Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds On Desktop Linux's Slow Uptake
javipas notes a Wired piece summarizing a two-part interview with Linus Torvalds that's up at linux-foundation.org (part 1, part 2). In the second part the creator of the Linux kernel gives his view on the limited success of Linux on the desktop. "I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop... The desktop is also the thing where people get really upset if something changes, so it's really hard to enter the desktop market because people are used to whatever they used before, mostly Windows... better is worse if it's different."
Meh, people don't like chance, so change will happen slowly. That's all.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
we all know that, no?
I suppose it's time for a drive-by argument.
While many here on Slashdot seem rather cynical when it comes to adoption of Linux on the desktop, I am not nearly so jaded. Not only am I an example of a non-programmer-type who switched from Windows to Linux, but in the past 12 months, I have seen countless other examples, culminating in a large number of people switching during the early days of the Vista fiasco. They were convinced that if they had to re-learn how to use an operating system, they might as well just switch to Linux.
On a number of non-computer oriented websites I visit, including ones where the majority of the members are over 30 years old, the adoption of Linux has been phenomenal... skyrocketing to >10% within one year.
I think the times for "year of linux on the desktop" jokes is past. There is no reason for the sarcasm. With almost every OEM selling Linux PCs, and AMD/ATI adopting a more pro-Linux approach, I think that there is no reason for sarcasm. This IS the year of Linux on the desktop. We're living it.
Ubuntu is making some inroads, with a more user-friendly GUI. But most people just don't see the value.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
wireless drivers. let's not forget to mention wireless drivers.
How can you expect the king of nerds explain to someone why everyone else (ie: normal people) don't wanna use Linux?
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
Is it just me or is he saying that's the only thing he cares about. Seems counter to the rest of the summary.
enough said
>> better is worse if it's different For the vast majority of people who really don't want to spend time learning a new UI, it is true, but some UI are so intelligently designed that the commands are right where you expect them to be. I change of UI from time to time for the sake of fun, but I keep coming back to the cleanliness of the WindowMaker... That said, I believe that I feel like natural might be considered unnatural by someone else... the beauty of Linux (and other *nix for that matter) is the fact that you can switch UI at will... I'd say this makes it ideally suited for the desktop because you can just pick whatever UI you want. (okay, this is not a valid argument for corporations...)
I put an XO in front of 5-15 year old kids and the younger they are the more receptive they are to the experience. Sugar is a unique desktop experience and it throws people off. Kids with PSP and DS systems are the worst. It might be why reviews by adults are so negative. My experience (and probably many of yours) is starting with a computer from the Apple II, Atari, Commodore era. Wrote high school term papers on a typewriter. In college I did amber screen work and wrote papers with a dot matrix printer. My first technical job was help desk for a huge Win95 environment. A godsend gave me the opportunity, with no experience, to move to a Solaris support gig. It was heaven to see the command line again. The rise of the Linux desktop feels comfortable to me. Put Linux systems in every school and its desktop will be popular in twenty years.
I wonder why people like to use OS X on desktop more than Linux? After all, Linux has way more advanced file system!
I'd suggest reading the interview (yeah right!), there's a lot of interesting insight from him. He's much more palatable then RMS. I particularly found his thoughts on getting involved interesting. I get the question of "Where should I start?" fairly often and my advice is just don't even ask that question. It's more like if you're not interested enough in one particular area that you already know what you want to try to do, don't do it. Just let it go and then when you hit something where you say, "I could do this better" and you actually feel motivated enough that you go from saying that to doing that, you will have answered that question yourself.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
A GUI is used to communicate between man and machine. Communication involving humans is quirky to say the least - just look at the 'rules' of English. However once you have learnt the quirky rules then alternative sets of rules just look like hard work.
The general tendency of humans to avoid overdosing on hard work also explains diverse conundrums such as why I am still a two finger typist and why the US hasn't gone metric.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Linus makes cogent and valid points. However, despite the fact that this will start a holy flame war, I would go one further:
The main problem most early adopters have (that I see) IS in the difference to Windows or OS X. And that first difference is a feature: Security.
If there was a distro that was identical to XP, and booted straight to the desktop with root privileges, incorporating wine automatically, and having gimpshop, firefox, open office, urban terror, an identical winamp clone, et al configured as near as possible to the hegemonic forces of today's markets, it would gain a lot of traction very quickly.
Ditto for an OS X clone.
Many people do not want a password, do not want security, and do not want variety or choice. They want what has always worked for them, and they want it for free. I've seen more spam, viruses, trojans, rootkits, and other problems in the Windows world than anywhere else (obviously), but people keep going back there, because (sort of) IT JUST WORKS, and they are used to it. I've seen computers with virii and Mcafee that took 20 minutes to boot, but the user didn't care! Once it was up it had the stuff they were used to: Photoshop, Windows, Microsoft Office, and Outlook. There are pretty seamless replacements for all these, but they are generally not bundled by default in any distro, and are not 100% compatible across the board with the hegemonic software competitors.
