peer (computer systems) category; I mean all operating systems? Not much! Linux is still playing catch up and I am sure you know that.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[Just Some Guy]

The installation should be handled by *one* script, that takes care of all components needed to create a fully functional mail server.

For anything end-user related, I agree with you. For the specific case of server software, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no such thing as a "typical" server installation; there are certain decisions that you have to make in advance that simply can't be scripted. In this situation, I firmly approve of the way Debian et al handle this. It installs the software you want then leaves it up to you to set it up the way you need it to be.

I don't want to sound elitist, but if you don't know how to do this stuff, then you shouldn't be doing it. I would never tell a user that they need to be an expert in digital media before installing an MP3 player, but have no problem telling them to read up on server administration before letting them create an Internet-facing service.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[PFI_Optix]

It sounds absurd when you say it, but there's actually a lot of truth to that. I've walked elderly people through their registry before and not had a problem. "Click HKLM. Now click software. Click Microsoft. Windows. Now click CurrentVersion. Now click Run. Now double-click on that, type this, and click OK."

This was back in the early days of XP, when a lot of home users had Win9x. I also had to walk them editing some text files like config.sys on occasion. Getting them into the editor was easy, but then..."No sir, you don't need to read me the whole file. Yes sir, I know exactly what we're looking for here. Alright, do you see a line of text that starts with 'buffers'? No? Okay, move your cursor to the end of the last--click the mouse there--right. Okay, now press enter--yes, it should start you on a new blank line. And I want you to type 'buffers=10'. Yes, b-u-f-f-e-r-s. No, don't spell equals, use the sign. Two horizontal lines, to the left of your backspace key. Correct. And the number ten, as in one zero. Yes. Now you want to save that and exit notepad. Yes, overwrite it. No, that won't break anything so long as you did exactly what I told you to do.

The point-and-click interface gives people a sense of security. It makes them feel like they're in control without being at risk of REALLY screwing things up. And there's some truth to that: changing a switch by editing a number in a GUI field is a lot different than editing a text file. You aren't risking breaking the configuration by deleting a slash or a hyphen...the only way to break it is with a configuration that doesn't work.

I would like to see a more unified control panel for the Linux GUIs that allowed you to tweak text files without having to dive into them. It's one of those things that would provide a bridge between being able to use the OS and being able to get the most out of it for your particular requirements. As with all things Linux it has drastically improved in recent years, but it wouldn't hurt to do more.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[croftj]

Johnny, Can you spell Y.A.S.T.? One of several things SuSE has over all of the other distros!

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[a.d.trick]

The text config files are not the problem, the problem is that the users need to do system configuration in the first place. Unless you're running Gentoo, setting up a server, or installing the latest and greatest unstable program that will probably rape your computer anyways. In those cases, you're not a normal user, I'm pretty sure you can handle a text file.

Beauty is a difficult one to tackle, functional and usable are much clearer objectives. IMHO, I think Gnome addresses those two fairly well. It's certainly better than any version of Windows.

As for mail server installs, I've never done one and from what I know they could use some help. One problem is that I'm pretty sure that's not what's holding back Linux. Linux already has a very strong presence in the server market.

Finally, marketing requires money. Linux distros don't have a lot of money to through around. This is a good thing because it means they spend their resources on improving their software instead of convincing the Emperor that he really has clothes on.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[GospelHead821]

Anecdotally, re-installing Linux is exactly what I had to do a couple of months ago. I had installed KUbuntu "edgy" from CD and the automatic package manager was encouraging me to upgrade to "feisty." Why not? I figured everything else just worked, so the upgrade would go fine. To this day, I couldn't say exactly what had gone wrong, but it would hang on bootup with an arcane kernel panic error message. I searched the Ubuntu forums, Googled error messages, and tinkered with configuration files for hours before I decided I could just save myself time and frustration by burning a new feisty CD and reinstalling.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[jayloden]

I know what you mean! My elderly parents have no problem navigating to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run and tweaking a REG_SZ value, but ask them to open up Gedit...

You laugh, and my gut instinct is to laugh right along with you - except that I see this exact mindset every day. I work in technical support for a cross-platform (Windows/Linux/Solaris) product that was designed by people with a lot of UNIX background. Much of our configuration is simple XML files. For UNIX admins, this is no big deal, but you should see what happens every time we have Windows admins evaluate the product.

As soon as you open up notepad on their Windows box with an XML file in it and show them how to edit a configuration or definition file, the questions immediately start about why there's no GUI. After long experience with this, I've come to the conclusion that people (at least, Windows users) would honestly rather have a GUI editor like regedit than edit a plain text file. Heck, we have people who edit our XML configuration files with Internet Explorer just so it resembles some kind of GUI. It's like a security blanket that makes them feel less afraid of making a mistake or ruining everything.

The fact is, people are raised on Windows GUI apps and even if the concepts are exactly the same (e.g. "you need to set the foo option to 'false' to fix that"), if you ask someone to type out the option instead of clicking a checkbox, it's far and away more intimidating to them. As someone who prefers UNIX or Linux of any kind to using Windows, I find this stifling and silly, since I can get much more done at a command prompt, and that's why I prefer a UNIX style system.

However, I also realize that I'm in a relative minority, and I've just come to accept that UNIX will be there for those of us that want it, and the best we can hope for is to come to some kind of peace with those who abhor the thought of a command line. My ideal world is just one in which the important applications and support are there for Linux (actually, I'm not that picky, I'd be pretty happy with one of the BSDs or some other free UNIX-based system). Then instead of constantly being second-class citizens in the corporate world for our decision to use a more powerful OS, the choice would be there without necessitating constant sacrifices. I don't want Joe User running Linux, all I want is for vendors to have enough users on Linux that they can't ignore us anymore so that it's easier for me to run whatever system I choose, regardless of what Joe User decides makes him feel safe and comfortable.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[Blakey Rat]

Having a GUI will eliminate a lot of potential errors. For instance, if you typo "param" as "parm" it won't cause your program to barf all over itself next time it starts up. In a GUI editor, that's already filled in for you. Even RegEdit, which is pretty basic, sanity-checks that the value you enter for a float data type is actually a float and not a word. Editing text files directly doesn't offer that.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing i will agree with you on is the marketing. If even just one of the free linux distro's could market their os on the same scale as microsoft (newspapers, magazines, tv ads) I think a hell of a lot more people would gravitate towards the linux world despite what they may or may not have heard about it.

Just my 2 pence worth though :)

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[garett_spencley]

Question is: What is the percentage of RedHat's share among its peer (computer systems) category;

I'm not in a position to answer that with hard numbers, but given how many servers there are out there running Redhat I'd say their "share" is impressive to say the least. I'm a web developer and I've done business with a lot of hosting companies and Redhat Linux is usually the default choice with FreeBSD or Win2k/NT being by-request.

Oh, were you talking about Desktops ? Because you said "(computer systems)" which implied everything to me.

Redhat has never really focused on the Desktop market. When they started to develop "Enterprise Linux" they pretty much did away with everything related to the desktop market.

I would say that Ubuntu is doing an excellent job of marketing to the desktop niche. I've often found myself amazed that a lot of people who I would not expect to even know what Linux is are running Ubuntu and recommending it to others (example: I'm a guitarist and I hang out on the forum at ultimate-guitar.com ... quite often someone posts a poll "What operating system do you use ?" and the swarm of people saying "Where's the Linux / Ubuntu option" never ceases to amaze me).

As for your original post:

"In my opinion, Linux distros must provide a means of doing away with text configuration files, but still retain the ability to access them for those who wish. Everybody I have asked to edit some configuration file has loathed the idea. They are just used to pointing and clicking. They look terrified when presented with a configuration file. Some kept asking me where they should save it!"

I have to ask you, what is the last Linux distro that you used ? Because your entire post sounds about 10+ years out of date. Not being able to install a mail server in less than 4 packages ? "up2date postfix" on redhat or "apt-get install postfix" on ubuntu and you're done. Auto downloads the mail server and installs it + any necessary dependencies. There was a time when "dependency hell", particularly on Redhat systems when trying to install RPMs, was a very real nightmare. But that time is loooooong past.

Plus, Ubuntu has all of the graphical configuration tools anyone needs to accomplish anything but you can still use the terminal if you really want to. As a power user I still drop the terminal sometimes when I can do it faster that way. But my wife (who is as computer illiterate as they come) runs Ubuntu on her desktop and I have to "support" her far less than I ever did when she was running Windows. She can configure everything she needs to without even having to know that the shell or text config files even exist. And I can't remember the last time she asked for help, or asked how to do something, with her computer and the problem was a software issue. Oh no wait, yes I can. It was when she was still running Windows XP.

Linux still has a lot of drawbacks (lack of applications, lack of hardware support and drivers from the hardware manufacturers etc.) but "usability" (perhaps "intuitiveness" would be a better term) just isn't one of them anymore.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[dbIII]

In my opinion, Linux distros must provide a means of doing away with text configuration files

And replace them with a registry? Look at the current gconf for an example as to why this is an extremely bad idea. Have a gui front end to the config files when you can by all means but remember that a gui limits choices while you can often add stuff to a text file and importantly put comments in (you can roll back to the old setting by removing a hash in many cases). Look at the vastly complex GUIs for setting display settings with half decent graphics cards in MS Windows - and even then there may not be enough options available so a GUI with even more options like powerstrip is needed. It may be a pain but in some situations it's a lot easier to cut and paste text into an xorg.conf file than it would be navigating through a compex GUI with a lot of tabs and dialogue boxes to do the same thing. It's a big trap for newbies who do things like put quotes and other special characters in text feilds but in most cases there are large advantages. Paticularly something like xorg.conf needs to be human readable and editable from a text terminal because most linux GUIs won't work without a working X. It also makes it a LOT easier when rolling out similar machines - I have the same xorg.conf on a dozen twin head machines. It is a lot easier to copy a text file to the machine than it is to go through a dozen twisty menus in a GUI on each machine.

Here's another: In the server world, if one has to install a mail server for example, not less that 4 pieces of software have to be installed! This is insane

That's the way it is - the right tool for the job. On the MS Windows side you need to add some third party applications to work with Exchange to make the system functional as well (not a criticism of MS - they were not an antivirus etc vendor in the past). Exchange itself is run as a whole pile of "services" most of which you can start and stop independantly which is as it would be on a conventional email system only the names of the parts are different.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[bogaboga]

Not being able to install a mail server in less than 4 packages ? "up2date postfix" on redhat or "apt-get install postfix" on ubuntu and you're done. Auto downloads the mail server and installs it + any necessary dependencies.

I am beginning to doubt your knowledge of the subject at hand. Much as those commands will install the mail server on the said systems, this mail server will *not* work untill the following are installed too.

1: MySQL Server or some kind of database,

2: Dovecot-pop3d, dovecot/imapd or some other pop3 server

3: Postfix-mysql (for MySQL Server) or respective package if you use another database

4: Openssl on Ubuntu

5: Some anti-virus software in case you think you might need one.

Those are not installed by one command in any of the distros you mention. So get your facts right before you post.

For your information, I install at least one mail server every two weeks on Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu so I know what I am talking about.

Re:Linux must tackle this first

[garett_spencley]

You're being extremely pedantic. You're crying and complaining about issues that are very specific to your personal requirements. The developers can not read minds.

Postfix *will* work out of the box. Just because *YOU* personally require an RDBMS or a pop3/imap server or SSL authentication for your setup does not mean postfix doesn't work. It means it doesn't work to your personal configuration requirements.

To draw a parallel, when I install apache (something I do quite frequently) I can see that it opens up port 80 and that I can connect with a web browser and see apache's welcome page. However, I could say that it doesn't "work" (like you have claimed about postfix). No, I need to also install mod_php, mod_perl, mod_ssl and openSSL set up all my virtual hosts, comb through the configuration file and remove all default modules and other clutter that I don't need etc. Then I could go on complaining that it does not do this by default for me, never mind that every single other user out there has completely different requirements than me.

Complaining about an RDBMS, appropriate modules / extensions to the MTA to interact with it + a pop3/imap server + openSSL + an anti-virus system when SSL authentication is not a requirement for every user is absurd. Why not also complain about SpamAssassin not being installed and configured by default ?

The fact is that postfix DOES work out of the box. Install it and see that it's opened up port 25 and is up and running. You just have to edit main.cf to tell it what domain(s) to handle mail for and make sure that your MX records are set up prior you're rolling. Of course for most users it doesn't end there, they've gotta configure things for THEIR SPECIFIC needs. What you are doing is complaining that the system can not read your mind.

The 'problem' with Linux.

[oliverthered]

There's only one reason I don't install Linux on every PC I build for people.

Drivers, or the lack of.

If I could give someone a linux box and know every bit of crap hardware they buy for it would work then I'd gladly install linux on it and they'd be very happy.

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[squiggleslash]

Ok, so you are the one building the PCs for these people and you're bothered that you can't predict the hardware they're going to be using with them?

Realistically, if they're asking you to build them, then it's highly unlikely they'll be getting third party hardware without checking with you first anyway. Third party hardware under any OS, be it Mac, Windows, or GNU/Linux, is always a problem with non technical people. Third party drivers for Windows are rarely trouble free and frequently cause more problems than they solve - a problem Microsoft has taken note of, which is why they've been moving towards making drivers themselves where possible and trying to force the use of Microsoft-approved drivers in future versions of Windows. In practice, the 90% of devices that are supported in some form under GNU/Linux will work with equal or less hassle than the 99% of devices that have some kind of Windows compatibility.

So this isn't something to worry about. You can recommend Ubuntu to them, show them the wealth of software you can pre-install for them under that OS, and tell them that if they need a camera or printer, come to you for a recommendation. You'll be able to provide them with something low cost and trouble free. No spy-ware. No bizarre "KodakPolaroidHP SuperdooperQualityPictureMakerPrinter(tm)" that can't be uninstalled without uninstalling the driver, yet adds half an hour to the boot process and takes over the entire computer when you plug the device in. Something that "just works". Which is what they want, and it's what anyone who asks their friendly geek to build them a computer wants.

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[goldspider]

I recently purchased a laptop for my parents, and was tempted to put Ubuntu on it. However what changed my mind wasn't hardware concerns (AFAIK, Thinkpads play very nicely with Linux), but the "Where's my [insert Windows app here]??" factor.

My parents are like most computer users in that they don't really know anything about different operating systems. They simply expect the software on the CD (or that they downloaded) to install and work. If that doesn't happen, guess who gets a phone call.

Yes, I know that's not a flaw in Linux. But it took a lot of people considerable time to get comfortable with Windows, and they aren't particularly interested in starting over again.

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[oliverthered]

There not complete idiots, they can quite easly buy a mobile phone or web cam that they want and expect it to work on Windows, how am I supposed to even check if they will work under Linux without buying one first and trying it out?

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[Tastecicles]

That is a moot point, and has been since 2002 (at least). Here's why, in very short sentences:

1. Legacy (16-bit) PCI devices: still supported OOTB by Linux, NOT supported OOTB by XP; Win32 drivers are VERY difficult to get a hold of. AFAIK NOT supported AT ALL on Vista.

2. ISA drivers: NOT supported by Vista; POORLY, if at all, supported by XP. Linux? Bring it.

3. Wireless: XP; not too many problems, since 99.99% of wireless cards are supplied with Win32 drivers. Vista: still pretty poor, but improving. Linux? If the native wireless drivers don't work there's an API so you can use the Win32 drivers.

4. Bluetooth: XP; can be very problematic. Vista; I've not had much experience, except to say that every time I've actually tried to get Bluetooth working the installer has puked. Linux; Again, not much experience here, but the one time I tried to use a CNet BT dongle on a Dell C840 it worked with no configuration required.

5. Printers: This last February, someone bought a £220 HP printer/scanner from me. Two days later he brought it back, saying it didn't work. After finding out (eventually) that he was in fact running Vista Ultimate, I called HP after trawling their site and finding no Vista drivers. The rep at the other end told me there'd be NO Vista support until SERVICE PACK 1. For ANY HP printer. XP; Few problems. Linux; few problems, I can even get pretty much any Winprinter going on my SuSE laptop.

6. Cameras: Of the web variety; Vista is a nightmare. XP has a few problems. Last time I tried with Linux I could only get Philips CMOS cams to run. Things may well have improved at this point.

Installation: Overall, Linux is by far the easier of the x86 platforms as far as user experience goes. Having just done a click-by-click of a SuSE box and an XP box (the SuSE box was waiting for the XP one at every step), the SuSE box not only took fewer keystrokes/mouse clicks to install, it also (on identical hardware) ran better OOTB (as far as drivers etc were concerned). It also had almost finished an Internet update and package tweak by the time the XP box had had its updates done from local source and AV package installed/updated.

As for desktop user experience: Given that the KDE environment (as an example) is infinitely tweakable, it really goes without saying. If you want a toaster oven, get a Windows box, but don't expect your toast to be perfect. Ever. If you want pictures of the Virgin Mary on your grilled cheese sandwich, get a Linux Toaster.

Clear winner: Linux.

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[oliverthered]

Ok, I don't have any legacy stuff only new stuff (less than 2 years old) this is a new pc I'm installing Linux on.
NdisWrapper works for 'some' wireless drivers and not if you install 64bit Linux.
Bluetooth is great on Linux, but there are more bluetooth apps on Windows where it works fine for the joe sixpack.
Printers defiantly work better under XP than Linux, some don't even have linux drivers and don't try one of those new multi-function printers.
Cameras: I've never found a camera that I couldn't get to work under Linux, but the auto-detection and bringing up a photo viewer didn't work for my camera in ubuntu and when I change to camera to another mode (don't use the standard this camera looks like an external fat HDD device) I couldn't get the camera to work under Linux.

I think the winner is XP, as I've had very little problems installing drivers (just required a little expert knowledge of how to search the cd for drivers) and didn't require me to download and configure the kernel source, patch it up so that it matched my distro, patch it for the particular driver I had that was only available in source form compile the kernel, find the driver didn't work, hack the driver till it worked, send my patch into the driver developers. etc..... not once did I have to do that.

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[squiggleslash]

Well, first of all "expect it to work on Windows" is dubious, for the reasons I listed above. And second, you research it the same way you would if you were going to buy the same thing.

Of your two examples, only web cams tend to be hit and miss under GNU/Linux (I've used a variety of cellphones from a variety of manufacturers and while there were problems with some brands in the 1990s, they've moved away from that for the most part. If it does Bluetooth, you know it'll work. If it's USB, then it'll probably have support, and checking online shouldn't be an issue.) However, in my experience, most Windows webcam bundled software is so awful that you need to do the research even if you're planning to use it under Windows.

I'd add MP3 players to that list too. The ones that are supported under GNU/Linux are also the ones that generally aren't awful under Windows. Have you ever had one of those Sony Walkman MP3 player things? Virtually unsupported under GNU/Linux, but it doesn't matter because the Windows software is so unbelievably unusable that it might just as well be unsupported under Windows too.

I seriously wouldn't get hung up on the issue. You're going to be the one recommending Epson over Lexmark for printers, checking the listings for the latest supported scanners, recommending the MP3 players, etc, etc. You're going to be doing that anyway, even if they run Windows.

Re:The 'problem' with Linux.

[Palpitations]

There not complete idiots, they can quite easly buy a mobile phone or web cam that they want and expect it to work on Windows, how am I supposed to even check if they will work under Linux without buying one first and trying it out? I've always found the "google $product_name linux" method to work pretty damn well, whether it be for old obscure hardware, or more recent stuff. The only things it hasn't worked are bleeding-edge products. Wait a couple weeks after launch, and chances are you'll turn up some info.

I know that hasn't always been the case... It wasn't until fairly recently that I started using Linux nearly full time because of random issues with hardware (I'll still boot into XP to use Photoshop or play WoW... I can, and sometimes do use Wine for the task, but only if I'm not doing anything intensive). Not that I hadn't installed it and Free/OpenBSD and played around with them several times over many years - but the progress really has been wonderful, and I've had no trouble finding information on compatibility with 99% of the hardware I've looked at over the past year or so.

The article contradicts itself.

[Dr. Manhattan]

"for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software" ... translates to not for me for the average person, being neither a geek nor wanting to have the self-image of being 'basic'.

Of course, the article itself already stated:

"An Add/Remove function actually makes finding programs easier with Linux than it is for Mac and Windows. Without having to go to Web sites, it lets you browse through categories of software. It took me only seconds to find several additional music players, a PDF reader and other programs. In addition to downloading the software, this feature installs it and finds any necessary additional files."

It's a holdover from Windows/Mac, where installing software can be hard and requires some technical knowledge. The author still subconsciously thinks of installing software as 'difficult' even though they've actually seen the evidence that on Linux it's not. On any modern desktop Linux, software installation is no more complicated than "I want this program. Gimme."

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[darthflo]

On any modern desktop Linux, software installation is no more complicated than "I want this program. Gimme." Usually, for switchers it'll be more like "I want a program that does X. Gimme.". This is also the problem I think TFA is addressing with this excluded "average" group – people who are used to Windows and know Windows software with which they (want to) do their work. While I am sure most of those programs have acceptable or sometimes even superior counterparts on Linux, we'd really need wine to be easier to handle and more feature-complete to satisfy those users too.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[Dr. Manhattan]

we'd really need wine to be easier to handle and more feature-complete to satisfy those users too.

Nope, that's a trap. OS/2 was essentially 100% Windows 3.1 compatible, and what happened? Developers thought, "Why bother writing an OS/2 native app when I can just write a Windows app and be compatible?" So OS/2 never got any apps to speak of. And we know where it is today.

Linux needs those alternative, native (or at least cross-platform) apps.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[foobsr]

I was probably unclear in that I was not writing about myself (Linux since SLS), but I still disagree that 'On any modern desktop Linux, software installation is no more complicated than "I want this program. Gimme."' (On a scale from gentoo to Ubuntu(easiest), and you may replace 'Linux' for any other OS, having the 'average' user in mind).

However, I wanted to point out that the article does not do a good job in promoting Linux, building on the premise that the average reader looks for summary/conclusion/advice which he might find in the originally quoted fragment. Now if even the author with his preliminary exposure still communicates this bias ...

A conclusion (hard to convey to people rooted in the vicinity of engineering since well before computers came to birth, and still) might be that it is more about an 'image' rather than reality (might be marketing 101 or how you name it).

CC.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[darthflo]

Nope, that's a trap.

It sure is, but the lack of compatibility is slowing Linux adoption greatly, which also results in no native ports.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[Dr. Manhattan]

...the lack of compatibility is slowing Linux adoption greatly, which also results in no native ports.

Sure, Linux is betwixt Scylla and Charybdis, but emulating the other platform only helps short-term and hurts badly long-term. It's eating the seed corn. Making better alternative apps is indeed harder, but it's the only way that'll work long-term. Fortunately more critical apps are becoming cross-platform - Firefox and Thunderbird are already cross-platform and make migration from IE/Outlook as simple as it can possibly be. OpenOffice is steadily gaining capability and helps migration a great deal as well, though it's not all the way there yet. The more people on Windows use open-source apps, the less reason there is to run Windows at all.

No, I'm not predicting the imminent (or even long-term) demise of Microsoft, but I think the trends are in Linux's favor long-term.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[Tribbin]

"software installation is no more complicated than "I want this program. Gimme.""

Wouldn't that be bad-ass? A voice controlled installer.

"I want frozen bubble"

["Should I also start it for you master?"]

"Yes, thank you my minion"

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[Hatta]

I was probably unclear in that I was not writing about myself (Linux since SLS), but I still disagree that 'On any modern desktop Linux, software installation is no more complicated than "I want this program. Gimme."

On what basis?

Debian/Ubuntu: "apt-get program"

Gentoo: "emerge program"

English: "I want this program, gimme"

I'd say that installing software on modern linux is in fact less complicated than "I want this program, gimme".

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[tiocsti]

Yeah, installing mac software is a royal pain. I have to download it, and then drop it into whatever location I want it to live. It's insanely difficult.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Yeah, installing mac software is a royal pain. I have to download it, and then drop it into whatever location I want it to live. It's insanely difficult.

Unless it's stuffed in a disk image or something. I ran into that when trying to set up a compiler on my aunt's Mac to test the portability of some code I wrote. On Ubuntu, installing the compiler takes a couple of minutes (and most of that's download time). On her Mac, it took me about an hour, learning the "intuitive" Mac way of doing things.

Don't get me wrong, the Mac is way ahead of Windows, and software installation on a Mac can be that easy. But it's really really easy on Linux these days.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[foobsr]

On what basis?

Perhaps a definition/clarification of what a distinguishing characteristic of a 'typical average user' is seems necessary. Maybe 'has never used a CLI' does it within this context (I know several of those across Windows/Mac who use the PC for their jobs). Thus no apt-get/emerge.

But even the reasonably well-done Ubuntu-gui-way would pose (my guess) problems because of too much choice (not to speak of the need to tune 'preferences' and 'multiverse' being attached to 'legal issues'); remember all this in a world were, e.g., pictures are edited while residing on the camera's memory because this was recommended as 'easier' (a 'mom' following the recommendations of her 'computer literate' son aged below 20 who I otherwise do not rate stupid) — unbelievable? — there are also people who are not able to change a wheel of their car.

Again, my main point is that it is a 'psychological issue'; once business-use of Linux is more widespread the consumer will mimic the behaviour.

CC.

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[JesseMcDonald]

. . . emulating the other platform only helps short-term and hurts badly long-term. . . . Fortunately more critical apps are becoming cross-platform . . .

If you favor cross-platform applications, why not support WINE? The goal of WINE is essentially to make all Windows(tm) applications cross-platform.

Look at it this way: with WINE (or cross-platform development), an application can run on Linux or Windows, with no advantage to either. Without WINE that application is almost certain to only run on Windows. The way to give Linux the advantage is to support Windows-only programs through WINE, while either creating better Linux-only programs to entice people to switch -- or demonstrating that Linux can run even designed-for-Windows programs better than Windows itself can (which may not be as difficult as it sounds; some programs already run more efficiently under WINE).

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[Hatta]

Maybe we need a package manager named "Gimme". You'd invoke it as: "gimme firefox" Would that be simple enough?

Re:The article contradicts itself.

[foobsr]

Yes, it is sad, but I agree.

CC.

I'm sick of...

[Anonymous Coward]

the same linux articles on slashdot everyday!

COULD THIS BE!?

[kevmatic]

The Year of the Linux Desktop!?!?!

Probably not.

There's not going to be some sudden revolution to Linux, its going to come gradually. There won't be a Year of the Linux Desktop, I'm thinking one day we'll all look back and marvel about how mainstream Linux snuck up on us.

I doubt this article will get any more than a couple dozen people to try it. But its a start.

What amazes me is how rapidly its improving. The Kubuntu install I'm using is only a year old, but the new Gusty Beta is so much different it might as well be a different OS entirely. How much does Windows improve in a year?

Oh, that's right, they take SIX YEARS to improve, and ended up with Vista.

(K)ubuntu is out pacing Windows so bad its only a matter of time before it overtakes Windows in all fronts. I mean, the automatix problem they're talking in TFA is supposedly already fixed for Gusty, and there's a ton of other features that people will love.

And yeah, and takes days to get an XP reinstall into a usable state too, with drivers and Firefox and updates and anti virus and antispyware and office suites and media players that have to be installed.

Seems to me people who ask the question "is Linux ready for Mainstream?" compare it to a perfect Windows that I've never seen in person.

Re:COULD THIS BE!?

[Dr. Manhattan]

There won't be a Year of the Linux Desktop

That's right, any more than there was a "Year of the Linux Server". Linux's presence in the server area just kept growing, until now it's just one more tool to be used when appropriate.

Re:COULD THIS BE!?

[Aladrin]

While some areas are definitely overtaking Windows (Seen Compiz in Gutsy? Nice and stable!) there are others that are pretty much out of the control of developers. I'm talking about mainstream software. It simply doesn't work on Linux, even with Wine. Once there's a Photoshop for Linux, and maybe a few other choice apps, then you'll see the acceptance of Linux as a desktop for the common man.

Re:COULD THIS BE!?

[Anonymous Coward]

It simply doesn't work on Linux, even with Wine.

Others would disagree: http://luiscosio.com/how-to-adobe-photoshop-cs2-on-ubuntu-10-steps

Maybe it doesn't work on all distros, but the comments indicate some people are able to get it working perfectly under Ubuntu/Wine by following some (fairly) simple instructions, which could probably be turned into a click and run script. Others are struggling, but their struggles will probably soon resolve into better "how to's" and so forth. Wine seems to be improving rapidly.
The main issue with this particular method is that it is for porting an existing windows install, not installing from scratch, but I'm sure someone else has solved this or will do so very soon.

Re:COULD THIS BE!?

[Draek]

(K)ubuntu is out pacing Windows so bad its only a matter of time before it overtakes Windows in all fronts.

to be fair, even Haiku is outpacing Windows' rate of improvements simply because Windows' is negative (both 2K -> XP and XP -> Vista are, in my opinion, downgrades not upgrades).

other than that, though, you're completely right, when I read these comments about how "Linux will never reach the masses as long as it can't run all Windows apps!", I'm reminded when people said "Firefox will never reach the masses as long as it doesn't render all web pages like IE!" before, well, it reached the masses. Linux's adoption perhaps hasn't exploded yet, but it certainly hasn't stalled either.

Two things Linux needs ...

[Ihlosi]

1. Support from hardware vendors. Mostly for graphics cards and WLAN. Let's see how AMD/ATIs efforts turn out.

2. Support from game companies. If I wasn't playing games, I'd have dumped Windows years ago.

Re:Two things Linux needs ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's happening, albeit slowly. Unreal Tournament 3 is coming with a linux client out of the box for example.

Re:Two things Linux needs ...

[CortoMaltese]

Enter Spanish Inquisition:

3. Objective publicity, especially in comparison to Windows.

It is just amazing how much problems Windows users withstand with a shrug of the shoulders, thinking "it's just the way Windows is". It's incredibly acceptable for Windows to have problems. In contrast, any problems average people face with Linux are huge. It's perfectly okay to tell your boss that Windows ate your source code ("Well, shit happens."), but try that again with Linux ("I just knew this would happen.").

It is also common to list some Windows features lacking in Linux, while ignoring cool features never seen on Windows.

Re:Two things Linux needs ...

[moderatorrater]

The problems with Windows are familiar problems though. In some cities it's perfectly acceptable for drivers to ignore all, or at least most, of the laws and everyone accepts it. If that were to happen in my home city it'd be a bloodbath because it's unfamiliar. The same principle applies to linux; my parents can work around problems with windows quite easily because they know it, but ask them to boot into linux and they have no idea what they're doing.

Yes, but does it run on...

[TechnoBunny]

...oh. Never mind.

Decent linux programmable cellphone out yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a QWERTY linux cellphone out there yet with decent features and maybe a video camera?

My sony mylo runs linux but is only runs Skype and isn't open to developers.

Lg Voyager looks good but what does it run and is it open to indie developers?

And to bring things closer

[E-Sabbath]

I've found this lovely project. It's called Wine-Doors, and it's a Package Manager for Windows programs under Linux. Like Apt-Get.
Seems to work pretty well, too.
http://www.wine-doors.org/wordpress/?page_id=5

NO! Not Automatix!

[gbutler69]

Automatix IS NOT recommended for Ubuntu! It tends to screw things up preventing correct updates to the next version.

Codecs are now installed automagically whenever you attempt to open a media file for which you do not have the correct CODEC.

Automatix IS NOT recommended.

Re:NO! Not Automatix!

[chrono13]

Not only is Automatix not recomended, but it is almost completely irrelivant and unessary.

On a fresh 7.10 install:

Add/Remove, Show all packages, "restricted". Install restricted package.
You now have installed: Java6, Flash9, video codecs, lame, dvd playback, ms fonts, and more.
No command line, no downloading of a 3rd party unrecomended script. Just easy. Compare that to Windows.

Even going outside of the package manager, most people find there is a deb for their distro (eg. Google Earth).

I removed the "Made for Windows" sticker and replaced it with a "Powered by Ubuntu" sticker. Ubuntu 7.10 is the release that has replaced Windows for me.

Re:NO! Not Automatix!

[swillden]

On a fresh 7.10 install: Add/Remove, Show all packages, "restricted". Install restricted package. You now have installed: Java6, Flash9, video codecs, lame, dvd playback, ms fonts, and more.

The Ubuntu 7.10 restricted packages do not include libdvdcss, so you still can't play commercial DVDs. I just went through this yesterday, installing Gutsy and then trying to watch a DVD. To get DVD playback working I had to add the medibuntu repository and then install the libdvdcss2 package. Just installing the restricted packages wasn't enough.

Re:NO! Not Automatix!

[Kickersny.com]

The Ubuntu install most definitely ships with the ability to play DVDs, though it needs to be enabled:

sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh

Why they didn't make it more integrated is beyond me.

Re:NO! Not Automatix!

[swillden]

The Ubuntu install most definitely ships with the ability to play DVDs, though it needs to be enabled:

sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh

Why they didn't make it more integrated is beyond me.

Interesting. Not only is it not very integrated, that script downloads libdvdcss from a non-Ubuntu repository. Looks like they're still leery of distributing it themselves, or of making it too easy to set up.

Re:NO! Not Automatix!

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Ubuntu 7.10 is the release that has replaced Windows for me.

Kubuntu 5.10 was the release that did it for me, and I've been consistently impressed with the improvement each release gives. I'm using Kubuntu 7.04 right now, and I've never managed to crash it. Couldn't say that about any version of Windows, even XP.

Thank you

[Gazzonyx]

"200[x]: The year of the Linux Desktop?" I've found that title to be reliable for knowing what year it is, as it has worked for the last 5 years in a row. ;)

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you mean the title. Linux Desktop is an oxymoron.

Re:Thank you

[Gazzonyx]

Obviously you mean the title. Linux Desktop is an oxymoron. Although becoming less so. I'm starting to be impressed with the desktop distributions that are coming forth. The first time I booted PCLinuxOS, I immediately thought, "hey, I could put this on my fathers computer, and he'd be able to use it, despite having just bought his first laptop at 56 years old!"

Sabayon (a newer Gentoo derivative) is really starting to become a solid (insert Gentoo joke here) distro, and I'm actually running it as my secondary, ATM. Granted, I was up until 5AM this morning trying to work around VMWare dependencies issues in portage, but it's also intended for a more technical desktop user than PCLinuxOS.

(?)ubuntu hits the ground running like no OS I've ever seen, and it keeps getting better - I think I have a better shot at the wireless working seamlessly with it, than I do with any pre SP2 XP install. I've no stats to back this last claim up as its merely anecdotal and not objectively tested in any manner whatsoever, AFAIK.

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

"200[x]: The year of the Linux Desktop?"

I've found that title to be reliable for knowing what year it is, as it has worked for the last 5 years in a row. ;) I'm afraid you'll soon have to change that into "20[x][y]". And even that may not be true.

But one can hope.

Re:Thank you

[Verte]

20010: the year of the Linux desktop?

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

2101 is the year of the Linux Desktop!

Re:Thank you

[Provocateur]

Maybe that's the reason for the slow adoption: it should read 2008, The Year of the Linux Desktops.

We gots to stop thinking small, people! Where are all the grammar nazis when you need them?!

Re:Thank you

[alejandronova]

This is beginning to look like Megaman. Watch this. "On 20XX, the year of the Linux Desktop"...

Re:Thank you

[l0b0]

Someone should make a script to run every January 1, to get it over with...

Windows apps? Why?

[blackbirdwork]

Why we keep saying "using Windows apps in Linux..."? We don't want to use Windows apps in Linux, we want to use Linux apps.

The year of the desktop?

[00_NOP]

I've been using Linux for just over six years and I am never sure if it has become easier or I've just become more profficient, though certainly hardware support is much much better.

I've also noticed that desktop users have probably doubled to about 1 - 1.5% in that time, with most of the growth in the last 18 months (Ubuntu effect I am sure). Suspect we need about 3 - 5% before we are really in the big time: that's maybe three years away yet.

Let them eat Windows

[TheFlu]

I've been using Linux as my main desktop platform for about 10 years now. In that time, we've seen some amazing work done in regards to the usability and hardware support that Linux users enjoy today. I'd go so far as to say that Linux has completely altered my conception of how the computing world, and perhaps the world in general, should operate. That said, I'm not sure I'm ready for the masses to embrace Linux.

Sure, it would be nice from a driver standpoint, as I can foresee many more hardware manufacturers hopping on board the Linux bandwagon if the user base keeps expanding. Also, I imagine some of the bigger software players, such as Adobe, might start offering more of their wares for Linux. Adobe already has Flash support, the Flex developer platform and Adobe Reader, so it's not out of line to think that their Creative Suite might be ported one day as well, if the user base is large enough.

That said, I'm not so sure I want "the masses" to use Linux. The main reason I say this is that I fear the things I love about Linux will slowly be watered down in order to appease the non-geeks among us. Now I'm not saying that in order to enjoy computing I need to have a platform that's difficult to use, but I would be concerned that the ideals behind Linux would slowly erode once big business sees that there is money to be made on it. Additionally, I would hate to see the Linux platform start to sacrifice power for ease of use. Making once difficult tasks easy is a fantastic programming goal, but when we start sacrificing flexibility in the process, we start taking Linux out of Linux.

I try to post fairly often on Linux forums in order to help new users find solutions to their problems, so I'm certainly not opposed to more people embracing Linux and enjoying what it has to offer. I just question whether I really want Linux to become the "New Windows", as I feel we may get more than we bargained for if that comes to fruition.

Re:Let them eat Windows

[kevmatic]

Well, that's the thing about Linux. Its just a KERNEL, you know? It won't really become "watered down" in order to become the "New Windows," as most mainstream uses don't even know what a kernel is!

Now, I know what you mean, you mean you're worried about the DISTROS becoming watered down.

But there's thousands of them! Some may very well become watered down, but there's enough people who feel like you to keep a couple dozen "geek distros" or "200-proof distros" going without any worries.

keep

[kurtis25]

I'm in the stop changing things camp. I'm tired of having to relearn software and OSs because MS decided to fancy things up. IMHO they should dump Vista and go back and polish off XP, make it secure, safe and fast. My sis got a new computer with Vista and has called no less than twice with questions which I can't answer because I know nothing about the thing. I think Linux will eventually win because it is consistent and predictable. I know how long the release will be supported, I can test new releases, documents work across the various distros (sorry Vista and XP you hurt yourselves on that one). Ms is going to make a ton of money because companies will need to retrain employees on how to use Vista and office 2007. Drivers are the big Linux problem but I think manufacturers will eventually realize they need to be open to Linux or they will be left behind.

installation difficulty vs windows

[SolusSD]

Honestly-- most Linux distros designed to be easy for new users (ie, ubuntu, mandriva, fedora, etc) are at least as easy, if not easier, to install than windows. You get a pretty GUI right from the get-go. Some distros can be installed in 3 or 4 clicks of the next button! Also, by the time you are at the desktop, support for most of your hardware is already in place. A vanilla copy of windows xp, for example, is an ugly sight on new notebooks. Wrong screen resolution, wrong video drivers, network, wireless, sound, etc are either the wrong driver or not installed. End users usually don't see how deficient windows can be in this area because it comes preloaded and configured on virtually any computer you buy.

Vista bomb not helping Linux

[goldspider]

The dismal failure of Vista hasn't pushed people to try Linux. It's only kept them on XP. Why would people switch to an entirely new platform when what they have works perfectly well?

Re:Vista bomb not helping Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

I've long been interested in open source software, but never had the courage to leave my safe Windows cocoon. When the reviews came out for Vista, I thought, this is it. My future can either be six years of the world of pain that is Vista, or I can try Ubuntu.

While I'm sure a lot of people will stick with XP, a lot of people are going to want an OS that fully takes advantage of increases in computing power. I don't want to be using XP for twelve years.

Because Vista sucks, people like myself are going to start using Ubuntu. That may be a small percentage of the total market, but it will be large compared to the preexisting Linux demographic.

I, for one, have never looked back.

Re:Vista bomb not helping Linux

[Blakey Rat]

The "dismal failure of Vista" only exists among Slashdotters and big corporations. And the corporations will come around after a couple of service packs. (Big corps didn't use Windows 2000 right away, either.)

Re:Vista bomb not helping Linux

[goldspider]

What modern "computing power" is XP incapable of using?

Re:Vista bomb not helping Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The dismal failure of Vista hasn't pushed people to try Linux. It's only kept them on XP. Why would people switch to an entirely new platform when what they have works perfectly well?

It is true that most have stayed with XP, however according to at least one survey, Linux use has more than doubled since the launch of Vista.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux

My recent experience

[jayInIndiana]

I recently replaced our main family PC (a P3 running Windows 2000) with an Athlon 64 X2 running Fedora 7. The installation was amazingly smooth. My onboard LAN, video, and sound all worked "out of the box." The only additional driver installation required was for our HP printer/scanner, which was easy as "yum install hplip." I was very happy with the system, except for needing to restart my router every day or two (likely not linux's fault, but not a problem in 2000). Unfortunately, it failed the wife test. She had trouble getting used to the tabbed-browsing in Firefox and was generally unhappy with OpenOffice (in her words, "it just isn't the same"). I think given time she would have gotten used to Fedora, but it wasn't worth listening to her moaning, so I installed XP last night. What a frickin' hassle... All of the onboard components needed to be installed one-by-one (with a reboot in between) and SP2 took close to an hour to install (with another reboot required). For some reason, every time it reboots it reads/writes to the HD like mad, which I don't think was happening with F7. I hope that stops once everything is installed. I'll install Office and the printer/scanner drivers tonight and expect at least a few more reboots. I just hope the wife doesn't have a problem with Office 2007...

Re:My recent experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you made this up! Slashdotters do not have WIVES, you silly man! They sit in the darkness of their mother's basements, pecking away at their keyboards with cheeto-stained fingers while keeping a watchful eye on the World of Warcraft game running on their other desk...

However, it was an entertaining read and I commend you for all the research you must have done to make it so realistic!

Re:My recent experience

[CortoMaltese]

Unfortunately, it failed the wife test. She had trouble getting used to the tabbed-browsing in Firefox and was generally unhappy with OpenOffice (in her words, "it just isn't the same"). I think given time she would have gotten used to Fedora, but it wasn't worth listening to her moaning, so I installed XP last night. I can relate, but I didn't give up so easily. I told her she could have her XP or whatever if she bought, installed, and maintained it herself. I wasn't going to touch it with a ten foot pole. That pretty much did it. Of course she still complains to everyone that she can't do x or y because we have this "non-standard operating system" (sic!), but partly she's also happy to tell everyone that she is using Linux too. She was also pretty amazed that I could install some software she needed with a simple 'emerge' spell on the command line.

Personally, I find OpenOffice too much like MS Office: the first thing to do after installation is disabling all those "auto correct spelling while I type" etc. kind of features...

Re:My recent experience

[DannyO152]

I have just been plunged into Office 2007 land. She'll think it blows. Everyone where I work (small business) thinks it blows. I've made my peace with it, mainly because the old menu mnemonics are still supported, i.e., in Excel /ir will insert a row, and I've installed OOo.o and I down-save the stuff that matters of 97/2000 format. But if one is the always mouse to the menu type, one will hate that actions are reorganized

Re:My recent experience

[Anonymous Coward]

> it failed the wife test.

A hint. Don't tell her.

About 2 years ago I was working overseas for an extended period and my PC was a RedHat only box. The wife and kids came over to stay for a few weeks, I pointed them at the PC in the lounge room and said "go for it, you might find it looks a little different in some spots but don't worry about it"

Didn't hear a peep for about a week until my (then) 8 year boy asked how he could play one of his Windows games. Got Wine going and he was happy.

They just thought they were using one of the higher end server versions of Windows. My wife was stunned when she found out that OpenOffice wasn't Word. (I still end up using one without noticing that it's the other sometimes on the single Windows PC we have left).

We haven't gone back, let alone looked back.

Re: your sig

[everphilski]

C# is what it would be like if they copied it [java].

So... much improved and faster? :)

Hardware drivers or applications?

[commlinx]

A lot of talk about a slow uptake of Linux always seems to circle around lack of hardware drivers. Many devices I use don't have Vista drivers yet and probably never will because they have been superceded or are for niche applications where the manufacturer might think it is reasonable to expect their customers to operate under older O/S configurations. At the moment I use XP for my main machine with an old DOS laptop for two applications that require direct hardware access. If I wanted to change from XP to either Vista or Linux I'd need to upgrade some hardware, that's no problem because all the big ticket items would work fine with either and I don't give a toss about needing to buy a new TV tuner card and all those fairly small ticket items. If buying a new machine I'm sure I could easily check for Ubuntu compatibility just like I could for Vista

Manufacturers of hardware will eventually realise that most of their costs are hardware development, testing, advertising and general support of their business and a writing drivers is a small amount. Eventually they'll realise if they can get even just an extra 10% of hardware sales by offering Linux support either by taking the open source or open specification route it will result in extra profit.

I believe the real problem until a critical mass is achieved will always come down to software. Looking at a few applications I have installed like Explorer, Office, SQL/Server, IIS, GIS apps, source code control and a plethora of file and image conversion utilities they are no problem to replace. Some like accounting and schematic capture software would be a hassle but to impossible to replace, probably worthwhile if I already hadn't spent money on the originals. But how about ARM JTAG debuggers, various other embedded debugger/compilers that talk to hardware by direct device driver interfaces? I'm sure I could get half to work to some degree under various emulators but why bother, at the moment I'd rather run my $25K worth of apps under the native O/S they were written for and pay MS $2K for the other crap.

I think the real turning point will come when there is enough volume in the market that application developers will consider it desirable to start targetting and supporting applications for both environments at the same level of priority. Part of that will probably require some better development tools that allow cross-platform development without too much extra effort. I must say that I like Linux and open source in general, and hope and believe it will get their eventually but I don't think it will be a 'mainstream' for quite some time yet

Re:Hardware drivers or applications?

[Anonymous Coward]

> how about ARM JTAG debuggers, various other embedded debugger/compilers that talk to hardware by direct device driver interfaces?

Well what about them? They exist, just google. If you don't know about them, it's because you haven't looked.

Secondly, this is a bit like the creationist argument:- always moving the goal posts. I can assure you that the number of Windows users who even know what an ARM JTAG debugger is, is vanishly small. ("What's ARM? What's JTAG? What's a debugger?" would be a sophisticated response for most people, "huh? I don't use those, why should I care?" is far more likely.

My latest Linux experience

[Cro Magnon]

I had a long stretch without Linux because trying to install it on a previous machine was a huge PITA. After trying Vista, I decided to give Linux another try, and I had very mixed results.

First, I tried Ubuntu. The good news is, nearly everything worked. The bad news is, the partition resize seemed to break Vista! It no longer booted! To be fair, I had some problems with that BEFORE the resize, but that was the straw that broke the camel's, um, window.

After fiddling with Ubuntu awhile, I switched to Fedora with similar mixed results. The Linux stuff worked, but Grub didn't set up Windows dual boot (Ubuntu's did, even though Vista itself was borked).

My conclusion? Linux STILL isn't ready, at least for people who still need Windows. I MIGHT have been able to fix my booting problems if I hadn't already moved my Windows software to my laptop, but most people would be screwed.

Re:My latest Linux experience

[dvice_null]

> The bad news is, the partition resize seemed to break Vista!

I got a challenge for you. Install Linux on an empty hard drive (shouldn't be a problem), and then install Vista in a way that
a) You resize the Linux partition to make room for it
b) After installation you have dual boot for both Windows and Linux
c) Both still work

If you can manage to do this, I bet that James Randi will give you the 1 million dollar prize.

And for the record, not once has the dualboot installation failed when I have installed Linux after Windows. And for the most people, it just works. Obviously if you resize a partition and the OTHER operating system can't handle that, there is nothing Linux could do for that. So just resize the partition on Windows and then install Linux on the empty partition and you should be fine. Assuming you know how to change partition size on Windows (and that you are even able to do that). The very best solution of course is to do the partitioning before installing anything.

Re:My latest Linux experience

[dbIII]

Unfortunately you will always need to read the docs at some point for any operating system install if you want to avoid trouble with things like dual boot. The answer is to either get somebody who has read them to help or read them yourself - random playing around will teach you things but if you just want to get things done you can learn the same things from the docs and save time. People don't read the docs because they are used to the poor, difficult to obtain or non-existant docs in MS Windows and think it's like that everywhere. Most things in linux outside of gnome have decent docs and it's nearly all there on the machine after install. Stuff like fedorafaq.org will tell you a lot of the rest in only a few lines.

The other 'problem' with Linux

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You're right about the hardware support. I have been planning to move my home PC to dual boot with Linux since forever: I've been leaving separate hard disk partitions free for this purpose for years. But I never have actually installed Linux on my main home machine, because every time I come to look at it and do the research, I find showstopping issues with some piece of hardware or other.

I don't think that's the biggest obstacle to widespread Linux adoption, though. In fact, the real problem with Linux from the point of view of average home or office users has nothing to do with Linux itself. It is simply that, as TFA suggests, the applications just aren't there for serious users. To get people to shift away from the Windows platforms they're familiar with, Linux must offer better applications, yet there is not one "killer app" for Linux. Many of the best mass market OSS software is also available for Windows, particularly on the programming and server software front where Linux has traditionally been strong. For end users, there are commercial offerings on Windows as good or much better than almost anything on Linux.

The really silly thing is that a lot of this is actually caused by the community-driven OSS model that prevails in Linux world, which admits the kind of politics that would be squished by senior management in a traditional, commercial software development company. Your average end user doesn't care about GPL2 vs. GPL3. He doesn't need OpenOffice to try and be an MS Office clone, because he's got MS Office. He doesn't care about your open standard calendar support in your mail software, he just wants to connect to his corporate Exchange server. He doesn't care that Firefox is just following W3C recommendations in how it renders the page, when the page looks wrong in Firefox but right in IE.

This isn't to say that none of these things matters. To you and me and those who would like to see a better world, the technical details and open standards are important, and for some of us, perhaps the free software philosophy is too. But the bottom line is that the end user doesn't care. He just wants a system that can help him to do his work, relax at home, or whatever. As long as Linux doesn't have the same level of key application support that Windows has, and some "killer app" alternatives that are substantially better than what is available on Windows, it will never be the "year of Linux on the desktop" no matter how good the operating system itself may become, how easy it is to install, how pretty the widgets are in the GUI, or how many geeks object to the de facto standards and vendor lock-in that prevail in the Windows world.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[managementboy]

To get people to shift away from the Windows platforms they're familiar with, Linux must offer better applications, yet there is not one "killer app" for Linux." That is exactly the reason I switched from Windows. Linux has a few killer applications/features I will not miss:

- Amarok: love the way it presents my MP3 collection
- MythTV: the best client/server based PVR
- KDE: Better Windows than Windows
- smart/apt-get: how quick can you update ALL your applications on windows?
- shell: script anything to automate
- remote maintenance: I maintain about 5 PCs for my family in as distant places as Colombia, all with tools build into the OS
- security: open and up to date
- server: I have so many things running on my home server that I cant list them all...
- free: yes, thats a killer

Now I look back to about 5 years ago when I still ran XP, what do I miss? NOTHING.
What does my Family miss? NOTHING.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. I should have said useful applications. Of those you listed, I would only classify the first two as useful applications. Having security might be a good thing, but only if there's something useful you can do with your secure system. Being able to update things easily might be a good thing, but only if there's something useful to update. Running scripts is all very nice, but only if you have useful things to automate. You get the idea.

While you personally may state defiantly that you do not miss anything from Windows, I'm pretty sure a lot of business users would miss big name software like MS Office and the Adobe creative products, and even corporate monster software like SAP, not to mention the zillions of specialist business software products that have been built over the years and on which many businesses rely for their day-to-day operation. A lot of home users would miss the games too.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Risen888]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. I should have said useful applications.

Sure, I'll bite.

*Amarok - You may not consider this "useful," but to the five gazillion people who have music on their computer and an audio player, it's the best thing on the market. I have gone rounds with lots of commercial and free audio management apps, and there is nothing even close.
*Konqueror - It's a file browser. It's a web browser. It's an image viewer. It's a PDF viewer. It's an everything-viewer. It's configurable, and yet sensible by default. How many of these criteria does Windows Explorer meet? Hint: it's the first two, and half-assed at that.
*apt-get (and various frontends) - Like Add/Remove Programs, except... it actually does add and remove programs.
*ssh
*a terminal that does stuff
*Firefox - Say what you want about rendering issues. It's better. Everyone knows it.
*DigiKam - In 2005, there were 24.7 million digital cameras sold in the United States. "Useful" enough?
*the truckloads of educational applications that are available nowhere else

I can keep this up.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I can keep this up.

That's fortunate, because you've hardly started. In fact, most of your post just repeated earlier examples, which do not contradict my point for the reasons I explained before.

You've obviously not been following the discussion closely, because you included Firefox. For one thing, that is also available for Windows. For another, it's not just the rendering issues that are the problem. The Firefox world has lost the plot with the extensions recently, to the extent that basically my entire configuration on one machine was reset to defaults, by an update to an extension that I didn't even ask to install. In fact, I've uninstalled more than half of the extensions I've tried recently, in most cases because they just didn't work properly. So much for independent, small, high quality components, yada yada yada. And in any case, it's not like people on Windows have to use IE if they don't use Firefox. Opera, for one, is a perfectly good (and now free of charge) alternative for your average home user.

None of your other software examples is even close to being a killer app. Sure, you've got a couple of good media viewers/players, but people don't switch operating system just for one of those. You need something so good and so essential that people will be willing to choose Linux over Windows just because it has that one application. Right now, that only happens in reverse, and lists of toys like the one you posted only fix that in your denying mind.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Risen888]

You've obviously not been following the discussion closely, because you included Firefox. For one thing, that is also available for Windows.

That's true. And it comes with every modern Linux distribution. So do a whole bunch of other great programs, like the ones listed above! Can I count that as a killer feature?

The Firefox world has lost the plot with the extensions recently, to the extent that basically my entire configuration on one machine was reset to defaults, by an update to an extension that I didn't even ask to install.

I'm sincerely sorry to hear that, that sucks. I fail to see how it's relevant here.

You need something so good and so essential that people will be willing to choose Linux over Windows just because it has that one application.

I think you'll come up with a new criterion every time I name something, but I'll see your arbitrary definitions and stand on apt-get, and the whole idea of a packaging system and software repositories. I think the only reason it's not more widely regarded as your "killer app" is that it's too "radical" of an idea; proprietary system users don't get it, because there's nothing remotely comparable in their world.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We're still talking at cross purposes. My point isn't changing: it has always been that no matter how convenient, secure and user-friendly your system itself is, it must do things that users want for it to be useful. Home users want to send an e-mail to their friends, or use their favourite social networking site, or listen to their CD, or play a game to entertain themselves, or write a letter. Business users want to automate their business processes, keep records efficiently, produce necessary documents, and so on. Unless you can name me a specific, Linux-based application that can do one of these things so much better than what people already have on Windows that real people would make a real decision to use Linux instead purely because of that application, then you have no killer app and there is nowhere for this discussion to go.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Risen888]

Home users want to send an e-mail to their friends, or use their favourite social networking site, or listen to their CD, or play a game to entertain themselves, or write a letter. Business users want to automate their business processes, keep records efficiently, produce necessary documents, and so on. Unless you can name me a specific, Linux-based application that can do one of these things so much better than what people already have on Windows

This is what I meant about moving the goalposts. Just to remind you of where this started, in the top post you said:

But the bottom line is that the end user doesn't care. He just wants a system that can help him to do his work, relax at home, or whatever. As long as Linux doesn't have the same level of key application support that Windows has, and some "killer app" alternatives that are substantially better than what is available on Windows, it will never be the "year of Linux on the desktop"

Others and myself proceeded to give numerous examples of Linux applications that are indeed substantially better than what is available on Windows (Amarok, for instance, lets users "listen to their CD" (from your last post) in a much friendlier manner than any comparable proprietary application. You changed the rules to:

You need something so good and so essential that people will be willing to choose Linux over Windows just because it has that one application.

I gave you apt-get and briefly laid out my case. You completely ignored it, and moved the goalposts again to the snippet I quoted at the top. To sum up, the criteria changed thusly: "substantially better" - "so essential that people would switch for it alone" - "must meet one of these eight examples, and by the way, I'm still not counting the ones in your original reply." It's almost enough to make me wonder who it is you're debating with, because I don't think it's me.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm sorry if my original terminology wasn't clear. As far I know, the expression "killer app" normally implies something so important that people will switch platforms just to get it: that one must-have game on the new console, the particular graphics software that makes the professional choose a Mac...

The examples in my previous post weren't intended to be exhaustive, but they are the sort of thing that typical people care about. They are end-user applications. They do real, useful things. No business is going to move to a Linux platform just because it has apt-get, or bash. Probably nobody is going to move just to get KOffice or AbiWord or Gnumeric, either. But give Linux an office suite that makes MS Office look hard to use, has no risks of vendor lock-in, has close-enough compatibility with existing documents, isn't full of bugs that get in the way of doing real work, and has support for useful features Microsoft still haven't got right, and now you've got a killer app for business.

Similarly, nobody at home is going to move to Linux just because it has a decent CD player. Any fool can download a decent CD player for any major platform. But write a beautifully simple, one-size-fits-all media management suite that lets you manage all your music, photos, video, etc., in a single, coherent place, doesn't mess you around trying to find common codecs or with licensing issues and separate downloads, hooks straight into your digital camera, camcorder, TV tuner card and external PVR as well the usual DVD/CD player, integrates with photo-sharing web sites, converts formats, and stores all this data in a method that works conveniently with leading graphics, sound and video editing packages, and now you've got a killer app for home users who spend a lot of time working with digital media.

Nobody is going to move to Linux just to get funky 3D user interfaces. But people buy whole consoles just to get one particular game, so it's not a stretch that people might try out Linux if the next great game was written there.

I have never intentionally moved my goalposts in this discussion, though I concede that the phrase "killer app" was not unambiguous in my original post, and that the list last time might have sounded definitive. To be clear, I have always meant that there are no applications on Linux, in areas of wide interest at least, that are so much better than anything you can get on Windows that users will change operating system just to be able to use them.

Re:The other 'problem' with Linux

[Risen888]

Amarok: You're not wrong with that list, and I'd love to see it, and I know that Amarok ain't there yet. But it's closer than any competing software, free or proprietary. I don't think it's fair to bring codecs into this discussion. On Ubuntu, to name just one distro, if Amarok doesn't have the codecs it needs to play the songs it finds, it will install them itself, without having to leave the window or wait more than a minute or so. Would Amarok by itself compel me to switch? No. But I maintain that it is the best thing going on the music player/management scene. I'm going to take half a point on this one.

Office apps: This one I'll give you without hesitation. I will say that Kontact is the easiest and most intuitive PIM I've ever used, but it starts to lose its shine fast if you're trying to sync schedules with anyone. I think MS Office sucks. But I agree that everything else sucks just as much or more, and nobody's really innovating, and until that changes, until someone somewhere makes an incredible, world-altering UI breakthrough, the Microsoft dominance of the office app space will not go away. No arguments on this one, other than the obvious "OpenOffice is all most people need." But what people need and what they want are different and mostly non-intersecting sets. Your point.

3d interfaces? I never brought this up in the first place, but I think you're trying to make a point about games here, correct me if I'm offbase. While I think OpenGL is, in and of itself, a superior gaming platform, I realize it doesn't matter a bit if the applications aren't being written. I think this is bound to give eventually, with Intel pushing the competition to release open drivers or be left behind by a large chunk of the tech-savvy userbase, I think Linux will become a more attractive platform to develop games and GPU-intensive applications of all kinds. Your point for now, but I reserve the right to revisit this in about three or four years.

apt-get: Nope, this is still the leg I'm standing on. I don't know about businesses, but I've shown home users the power of repositories and they have been pretty much unanimously astonished. You're right, it's all about applications, and apt-get (to most desktop users, actually Synaptic, or Adept, etc.) is the easiest, safest, and friendliest way to install applications on a home computer yet invented. There is nothing remotely analogous in the proprietary software world. That's what everybody wants, they just don't know it even exists. Apt-get is it. I'm sticking with this one.

I'd also like to award myself half a point here in re-emphasizing some places where Linux totally dominates the application space, such as the hard sciences and education (not in America, where Microsoft gives away the farm to get 'em hooked young, but in a lot of other places; the reams of educational software available for Linux boggles the mind).

Which leaves us with a 2-2 tie! Isn't consensus great? ;)

Office 97 runs under Wine

[Peter Simpson]

Don't know about 2003.

I'm lucky enough to have the install CDs for Office 97, so that's what I installed. That being said, Open Office works fine for me. Only reason I even bothered with MS Office, is my daughter's still in grad school, and it allows her to submit work that she *knows* is compatible with MS Office.

You could always set it up for dual-boot, with the default being Fedora, of course, and tell her it's up to her to choose XP or Linux :-)

Re:Office 97 runs under Wine

[gaffle]

I have had Office 2003 work fine on Fedora core 6.

I cannot make it work on Fedora 7. No clue. It will start, then say it 'needs to be installed for the registered user' and will force-quit.

I have also noticed WINE in fedora playing better with Gnome than KDE. Using KDE breaks the securom crap in WINE and I can't start Warcraft 3. Gnome does not exhibit this problem.

Fear success

[HangingChad]

we will have to watch out for self contrived idiocies such as political breakdown within the wizard circles

I'm far more worried about Linux as a commercial success than a hobby project. When companies like IBM start dedicating programmers, commercial interests are likely to marginalize the hero wizards who got us here.

Historically one of the things I really liked about Linux is the developers were not driven by bottom line considerations but that's starting the change.

It's the difference between playing golf as a hobby and playing professional golf. Golf as a hobby is fun, one of the few games you can drink beer while you play. The level of effort to get to the pro level takes all the fun out of it. Golf becomes a business, a craft, a profession. I fear the same result in Linux. That success will take some of the fun out of it.

Re:Fear success

[Fireflymantis]

Fortunately I think that as long as there is access to a decent CLI there will be a long-term and sustained hobby market. Linux at its core is all about its pure hackability. That will not be going away any time soon and will likely last a lot longer than, say, the shareware market during the DOS days. As Linux becomes more mainstream with 'default' apps like Firefox, Pidgin, OpenOffice, etc, the people that want some 'fun' out of the OS will still be able to turn to Opera, aMSN, Emacs, etc.

The beauty of Free software, is that even though all sorts of chaos comes out of GPLv2 vs GPLv3 vs MIT vs BSD, those documents entrench the freedom from being entrenched down by commercial intrests. Yes the big players are going to be weighing down on our sholders, but at least we will always have the source to play with and do with as we will.

2008

[Random832]

will be the year of linux on the desktop.

"Ready for the Desktop"

[Xenomorph.NET]

"They" have been saying for 10 years now that Linux is ready for the Desktop. It will be ready for the Desktop when the public says it is. Not supporting DRM or getting scary "constitutes a CRIME" messages when trying to play music and movies doesn't help. Pushing "OpenOffice" as a free *clone* of Microsoft Office doesn't seem to be fooling people either. It will only take a user 5 minutes to realize it lacks the Mail functionality or even comes close in speed of Microsoft's Office. I am looking forward to Ubuntu 7.10. I still won't see it as a replacement for Windows - but it is definitely an alternative to it. Linux for me has excelled as a great tool/utility OS and a server OS.

Re:"Ready for the Desktop"

[hey!]

Perhaps Linux will be "ready for the desktop" in the way that Windows is "ready for the data center" -- that is to say it will move into and expand a new ecological niche while having a limited impact in the existing niches.

The problem with Windows as a desktop OS is that it is as good as it has to be, but no better. If Linux were to make inroads onto the desktop, Windows would get better and cheaper, ad the Linux momentum would stall. As long as people are thinking about the installed base of users, it will never be "The Year of Linux on the Desktop"; so long as its a bit easier to put up with Windows than to change, most of the world will put up with Windows.

On the other hand, Microsoft's failure to leverage its desktop monopoly into a commanding position in the music player market shows that it's ability to maintain the status quo does not apply to products outside the operating system or office software field.

I think projects like OLPC are interesting, because whether the project succeeds or not, it is reenvisioning the computer that will give Linux its greatest opportunity to expand into the hands of ordinary people.

Re:"Ready for the Desktop"

[Draek]

DRM isn't supported because it can't be supported, or do you have a way of providing an open source library that decodes DRM'ed files, without allowing your users to bypass the DRM? thought so. Ohhhh, but make it closed source, then! and run into legal troubles with the GPL, not to mention that almost no distro would ever want to bundle it.

And the scary "constitutes a CRIME" messages when trying to play movies is because some morons over there at the US thought that criminalizing your entire population in favor of a couple of oligopolies was, somehow, a "good idea", and then tried to push said legislations down everyone else's throats. In other words, it's not a fault of Linux, Ubuntu or any Open Source developer, unless he's also one of the US politicians that approved the bill.

if you're gonna bitch about those issues, blame those who created the mess in the first place, not the ones who suffer because of it.

Re:"Ready for the Desktop"

[lsatenstein]

In my view, linux is ready for the desktop. Fortunately, being a license holder of office 2003, allows me to install this office product to run directly under linux. Microsoft gets their compensation, and I get to use a great product.

Open Office generates bloated files. That is a problem. Open Office has no quality grammar checker, that is another problem. Open Office is slower, but with every newer release, speed of execution is improving.

Think back to 1985 and windows 3.0 Because there was nothing else, everyone jumped onto using it.

So far, I use XP only for the office product, Everything else that I use a computer for, including this reply is done with Linux. And it is a no brainer to install and maintain. And one does not really need to know command line instructions, as almost every task is being guified.

Today is Oct 6, 2007. Take a look at Fedora 8 test3, or UBUNTU, or SUSE10.3 Then re-examine Vista. Tell me which you think is more stable, faster in execution and more stable.

Leslie in Montreal

Re:"Ready for the Desktop"

[ReinoutS]

Think back to 1985 and windows 3.0 Because there was nothing else, everyone jumped onto using it.

Windows 3.0 wasn't released until 1990, and back then, GeoWorks and GEM were credible competitors to Windows.

Linux migration

[CtrlShiftEsc]

Years ago, I remember when it was 'cool' to have Linux flavour dual-booting on a windows PC. It didn't matter that the sound didn't work or that it took a while just to configure the networking right. No-one complained about the plethora of bloatware that got installed - some of which was usable and others that required a working knowledge of C++. It didn't matter that the crude GUI was a poor mash-up of Windows 95/3.11 dialogs and had all the usability of a wooden gas oven. We just wanted to stick it to Microsoft.

Now, some 9 or 10 years later, I've had look at Ubuntu and things are so much different. Things have improved immeasurably. I *could* use this on a day-to-day basis and live with it. The questions that remain are, how do you make this really appeal to the ordinary non-IT focused consumer who isn't necessarily bothered about 'sticking it to Microsoft' and just wants something that works? Obviously they're prepared to pay for new PC or an upgrade with Windows because that's what they're used to. If you 'sold' them the idea of a free OS and free applications and free utilities, sometimes, that does more harm than good. Sometimes, you can't give stuff away for trying. A lot of people are happy to pay for something if they see value in it and if they are properly supported.

I don't know if Linux will ever become truly mainstream but it will take the same type of aggressive and bullish marketing tactics that Microsoft used in the past, to do it and who's going to pay for that or oversee that? Also, there's a long way to go in terms of hardware manufacturer support and software developer support. It won't happen by trying to bad mouth Microsoft and relate your BSOD horror stories - we've heard it all before and there are enough people out there i.e. 10's of millions that are doing just fine thank-you. I think that the only really compelling argument for me is vendor lock-in and the open-source architecture model. But it's a tough sell at the moment for the average consumer. Ask the average Ipod owner whether they feel vendor lock-in and they'll stare back at you thinking you've asked them a question in Japanese. They are hapy to connect their Ipod to Itunes and buy music from the ITMS. It's so different on the PC front. There, and I didn't even mention gaming....

Re:Linux migration

[CtrlShiftEsc]

Er, that should read 'It's not so different on the PC front.'

To win, the focus must be shifted

[erroneus]

As has been shown by many people, when certain groups of "basic" users are migrated from Windows to Linux, fewer problems occur, system stability, integrity and reliability rise notably both to the support and to the end user. (And by certain groups, I mean grandparents and people who just do email, web browsing and media playback with little to no interaction with business or other such activities.) This lends itself to the notion that a good part of the issue with moving to Linux is not so much that it is or isn't "usable" or even "compatible" so much that it's not what they believe is good, correct or normal. It also indicates that success comes from its usability and lower likelihood of failure.

Using a computer isn't about "using Windows." It's not about "using a Mac" either (contrary to all the 'it gives happiness' ads from Apple). It's about getting things done. Many MANY things can be done just as well under Linux as under Windows and MacOS. A happier by-product of using Linux often means that it works longer and more reliably and on less expensive hardware.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that attempts should be made not to push "Linux over Windows" so much as suggesting that choices and selections should be made based on criteria that is important to the user. For some people Windows is still the only choice that would work... for others, Linux really could work better. By using this approach, I think there would be a lot less resistance to changes which is a large portion of the resistance originates. By helping users see Windows computing differently, it gives them a chance to see other options.

Linux isn't the problem ....

[shdowhawk]

In my opinion... for linux to go "mainstream" ... it's actually NOT linux that's the issue.

First of all, people claim "hardware problems.. blah blah". Why? Because people are building their own systems. "Mainstream" means that people will buy PRE-MADE desktops from places like Dell and HP. Hardware problem solved (assuming those vendors properly build them and install them). This is what Apple has been doing for a long time... it's no wonder they work so well... they're very specific pieces of equipment!

The next issue. This one is FINALLY changing. Prettiness. As much as i love me some Linux ... Compare it with XP, and OSX. A year ago ... so crap. But this IS NOT Linux. This is KDE / Gnome / Insert_other_OS_name_here. The same with the OS logos on load up... images, icons etc. There are SO MANY pre-built icon sets out there... SO MANY that look freakin awesome... yet KDE and gnome continue to look like late 90's early 2000 desktops (compare to OSX). Again, this IS changing and the new KDE looks nice! But if they get all the bells and whistles tossed in there (AKA: Beryl Project) ... Then people will "Ooohh and Ahhh".

LINUX is already in a state that could have gone mainstream a LONG time ago. It's the additional things out there that are the limiting factor. Thankfully, all that is changing... and slowly people are starting to see that. The same with the "linux is hard to install" ... When was the last time a common user installed WINDOWS to see how hard that was!? They didn't ... because it was vendor pre-installed.

... Get the vendors ... Update Gnome / KDE in there with REALLY easier to use "Theme" options (as in... stick a big icon on the desktop to get to that theme section) .. and pre-package a ton of the awesome icons and themes which are already available .... and most importantly (for me anyways)... PRAY that gaming companies STOP making games on directx. THEN it will be TRUELY mainstream.

Jokers

[suv4x4]

Why are recycling legacy issues of Linux. Linux isn't hard to install, and use. We're past that.

What remains is getting the industry to support Linux as an OS with their software. Win32 API hacks like WINE can only go so far, they're not suitable for the average user.

We need the common software supported on Ubuntu, and an easy consistent way not to just install, but also uninstall or add/remove components of said software.

And that, fellas, is actually the hard part.

At least Linux is partly there: Firefox is now a legitimate browser supported by most sites, and Flash 9 is supported on Linux. With all the web apps popping up using those technologies (often replacing previously desktop app alternatives), the average user will have less and less reasons to want Windows for that one reason.

I personally don't want to see Windows go though. OSS is, I'm afraid, good at the technical stuff, and good at sorta so-so catching up with the commercial efforts in the other areas (GUI, design, usability, etc.). Granted Microsoft is in a weak spot right now with Vista, but I think we'll see what this OS will be like after SP1 and possibly 2 (i.e. when they actually finish it).

Having a solid commercial OS-es like Windows and OSX being used next to Linux means all three need to work hard and do their best to stay on the market. We will ultimately all benefit from this, never mind which OS we use...

And now dream time.. I think the perfect desktop OS market share spread would be Windows 50%, Linux 30%, Mac/OSX 20%. But why this is, is another long story entirely...

Audio hardware and software

[Mantaar]

Well, it depends on what hardware you want. If it's large scale server type stuff, Linux is easily a match for Microsoft - and surpassing it in many aspects. But that's not what we're talking about, right?

OK, then let's talk about consumer end hardware. Let's face it: it's awful. WiFi, TV-Card, audio & graphics cards, plus other external devices... and although the situation for drivers is improving, there's another problem:

Many hardware vendors ship their stuff bundled with software. That software's almost always a bad joke or even a nightmare, but a) some of it is good b) many consumers would just love to have it.

Let's take a look at an example: I've just ordered a semi-professional mobile USB sound card. It took me a long time to find something fairly compatible with Linux as most audio cards employ proprietary extensions for advanced controls. Some cards don't seem to work at all. What I wanted most though, was to support a company that supports Linux in that they release their specs or even write drivers themselves. After searching the Net to no avail, I took a look at the kernel sources, et voilà! Native Instrument's Audio Kontrol 1 has in-kernel drivers!

I have no idea how good those drivers are, but I'll know in about a weeks' time. The sad part of the story: This card has two things that make it worth your money:

1) Nice DA/AD trans. + good hardware-based configuration of your ins and outs.
2) MIDI control for your sound recording apps + some of them apps bundled with the card, including a guitar amp emulation I'd really like to make use of.

There are two videos on NI's site that show off the features. Video one about the hardware made me go 'wohoo', video two about software stuff was merely a 'meh'. Nice features, but I've spent a good part of my bucks on something I can't use at all (I'm not going to use Windows just for recording, if only for idealistic FOSS reasons). Those programs shipped with the card seem to be really cool + this MIDI-control stuff is great. Now I have a huge knob on my new card that's gonna be a dust catcher.

As it happens, I'm a techie and a musician and I'm enthusiastic about Free Software. If I wasn't I'd never have considered buying this card because I'd have had to pay for software functionality that is of no use to me...

I would really love to see vendors supplying that kind of software for Linux, too. Especially audio software as Linux is really evolving into a great audio processing workstation. Or maybe I'll brush up my C and try to implement that myself. There's a sub-option to the driver module that seems to enable the necessary OS-hooks.

omg!

[kris999]

why it's always so hard to read the whole text ?????

dmn'it

---
my 2 Cent's

Its the Applications Stupid!

[rapete4]

Here are some observations on the Linux desktop OS Experience, Well, my first attempt at Linux was to install Edgy Kubuntu on my Thinkpad t23 laptop. It's an old unit that had recently been replaced. Quite frankly, the install went pretty well and most things worked -- except for wireless. After fiddling around I got that to work by using the ndiswrapper. Getting the CUPS wireless printing also took some time but that worked as well. And, last but not least, to my surprise, suspend/resume to memory also worked like a champ. I was a happy guy. Then, when Feisty came along I upgraded. Everything worked except for the suspend/resume. I spent three weeks looking over blogs, support lists, etc trying everything including a kernel build. However, nothing worked (including a fresh Feisty install) so I reloaded Edgy. Since then I have been reading all the carp about suspend/resume and how to fix it. It looked like the 2.6.22 kernel was the place to go. So, again, a fresh install but now with the Gusty tribe5 release. Great, suspend/resume worked, I was much relieved -- until an APT update some weeks ago. Since then coming out of suspend results in either: it works the first time but not after that or, no back light, or no wireless network. Yes, I know it's a beta and I can live with that. My hope is that a clean install of the released version of Gusty will fix this problem. Along the way, I tried installing Feisty Kubuntu on my primary desktop WINXP system. However, I dropped it since I could not get the sound card (Sound Blaster X-Fi) to work -- due to a lack of Linux support by Creative Labs. But, it's all about applications stupid! I found OpenOffice to be a good replacement for MS Office I used Wine on a few MS only apps with some successes and some failures. But, mostly, the applications that I have used on Windows are not on Linux and or there is no migration path or the equivalent's learning curve is too steep. A few examples: Family Tree Maker Paintshop Pro Quickbooks Pro, Turbo Tax, etc. iTunes, for music downloaded from Apple Websphere Studio Lotus Notes Client Cisco VPN ZoneAlarms -- tried Guarddog but it blocked wireless printing Palm Desktop Visio Adobe Acrobat MS Project Summary: I will continue to use Kubuntu and try new things and use it for simple functions. However, when it comes to industrial-strength applications, regardless of its warts, WINXP is still the gold standard.

Re:Its the Applications Stupid!

[mhall119]

Here are my recommendations based on my own uses:

Family Tree Maker -> Gramps:
It doesn't have the capability to download info from the internet, but has better graphs than the standard copy of FTM. Can import FTM files as well.

Paintshop Pro -> Krita
Krita is still fairly young and missing a lot of tools and features, but it's coming along fast and is easier to learn than Gimp (which I assume you've already tried).

Quickbooks Pro -> Gnucash?
I haven't used Quickbooks in years, and then only for personal finance tracking, so Gnucash did what I needed. I'm not sure what the Pro version of Quickbooks has over the standard version. It can import Quickbooks data files.

Turbo Tax -> Turbo Tax
They have a web-based version that I think is operating system independent.

iTunes (for music downloaded from Apple) -> SOL
Nothing here because only Apple can make software to work with iTunes store, and they're not interested in supporting Linux. For everything else that iTunes does try Songbird, Rhythmbox or Amarok.

Websphere Studio -> Eclipse
Isn't Websphere Studio based on Eclipse anyway? Shouldn't it already work on Linux?

Lotus Notes Client -> Lotus Notes 8
Version 8 is written in Java and runs on Linux

Cisco VPN -> vpnc
As far as I know the Cisco VPN is supported by vpnc, the new Gnome NetworkManager makes vpnc easy to configure and activate.

...came a long way

[EasyCo]

I haven't installed or used Linux on any of my local machines in over a year and a half due to a lack of available drivers and especially due to poor wireless connectivity support.

Well... I decided it was time to give it a go again and see what kind of progress has been made and my initial reaction is "Wow, I'm very impressed". I installed the latest Ubuntu distro on a new'ish Sony Vaio laptop and was it ever a breeze! Sound, mouse, keyboard, wireless ethernet and battery life were all automatically installed and working properly. All I had to do was pop in my network key and off I went.

I opened up a few word documents containing nested tables and objects using OpenOffice without the slightest problem. I'd say that the computing experience as a whole is vastly improved with Ubuntu and so is the speed. I haven't had the time to try other distros but if they're inline with Ubuntu then Linux is definitely on the right track.

Re:...came a long way

[BlindBear]

You could give Sabayon Linux a try, they have a recent release out now and it flies on my machine. The forum is quite helpfull and you have a backup forum with gentoo. Cheers.

A start

[Wowsers]

Homer Simpson on Windows: "To start press any key. Where's the 'Any' key?"

Uhm...

[znerk]

What linux distro are you configuring, that you're dealing with text files?

Most end-users never see an OS installation. Sure, they install their word processing programs... some of them. I'm a Windows tech, and the majority of users I interact with are scared, even of installation scripts that have nothing but "next" and "back" buttons. An OS install of any flavor would send them screaming to the Psych ward - that's why they send their pc to a tech shop (or the IT department, if they're big enough) when it needs anything.

On the other hand, I managed to install ubuntu desktop on the hard drive from a LiveCD with just a few clicks, and never even saw a text file 'til I was looking at my new desktop (the one locally installed, not the one on the cd). The one place that anyone would have been frightened by the questions is when it asks you how you want to partition... but Windows installs do the same thing, and are completely text-mode at that point... not sitting in a window in a gui, with a firefox icon just sitting there, available for googling any questions you might have, or just plain surfing... *while the OS installs itself*.

To sum up this rambling response to your textfile whining, I think that the ubuntu install process is actually much friendlier than Windows, and less likely to result in a user having a coronary at being asked a question they don't know how to answer.

Moving right along... what's wrong with the default ubuntu install? I like the rich chocolate backdrop better than the default one, but other than that? Beats the heck out of default PlaySchool^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Windows themes. And speaking of themes, "Human" isn't bad, although I'm not big on orange.

To move on to your next piece of detritus: Mail server configuration giving you grief? Perhaps you should RTFM before you SMTP. 'Nuf Sed.

Marketing... yeah, we could use some more marketing... TV ads, radio spots... Great Idea! Tell ya what. You pony up a couple hundred thousand dollars, and I'll do some marketing for you. Until that point, you should realize that no one is making money off of this, and so there's no marketing budget.
--

Re:Uhm...

[Anonymous Coward]

To move on to your next piece of detritus: Mail server configuration giving you grief? Perhaps you should RTFM before you SMTP. 'Nuf Sed.

People like you are some of the reason why Linux does not have that much traction. Surely, can you tell me what would be wrong with a single script to handle a mail server installation? You run the script and at the end you have a functioning mail server. Just like Apache does. For those of you who want the status quo, you can still have it. But what I am saying is that this script, if created, would solve a lot of problems for many folks. That cannot be bad.

Re:Uhm...

[garett_spencley]

What's wrong with "apt-get install postfix" ?

Installs postfix for you and it's up and running. Just like that.

Teh Lunix

[Anonymous Coward]

But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing.

Tell that to Munich and their failed total-Lunix migration. They've been at it since what, 2002? I can't believe any of their IT people still have jobs. Any real business would have gone under by now... oh wait, they are a government, so they don't care!

No wonder Teh Lunix has been putting the pressure on governments to convert to Teh Lunix- because they can easily get whatever money they need to finance the required consultant armada, and they don't care if it's successful or not! It appears the FOSSies don't want Microsoft's success and customer satisfaction... they only want their market share.

Linux and golf

[mangu]

Golf as a hobby is fun, one of the few games you can drink beer while you play. The level of effort to get to the pro level takes all the fun out of it. Golf becomes a business, a craft, a profession.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the only golfer ever to have won the Grand Slam, or all four major championships, in the same year was an amateur? That makes a very interesting comparison. Many Linux developers are like Bobby Jones: had three university degrees, spoke six languages, and never got a single penny for playing golf, yet was one of the best players of all times, because he played for love, not money.

But don't worry. You can still play golf as an amateur and have as much fun from it as Bobby Jones did. And as long as Linux is GPL you can develop it for fun, too. And create better software than the pros do, because you'll not compromise as much, you do it they way it should be done, not as your pointy-headed boss insists.

The next leap

[Fluk3]

...is in the trash bin where it belongs Only poor and misguided geeks who live in their mom's basement want linux desktop because they can't afford a Mac. Normal people and people who want to be productive 8-12 hours a day prefer something that works reliably and professionally. Certainly not people with deadlines. Silly hippies.

My .02 (Canadian)

[rnmartinez]

I have only been running Ubuntu exclusively (no more MS crack for me) for the past year or so, but I have dabbled in linux for the past 8 years. So I'm not a total n00b but there are moments where I feel that I still don't know exactly what I'm doing. Still, I think its a great OS and I don't really feel limited - I bought a Wii for my gaming needs, and ubuntu does everything else I would expect from a PC. I can backup and view DVDs, listen to my music, use my iPod (I don't use iTunes, I like having an actual CD as a backup). With the exception of nasty X errors and my sound sometimes not wanting to work (although a reboot fixes this and I guess thats what I should expect with a crappy $300 PC)it is far better than windows. Installing was a breeze.

Now, when I fix a friends PC (and I consider myself a Windows power user) I sometimes am brought problems that boggle my mind, things that people do everyday and I can't immediately solve. So you're probably thinking a registry problem or something, right? Wrong - things like taskbar reshaped/moved to weird location, vital toolbars gone, windows retaining some weird shape. I don't think this can even happen in ubuntu - which is a good thing!

If I knew more about linux, I bet there would be no reason for me to do reinstalls. I can't say the same thing about Windows.

Re:My .02 (Canadian)

[kidcharles]

Silly canuck, no need to specify that the pennies are Canadian or U.S.

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=USD&to=CAD&submit=Convert

We south of the border have lowered the value of our currency so you folks up there won't feel so inferior. Could we ask that in exchange you ease up on the cold fronts? Thanks a bunch. Oh, and buy our stuff!

Order of annoyance...

[Savage-Rabbit]

what every other person does that is not a Computer expert. Call someone to fix it. Windows PC, MAC, linux. ALL typical users do the exact same thing to "fix it". I have used all three of these OS'es and in IMHO the order is as follows (most favorite OS at the top lest favorite one at the bottom):

1. Windows
   
2. Linux
   
3. Mac OS.X
   

From my point of view OS X and Linux are in many ways comparable. The Mac largely wins because in my (experience at least) it almost always 'just works' while with Linux there is always something you have trouble with. I'll grant you that these days my Linux troubles are a shadow of what they were when I started using Linux over 10 years ago but there are still enough small issues to make it a close second to OS X. I simply have no patience for spending any significant amount of time debugging the OS, I have more important things to use my time for. Windows ends up at the bottom because I find that problems can be hard and therefore time consuming to diagnose and because of the money (the price for a decent security suite for Windows XP seems to start at c.a. $50 for a 12 month license) and also the work you have to sink into maintaining the tactical fortifications needed to keep Windows malware free. On the other hand all sorts of gizmos like GPS devices, Mobile Phones, Palmtop Computers, Camera... etc... often work neither on OS X or Linux so I suppose that counts in favor of Windows since it is annoying to have to boycott products simply because they don't work with your OS.

Distributions like Ubuntu and SLED are actually not that much more challenging for the normal user than Windows is. I would say that for normal Linux has reached a point where it's user unfriendliness actually looks like it will soon become less of a hurdle than the 'Gizmo' factor and the culture shock of adapting to a desktop environment that isn't an exact clone of that used by Windows.

Re:Order of annoyance...

[MollyB]

I'll grant you that these days my Linux troubles are a shadow of what they were when I started using Linux over 10 years ago but there are still enough small issues to make it a close second to OS X. So, you like OS X better than Linux... Why doesn't your well-labeled list above reflect that? Mildly curious.

Re:Order of annoyance...

[garett_spencley]

I was confused on that one, myself. Then I read more closely and he called it his "order of annoyance" (see post subject/title). So Windows was at #1 as "most annoying" and OS X was at #3 as "least annoying".

Re:Order of annoyance...

[Anonymous Coward]

<sigh of relief> Thank you...

If only they got it right!

[SanityInAnarchy]

Reading this article just pissed me off. Let me count the obvious mistakes:

Because Dell does not have to pay a licensing fee for the operating system, the computers are $80 cheaper than PCs with Windows Vista Home Premium or $50 cheaper than the stripped-down Vista Basic edition.

Maybe I haven't been looking in the right place, but you can't simply select Windows or not in the customize page, which makes it a lot harder to do these comparisons. Often, I find that while there is a Linux model that's cheaper than the Windows model, there's also a separate, crappier Windows model that's even cheaper, for which there is no Linux model.

Or maybe it's changed recently, too.

It took me only seconds to find several additional music players, a PDF reader and other programs.

The standard Ubuntu doesn't come with one?

Weird, because Kubuntu comes with kpdf.

or you can boot from the CD to test-drive the operating system on a Windows machine or an Intel-based Mac, without having to install or delete anything.

While that's true if you stick to the 32-bit Intel version, there is also a 64-bit version, which will only work on the newer Windows machines or Intel-based Macs -- and which, were it not for Flash, would be the obvious choice for them.

But he's also ignoring the PowerPC version, which pretty much makes any Mac capable of running Ubuntu. There's also, apparently, an Itanic -- sorry, Itanium version, which very likely is different than the amd64 version, and a PlayStation 3 version.

To me, that's one of the great selling points of Linux -- not Ubuntu, specifically, but the kernel as a whole has been ported to just about everything. In general, while you still want to do research for individual components, chances are, the overall architecture is supported -- you can run Linux on that old Powerbook, and probably will be able to for awhile. Will it run OS X Leopard? What about the next version? And it's certainly never going to run Windows natively.

To watch a movie, the Linux user must install necessary codecs, or decoders. One way to do that is to first download a program called Automatix from www.getautomatix.com.

Automatix was a temporary solution, and is depricated, and has been known to break systems. Use Medibuntu.

It is often difficult to figure out what files to download and in many cases you will have to burn those files to a CD or DVD. Windows users will need a commercial CD burning program or the free BurnCDCC (available at terabyteunlimited.com/utilities.html).

Most computers that have a CD burner also have software which is capable of burning a CD image, and if you attempt to download Ubuntu from Ubuntu.com, you're going to get a CD image. It's also really not difficult -- Desktop Edition, version 7.04 or 6.06 (really, is that hard?), standard personal computer (or 64-bit if you know you have it), and choose a location near you -- which could be made easier by defaulting to a US site, maybe, but it'll work no matter which you try.

And if you need burning software, you may as well get something open source -- I generally recommend InfraRecorder.

But since common tasks like watching a movie or syncing an iPod require hunting for and installing extra software

Watching a movie, I'll give you, although that's a common enough thing that you can pretty much just Google for "Ubuntu watch DVD" and find a site that gives you at least one way. Or, someone in the know can point you at Medibuntu, which pretty much does it all for you.

As for syncing an iPod... Maybe iPods, because they deliberately try not to interoperate. But every time I pop in a USB mass storage device with Amarok running, it asks me if I want to manage it as a music player. Now, that's Amarok, not whatever the stock GNOME/Ubuntu comes w

Re:If only they got it right!

[jkrise]

I agree with most of your points, but I feel the very fact that the NYT goes to this level of detail is very heartening. Thanks to the pointless patents regime, and countless lawsuits and FUD campaigns, it is very difficult to release a distro that is 'legally okay' all round the world. But thankfully, Linux is now well past the critical mass stage, and sites like Digg, del.icio.us, flickr etc. keep propping up all the time. This community synergy will ensure that Linux stays relevant in the desktop, and will keep growing.

Over time, it must be very expensive to keep up these FUD campaigns. Like the Forbes guy and Didiots, eventually, these 'journalists' will have to 'fess up, and bite the Linux bullet.

Why Now?

[mpapet]

Linux on the desktop has been in great shape for a long time. No, not perfect and certainly more difficult in some ways because of the proprietary stuff out there.

Way, way before Canonical threw money at Linux and Dell, things were moving along quite well and we would have gotten where we are right now, except with less fanfare. There are companies selling preconfigured Linux desktops and some are doing great. It's been this way for a while now. This kind of PR simply doesn't grow healthy Free Software.

Canonical and Novell have very short term interests and are simply standing on the shoulders of a giant. Keep the giant growing and ignore the tiny people on either shoulder.

Re:more strokes

[noshellswill]

Who can't do what? Joe 6-pk lusr?? For years ( y-e-a-r-s ) UBUNTU has been easier to install and configure than any M$ product. And with few exceptions, the *nix apps have been fully functional and in some cases (ex)GRASS - are the superior software in-class.

Dell hardware only works with Ubuntu!

[croftj]

Thank you Dell. Your network controller is proprietary and you only provide binary drivers for the version of kernel ou ship with Ubuntu. What about us who want a different distribution than Ubuntu?

I know this because I tried loading SuSE on one. Suprise Suprise, it didn't load the network. Went to Dell and found the binary debian package for the network drivers but no source. Every year they make it less compelling to buy from them the next year.

Re:Dell hardware only works with Ubuntu!

[lutz7755]

Dude, calm down. You're seriously going to get all pissed about Dell shipping a binary network driver? Having a major PC manufacturer sell pre-installed Linux is a huge win for linux. It may not be perfect, and if you don't want to buy their stuff, then don't. They never said that "all components will work with all flavors of linux". They said we're shipping ubuntu, and we guaruntee that it will work with ubuntu. that's it.

Re:Dell hardware only works with Ubuntu!

[kidcharles]

Dude, calm down. You're seriously going to get all pissed about Dell shipping a binary network driver? I think it's a legitimate concern. I'm a proud owner of a Dell Inspiron that came with Ubuntu pre-installed. I don't know if the network hardware is proprietary on it. Nevertheless, with binary drivers, sure it works now, but what about with a later version of Ubuntu? What if Dell stops supporting it? Open source/specifications is not just a fell-good concept, it directly effects usability and longevity of hardware.

Hardware swap game

[Tribbin]

When a friend says that Window has better hardware support I like to propose the computer-swap game:

Swap hardware except for the harddrives.

Swap back only after both persons have everything working.

Webmin

[mechsoph]

Have you tried webmin?

Clearly...

[QJimbo]

10 PRINT "This year is the year for linux on the desktop" 20 WAIT 1 YEAR 30 GOTO 10

More debuggable configuration files

[r6144]

As a relatively experienced user, I don't mind text configuration files per se, but I do hope the configuration process is made more intuitive with a good amount of log messages (and possibly a working debuginfo package so that I can start gdb when REALLY necessary). Right now I often change an option and wonder why it does not have the desired effect. Did I understand its meaning incorrectly? Does the problem lie elsewhere (e.g. missing file or bad permission bits)? Maybe the new configuration hasn't taken effect yet because I forgot to restart something? Or maybe I have just encountered a software bug or limitation?

Very often, for example in the case of fontconfig, the necessary debugging messages are available, but only if some poorly documented environment variable or command is used.

Apps apps apps apps ... kernel?

[GMFTatsujin]

Reviewers inevitably turn to the wealth of free applications available for Linux. Good and well that they should, but I'm still stuck on the kernel aspect of Linux -- being what Linux is, really.

I'm waiting for the day when I don't have to configure the kernel at all. Or add boot options to grub.conf on my laptop, like noacpi, irqpoll, and the like, just to boot properly. (Not having to include ec_burst=1 on Ubuntu 7.04 was pretty impressive, actually.)

Driver support is strong, but not *there*, as is easily demonstrated in the case of wireless chipsets. Blame the manufacturers, I know, but even my onboard sound card support is shaky, and we've had sound cards for 25 freakin' years.

I mean, laptop sound hardware is generally sub-standard, but it's not *broken*. (I think.)

Solid realtime support across distributions is another pet gripe -- why do my audio apps work when I include the RT module in Gentoo, but suddenly everything goes haywire when I add it in Ubuntu -- if it will even modprobe at all? Studubuntu has it, but what's all this I keep reading about "RT will break ABI compatibility?" Why do I have to use one distro for this and one for that? Isn't the kernel supposed to make that level of software/hardware interaction generic?

I love the Linux, I consider myself proficient with it, and it's *the* OS on all my computers, but I'm still confounded by its holes.

Fit and finish

[djelovic]

Every time somebody says that Linux is ready for the desktop, an angel gets burned in the fires of hell.

Linux distributions are easy install. But it doesn't matter as a metric much because ninety percent of the people don't install their OS but get it with their computer. Rather, the problem lies elsewhere:

Linux distributions lack fit and finish, that _other_ 90% of software development. We all prefer our stuff to "just work" out of the box. Linux doesn't.

Here's an example: Last time I installed Debian, I ran KDevelop. I wrote a "hello world" C++ app to test the waters. It wouldn't compile [or link, can't remember]. How the fuck do you ship a C++ IDE and have hello world not compile? It took me a few minutes to find what package to apt-get in order to get that working.

Linux kernel is OK. Drivers are getting to be OK. But there are a _lot_ of details missing.

Dejan

Re:Fit and finish

[scharkalvin]

Well "hello world" won't compile on Windows until you BUY
Visual Studio for windows.

Re:Fit and finish

[djelovic]

Bullshit.

1. There are numerous free C++ compilers for Windows.
2. MS C++ compiler + SDK are free.
3. Visual C++ Express is free.

But that's besides the point. I used KDevelop to demonstrate Linux distributions' lack of fit and finish, not to debate whether I should pay for software.

Dejan

Re:Fit and finish

[JonJ]

Yeah, all those end users that need a C++ compiler, god dammit. And later down the thread you use the available C/C++ compilers for Windows as an example, but none of those are installed by default. Holy shit, you're a stupid motherfucker.
KDevelop doesn't contain a compiler, that's GCC's job to provide. Or icc, of you use intels compiler.
Installing build-essential isn't that hard, and a quick google search should do it.

But on the other side, you probably can't write more than "Hello world" in C++ either.

Re:Fit and finish

[djelovic]

> Yeah, all those end users that need a C++ compiler, god dammit.

Nope, I was just giving an example that was clear and simple to illustrate a point.

> Holy shit, you're a stupid motherfucker.

You must feel brave now. Energized. Oh wait. It doesn't require much courage to send insults over the Internet.

> KDevelop doesn't contain a compiler, that's GCC's job to provide.

What's the point of installing KDevelop by default if it can't be used for much without other packages that are not installed by default?

Don't answer that. That was a rhetorical question. Your level of discourse, which shows neither good manners nor a sense of humor, doesn't make you a desirable partner in a conversation.

Dejan

More spin with respect to handholding

[AHumbleOpinion]

There was also quite a bit of spin with respect to "hand-holding -- not that you get that much of it with Windows". Nearly anyone who is proficient with Windows has done a bit of handholding for coworkers, friends, and family. Such individuals probably do much to encourage the use of Windows, the less tech savvy feel more comfortable with it since they know someone they can get help from.

Actually I take it back, the editorial comment wasn't spin. It was FUD or evangelical blindness.

Re:More spin with respect to handholding

[Paradigm_Complex]

You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Techies that can dish out help are far, far rarer than the nublets out there that require the help. So, yes, a techie could find plenty 'o people who could use his assistance - what the article is pointing out is that someone who needs computer help is going to have a hard time finding a techie, irrelevant of his or her OS. The sheer number of people I've helped makes it pretty damn clear - to me at least - that the Windows world isn't getting the hand-holding it needs. These people who get help, upon hearing I don't even *use* the operating system they're being assisted on, are likely encouraged to try to make a switch. Your comment could very well consist of far more FUD than the article, good sir, but I'll run with Hanlon's razor and assume you've simply misinterpreted something.

Damn. Need mod points here.

[Penguinisto]

Failing to find any mod points, I'd like to lend my voice in support of yours.

The good news on the learning bit is, there are a lot of classes out now that teach an introductory look-see at Linux, either at a low cost, or at no cost... just check in w/ your local community center or school district (which in some areas do night classes of interest to the community). If you can't find one, and you know what you're doing in it, then see if you can volunteer to teach it at your local school or community center sometime (Hell, I used to teach it professionally). Burn a stack of Ubuntu CD's and pass 'em around. Beg/borrow/steal some computers (or rig it so that folks bring their own stuff in if you can get a classroom that locks).

/P

Re:Damn. Need mod points here.

[QuietObserver]

I know his post probably hadn't been modded very high by the time you responded, but by the time I got to it (fourteen hours after your post and sixteen hours after his), it had been very respectfully modded to 5; is it possible to mod someone higher? I totally agree with you. His opinion is very well stated and clearly deserving of the five points and the Insightful rating he received.

Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux?

[gbalaji]

...is it like Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity now?

Why? Why NYT had to include such a line in an otherwise decent article?

yes, I'm a professional troll...

Dell adds to confusion: Linux != open source

[Locutus]

Go to http://www.dell.com/ and enter Ubuntu in the search box( upper right corner ). When you select one of the two links found, you'll see where Dell states this:
"The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you don't get a Windows® operating system."

They are not helping anybody but Microsoft with that statement. It should state that '...when you choose Ubuntu on Dell, you don't get a Windows® operating system." Confusing customers with what open source is means that they'll have to work much harder to clear that up when they start pre-loading open source applications on Dell/Windows® computers. Yes, it will happen.

The article/author could have made a more convincing connection between the fact that with the Dell/Ubuntu system you get a full office suite for free. I just got a support call from a friends daughter regarding her new laptop and using MS Powerpoint. She didn't realize it only came with a 60 day trial and no longer functioned. She was also surprised that she'd have to purchase MS Office. So why doesn't Dell pre-load Open Office or Star Office on their computers instead of or with MS Office trials? There are a number of open source projects which come with versions for MS Windows and provide great value to customers. Still, OEM's stay away and don't even tell their customers about them. THIS would be a great story for someone willing to dig into this further. Maybe nobody wants to upset their advertisers by exposing the fact that much of what's kept off those computers is related to who pays them to do so? IMO.

Back to the story, both the article and Dell's pre-loading are good for Linux because it's mainstreaming Linux and open source software and that's a good thing. Even though Dell can not advertise their GNU/Linux systems, the general press can do that instead. But, I still feel the author doesn't cut it any slack and continue to say incorrectly that it's only for geeks. And doesn't Ubuntu provide support for the Dell computers? The article only mentioned Novell Suse's $50 version comes with 1 year of support. Isn't there Dell/Ubuntu support from Canonical?

LoB

Seriously, stop abusing mod points.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is sure full of stupid cunts these days.

Re:Seriously, stop abusing mod points.

[Anonymous Coward]

As proven by your post!

Re:Seriously, stop abusing mod points.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, as proven by YOUR post!

pwned!!!!

The corporate problem

[realdodgeman]

One of the biggest problems is the corporations using Windows only. Since Active Directory and Exchange are de-facto standards, Windows is going to stay in most corporations in many years ahead. I am sure Vista will make some of them reconsider, but it is not enough.

Many people want computers that "looks like the one I use at work", and therefore uses Windows. Together with poor driver support for webcams and wifi, and lack of games, we can see that Linux is not going to take over as the mainstream OS just yet. But the fact is that if Windows 7 "does a Vista", Linux will pass 10% in few years.

If Windows 7 really delivers most of what Microsoft promised for Vista (WinFS++), it will take longer. But Linux's market share will keep raising for many years to come. And as many people have said before, Linux is developed at least twice or trice the speed of Windows.

Another equally valid perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

"Windows has always had a reputation of being difficult to install and daunting to use. Most of the popular Linux and Macintosh programs cannot be used on it, and hand-holding -- not that you get that much of it with Linux -- is rare. But those reasons for rejecting Windows aren't disappearing."

That sounds about right...

Roe-roe, row your boat

[Prysorra]

Gently down the ...... troll.

difficult to install?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh sancta simplicitas!

GConf

[steveha]

In my opinion, Linux distros must provide a means of doing away with text configuration files, but still retain the ability to access them for those who wish.

Well, GNOME did exactly that. Try Ubuntu and take a look.

The GUI exposes the most common preferences (look at System / Preferences or System / Administration). For the more obscure preferences, there is something remarkably similar to Registry Editor; it's called gconf-editor. (It's a measure of the success of Ubuntu that I haven't really needed to use gconf-editor for anything in years. The standard preferences are doing it for me.)

The GNOME guys were heavily flamed on Slashdot for making something that looks like the Windows Registry but I think it's a good idea. If two processes both try to write a text file, there is a possible race condition where the first process updates the file and the second process clobbers the update from the first one. The GConf system manages the updates, so that doesn't happen. Yet the back-end storage of data is still plain text files, so if you have to boot in single-user mode to recover after a disaster, you can still just use your favorite text editor to tweak the settings.

steveha

Re:GConf

[joib]

The GUI exposes the most common preferences (look at System / Preferences or System / Administration). For the more obscure preferences, there is something remarkably similar to Registry Editor; it's called gconf-editor. (It's a measure of the success of Ubuntu that I haven't really needed to use gconf-editor for anything in years. The standard preferences are doing it for me.)

The GNOME guys were heavily flamed on Slashdot for making something that looks like the Windows Registry but I think it's a good idea. If two processes both try to write a text file, there is a possible race condition where the first process updates the file and the second process clobbers the update from the first one. The GConf system manages the updates, so that doesn't happen. Yet the back-end storage of data is still plain text files, so if you have to boot in single-user mode to recover after a disaster, you can still just use your favorite text editor to tweak the settings.


I agree. In some ways gconf is registry done right; e.g. using a bunch of xml files, which are hand editable in an emergency, instead of a binary database.

The next step, IMHO, would be to extend this model to allow an administrator to manage many desktops/servers over the network. Admins could use a GUI admin console on their workstation (or perhaps web-based these days), allowing them to easily configure their entire network from one point, with type/value-checking to prevent mistakes. Now this doesn't need to be done from scratch, e.g. WBEM is an existing standard widely used in the proprietary software world for both remote management and monitoring. There exists free software WBEM agents such as OpenPegasus, but little else (e.g. management consoles, providers for most software packages).

easy to fix?

[nil0lab]

All I know is that when I fix something in Linux, it stays fixed

Re:easy to fix?

[nil0lab]

Well, and also that I can generally find out what went wrong in a standard place, /var/log .

iPods

[norminator]

I'd love to make the jump to Ubuntu at home... I already use it on my dual-booting work laptop whenever I don't have to be in Windows. My wife is already used to Firefox and OpenOffice on Windows, so those aren't a problem, but she's worried about not being able to use her iPod in Linux. I assured her that there are programs (e.g. Floola, Amarok, Banshee, etc.) that work well in Linux, but she's still not going for it. Now if Apple would release a Linux-compatible iTunes, I'd be set. I won't hold my breath for that one, though.

Good publicity, but missing the point?

[Bearhouse]

Here we go again, FTFA:

"But why would anyone want to use Linux, an open-source operating system, to run a PC? "For a lot of people," said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, "Linux is a political idea -- an idea of freedom. They don't want to be tied to Microsoft or Apple. They want choice. To them it's a greater cause."

and,

"That's not the most compelling reason for consumers. There is the price: Linux is free, or nearly so. "

How about "it's BETTER than windows, because it's easier to use and more secure..."

And I can dream,

"more applications run on Linux, and it has better driver support, than Windows..."

Until we get opinion-formers like this, writing things like that, Linux ain't ready for prime time.

And, oh noes, "To watch a movie, the Linux user must install necessary codecs, or decoders. One way to do that is to first download a program called Automatix from www.getautomatix.com."

Ooops - Automatix, (as documented here), is NOT a great way to go...

Still, let's not complain, it's a step in the right direction, and something to wave in people's faces as we try and stop them signing the contract to upgrade to Vista...

Try Mandriva

[12357bd]

I have to say it too , try Mandriva is the easiest distro to use for new (windows) ands not so new (linux) users.

Linux? Yes!

[moogle10000]

Linux is coming -- that's for certain. But hardware compatibility on certain devices is going to be a problem... If manufacturers will not release good/tested Linux drivers (nVidia seems to be doing pretty well in that arena). For the average user, Linux is becoming more and more ... "normal" to them. I'm using a Slackware 12/KDE 3.5 workstation locked down to only run Firefox to demo satellite internet to people -- It works great! Quite a lot of people have used Firefox on Windows and the interface is identical on Linux... It's a win-win situation. The age of Linux is coming ... and Microsoft: You should be V E R Y afraid about losing market share...

I also stopped supporting my wife's Windows box

[KWTm]

I told her she could have her XP or whatever if she bought, installed, and maintained it herself. I wasn't going to touch it with a ten foot pole. That pretty much did it.

I had different results when I did the same. My wife would complain that Linux wasn't exactly the same as Windows. I tried installing Thunderbird email, and she complained that Thunderbird failed to wrap long lines of text. Can you believe it? Failed to wrap long lines! What, is that the responsibility of the sender's email program now, to figure out how wide the recipient's screen is? Well, apparently, all of her friends had trouble reading past the beginning of a long paragraph because, somehow, their email program was incapable to wrapping long lines.

I told her that I wasn't going to touch her Windows machine again. It's been over four years since I've used Windows on a home machine anyway, so I probably wouldn't know how to do advanced stuff even if I wanted to. She still wanted to use her Windows machine, so that was that, and I have been blissfully free of computer support duties.

Recently she had some problem with importing some MS Outlook contacts, which she reasoned was because she had an old version of MS Outlook, so she went and blew 300 smackeroos (US$) on Office 2007, which apparently the store was selling at a discount. (She had to get the version that included Outlook.) Which was fine, as long as she was spending her money and not mine.

Can someone confirm that Windows email programs are too retarded to know how to wrap long lines? That is just unbelievable!

Leaving Windows? It won't be to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

If people were anxious to leave Windows, the Mac would have destroyed any of Linux's remaining hope of being a desktop OS. It seems that every improvement over Windows canabilizes more of the Linux space than of the Microsoft space.

Linux has come a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people get windows set up with the PC they buy, if they get Ubuntu set up it will be similar, the big difference is they are familiar Windows so Linux at first will have a slight learning curve. The same could apply to OSX because thats something the majority are not familiar with so there is a learning curve.

It becomes important to profile user though to understand the gaps.

1. Gamers: Windows

2. Professionals eg Graphic designers, CAD/CAM work and other specialized needs: Windows/OSX

3. Business users: Windows.
Exchange and Office is a big part of this user group and Microsoft is well entrenched. Considering the basic functionality this group of users need and the fast evolution of online solutions like Google docs/email and other Ajax apps there is no reason this can't run on Linux. Firefox is very critical component here. This should be a very attractive target for linux adoptions. This should be the user group Linux companies should be focusing on.

4. Home users, most surfing the net, a bit of office work, multimedia, photos/vidoes, some gaming etc : Windows.
This can easily be Linux, the functionality is already there. Firefox, online apps, open office, multimedia. Linux is ready for this group but for games.

5. Developers: Windows/linux/OSX. Depends on the platform you are working on any will do.

On the whole a lot of progress has been made, for gamers and specialized needs other factors that are not in the Linux community's hand are in play, hardware support, professional apps, these can only follow and not lead the way so when there is a critical mass they will inevitable follow. On the whole a pre installed Ubuntu for the home user is probably as good as a Windows installation.

heh

[ClioCJS]

i've had vnc on multiple machines with static IP addresses and a ... let's just say, VERY VERY VERY weak password. ANd it was only recently I firewalled that off, but it's a cinch to allow a specific IP (i.e. my job, your mom, etc) in.

redundant? because...

[deviceb]

the person above who was modded redundant has it correct.
Linux will be my main OS when:

Games are available.
Heavyweight Apps such as those from Auto Desk are available and can co-exist in a enterprise environment.
That said... let me contradict myself a bit.. what does a Mac have that Linux does not? Nothing except some graphics capabilities. -still no games for those trendy bastards either! (and who gives a rats dirty ass about apples anyhow)
Mac has marketing and a solid customer base.
My Sabayon systems blow any mac or vista machine out of the water with performance & eyecandy. And it would be hard to mess up an installation...
Once installed, you can click the live help icon and you can ask some people whatever question you have. -The live help is great. -better than Ubuntus forums in my opinion

Mod parent up

[Aleksej]

Even if I don't fully agree with the analogy.

Who wants Linux user friendly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah... Linux is ready for mainstream.. blah blah... Ubuntu blah blah

STOP TURNING LINUX INTO A WINDOWS REPLACEMENT.

If you want Windows use Windows.
Some of us don't want a nice, easy to use, crap OS. We want Linux. I want to vi my xorg.conf. I want to compile my programs from source.
I hate Ubuntu kids flooding our lists, forums, and IRC Channels.

Death to Ubuntu and Death to those who only use Linux because they hate Microsoft. If you don't know UNIX, then leave Linux alone. Period.

We will not hold your hand. We will make fun of you. And we hope you die of cancer.

Re:redundant? because...

[LingNoi]

Games are available on Linux and it's a myth that they're not available.

A good place to start is the free games list that shows a wide variety of open source games.

Also available are commercial games with Linux binaries such as Americas Army, Enemy Territory, Unreal Tournament off the top of my head, so please stop with the "There are no games for linux" myth.

Why do they keep saying Linux is hard to install?

[JustNiz]

Nearly all distros these days, you just boot off the CD and answer some simple questions, just as you do with Windows. In fact, it seems to me that Fedora and Ubuntu are actually easier to install than Windows.
Also with Linux you don't have to find and enter your CD key or authenticate your OS with the manufacturer.

Linux and OSX are the same OS, so why do you care?

[argent]

That said... let me contradict myself a bit.. what does a Mac have that Linux does not?

Applications.

What I want to know is why are you presenting this as Mac vs Linux?

UNIX is UNIX is UNIX. Linux is UNIX. OS X is UNIX. You get on any UNIX box, you have the same basic environment, you have all the open source software, you have the timesharing system developed in a hostile environment where security matters (when you have CS students and CS professors on the same computer, and you have to keep the students out of the professor's files, and the professor's grants are paying your salary, you take security seriously). It's the same system.

Free UNIX is cheaper and more versatile. Macs have the apps. Use whichever you want. Use both. They do the same stuff.

I switched to Mac from free UNIX because I was tired of being mister system administrator at home as well as at work, and tired of dual-booting Windows to run apps. And I didn't give up anything when I did it. But my home server is still the same open source box, because that's not the Mac's strength. It's a win win situation... why fight?

One Word

[EagleEye101]

Games

Re:One Word

[dbIII]

WoW runs perfectly on linux. Once you have that you don't have time for any other games.

Re:redundant? because...

[dbIII]

Heavyweight Apps such as those from Auto Desk

AutoCAD was of course the cheap and nasty drafting package capable of running on a 386 instead of a workstation. The other stuff is still out there, still runs on *nix and has also improved beyond the dreams of AutoDesk.

PROUD - I know those people

[chifut]

You remind me of a certain group of people, being "PROUD".. Good for you :)

linux

[theheadlessrabbit]

I've been a GNU/Linux user for 2 weeks now. My new computer came with vista, and i found it to be unusable, so i figured now is as good a time as any to make the switch. I really don't understand how people get the impression that installing linux is hard.

Installing Ubuntu couldn't possibly be easier:

1)insert cd
2) ???
3) profit (since a dollar saved is a dollar earned, and Linux is free)

I do find that installing programs on linux can sometimes be a choir. Flash and mp3 support installed itself, while installing java and blender are giving me some trouble.

xrdp

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xrdp.sourceforge.net/

nuff said.

Wi-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried installing Ubuntu and setting up Wi-Fi was RIDICULOUS. Sorry for the all caps and bold, but I'm not even talking about the software. I'm talking about getting my WPA key installed.

The main reason to run Vista or MacOS over XP or Linux is because the OSes play better with laptops. Sleep mode works, wi-fi just works, bluetooth just works. This is good because, generally speaking, none of these operating systems was meant to deal with continually changing networks and IP addresses. In 1970, when Unix and VMS were hot, no one had thought of that as a need. However, today, Vista and Mac handle it a lot better than Linux. Given that the majority of personal computers sold these days are laptops, I think that's important. And Linux still has a long way to go there. Mod me down if you haven't installed Linux on a laptop lately.

Thanks for catching up!

[WheelDweller]

Installing Ubuntu *Dapper* had only six questions....and one of them was your NAME. One reboot; ready to go. How hard is that? Linux (or LFS) from a decade ago, maybe, but not recently.

Remote assistance? You're kidding right?

[jddunlap]

You can actually do remote assistance invitations on Windows, or install VNC on her computer.. I'm no lover of Microsoft, but that's kind of a poor reason to choose Linux over Windows? Remote assistance, VNC, RDP... They are all the same. They inherently transfer more data across the internet than ssh does. I don't know if you've ever used a remote display protocol over the internet but I'm here to tell you that even with the color depth turned all the way down they completely suck. Hell ssh keystrokes lag behind sometimes and you want to transfer the remote computer's graphical display buffer? It's hideously slow and I don't feel like waiting longer just so I can interact with an inferior user interface.

Re:Remote assistance? You're kidding right?

[somersault]

Yep I've done a little 3D modelling/rendering over VPN/RDP before, wasn't the most fun I've ever had :P

If they are serious

[AP31R0N]

If Linux (the community) is serious about taking on M$ in the desktop market, they must offer me something BETTER than Windows. Better meaning easier to install and use. Better as in has more compatible hard and soft ware. Being free as in speech and free as in beer doesn't do me any good if i have to join a LUG to figure out how to install it. Then i can't find any games for it. If i found a game, there isn't a driver for the graphics card needed to run it. It would also help if there was just *Linux*. With M$, if you are a home user, you pick up XP Home and you're done. With Linux there are dozens of pet projects. Choice is only good if i know what i'm choosing between. Will program Y run on distro X? With XP, if i pick up a copy of Halo 2 that says "For Windows XP", i'm pretty sure it's going to work. Pool effort into making one competitive distro, call that Linux. Have your pet distro used by entire dozens of people, but keep it off the radar to prevent confusion. Your time would be better spent making the one distro better, but ah well.

It's not Linux that's hard to install...

[Spy der Mann]

it's the non-commonly-used apps.

The other day we had to set up a MSSQL driver for PHP and we got so frustrated over getting it to work (dependencies, compilation... doesn't work after compiled... no manual...) that we ended up using a WAMP stack.

OK, I know, it was a server, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had installation troubles with Linux.

Re:It's not Linux that's hard to install...

[yuna49]

1) You could have used the ODBC functions.

2) Why are you using MSSQL where there are perfectly fine, open-source alternatives like PostgreSQL? And, if you really must use a commercial database, I've found PHP's support for Oracle is pretty easy to set up as well. Why would you expect it to be easy to work with MSSQL, of all things, from an open-source LAMP platform? Do you think Microsoft has any interest in supporting this configuration?

Re:Dell adds to confusion: Linux != open source

[yuna49]

So why doesn't Dell pre-load Open Office or Star Office on their computers instead of or with MS Office trials?

Maybe because Dell collects a percentage of the revenue from every MS Office installation they sell? What would they collect if they installed OpenOffice?

I've advocated in past postings here that OEMs include Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and maybe even the GIMP on all new Windows machines. But the financial incentives all run the other way, especially in the case of OO.

Next week's class will cover why we don't see installations of CCCP on every Windows machine.

Re:Dell adds to confusion: Linux != open source

[Locutus]

yes, that is more likely the issue since it should be well known by now that Dell gets over 20% of their profits directly from Microsoft marketing programs.

A more in-depth article in a mainstream press would do consumers good to understand how this works. That they they are being corralled into spending hundreds and thousands of dollars by OEMs tied to Microsoft when free open source software could fit the needs in most of the cases.

It'll never happen though since the press does not often tread into that kind of threat to their advertisers.

LoB

You still don't get it!

[bogaboga]

If you read my GP post, I recommended Apache. Apache works out ot the box. All you need to do is to upload your website files to the respective directory and viola, your site is running. In othe words, apache works as intended.

Now for Postfix, in order to effectively do its work as an MTA one has to install and configure all this other software. This is the crux of the matter.

In case I am not being clear about all this, have a look at the vPostMaster Email Server at http://www.tummy.com/. What they are doing is what I am talking about.