*i* like the enhanced security of not logging in automagically as root, but grandma doesn't. Grandma says "fuck it" and goes and drops $500 on a dell, or maybe a mac.
Just give the people what they want (right or wrong!) and the masses will come. Now is the chance, since vista sucks balls, and sp1 doesn't fix it at all!
It all falls under the category of "Keep it simple, stupid", really. I'm still waiting for a distro that during install gives you two choices:
Super Secure
Just Like Windows
That will be the distro that finally takes huge chunks out of the windows market. Ubuntu is close, but still pretty far away.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Why is this so hard for so many people to understand? The reason Linux doesn't get adopted has nothing to do with how the desktop works. I have news for you: Linux, Windows and the Mac are effectively identical when it comes to operating them.
I shout this from the rooftops everytime this comes up: PEOPLE USE APPLICATIONS, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS.
Applications are EVERYTHING. Microsoft has long understood this. Why are people so upset at Vista? It's not because of the popups... it's because of the compatability problems. People want absolute, "it just works" compatability. People want to be able to walk into Best Buy, grab a box off the shelf (software OR hardware), and install it. No muss, no fuss. That's why the Mac has long had single digit adoption rates. People don't to figure anything out, they just want to buy a damn box and load it on.
Linux will be adopted with a) it has nearly perfect Windows compatibility, or b) the major companies start producing Linux version of their commercial software.
And yes, I understand that there are typically free versions of various commercial software. But again, people don't want to figure anything out. They want to know that if they see a box, it will work. If they buy that fancy computerized sewing machine (such as my mother-in-law), it will work.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
" it's really hard to enter the desktop market because people are used to whatever they used before, mostly Windows... better is worse if it's different. "
If Linux is trying to ape the Windows look and feel, or its rubbish ever-changing architecture or dll hell... then it is doomed to failure in the long term. With Vista, Windows has reached saturation point - even long time users are reluctant to take on Vista or for that matter, IE7 or Office 2007.
Firefox isn't slow in its uptake because it is different from IE7; people use it bcos it is better. Linux trying to mock Windows would be a 10-year backward step, and doomed to failure.
RMS was right... Torvalds is just an engineer; he isn't great at predicting the future or reading people's minds.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Here's the thing -- I've been working in the IT field for over 15 years now. I'm no systems administrator but I certainly know my way around a computer.
I want Linux to be ready for the desktop.
I want Linux to provide a decent end user experience.
But it doesn't. It doesn't even come close. I've tried different flavors over the years. Most recently, I tried (and failed!) to install Ubuntu on my laptop and desktop at home. And here is what I've found...
Between driver issues, chicken and egg problems (my network isn't working, how can I can my network working if my network isn't working), absolutely atrocious user-friendliness, what still feels to this "power user" like a very steep learning curve (I just want to get wireless to work, what is a "NDIS wrapper"? I have to do WHAT?) , nothing built in to the OS to help with this and online forums that are full of extremely helpful people who give convoluted, conflicting and overly complicated advice...
It just isn't a good end user experience. Linux seems all about feature sets and me-too-ism. cleverly titled software packages that are a little embarrassing to run or talk about. But very little thought is given to getting something up and running so a regular person can hit the ground running. If you don't happen to have a family member or friend ready to walk you through the transition, you will end up spending tens/hundreds of hours to get to a point where you can do the same things you could with your Windows machine. The closest I ever came was the Knoppix Live CD about three years ago... but even that ended up being more work than what I got out of it.
Again -- I want Linux to be ready for the desktop. I understand as an IT professional that you can get a much leaner, more secure, stable configuration for a fraction of the price. At the enterprise level that makes sense. But for a regular person looking to take the plunge... documentation, easy of use, drivers that "just work" -- SIMPLE, NON TECHIE ways to get things working once they don't work without needing to learn something new -- all of these might be things that geeks scoff at. But until they are addressed, Linux will forever be a tiny slice on that pie chart.
Come on geeks. Microsoft is ripe for the picking. Macs will grow in market share. People will continue down the MS upgrade path and you'll keep talking about how 20__ is the year of desktop Linux...
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
Linux is doing just fine if you consider growth rate. These statistics - and those of several other sites I've encountered (including my own) indicate it's adoption rate is as fast as that of Apple's, in some cases moreso. However, adoption looks very poor if you look to 'market share', a figure based on sale count, and by far the most popular guage.
Recently, however, the wide success of the EeePC (and apparent solid sales of Dell's M1330 w/Ubuntu) shows that Linux can work very well in the hands of the uninterested or uninitiated if it comes preinstalled. At a conference I recently attended I met an art curator using an EeePC. She said she doesn't like computers but prefers the EeePC because "it's easier than my MacBook and has better internet". For the casual and highly mobile computer user I think Linux is very much claiming market share.
At the other end, the workstation market, Linux is also making very strong ground (3D animation, film compositing/editing, engineering).
Sounds like jealousy to me.
It's only been recently that any distros have received much publicity outside of computing circles and are losing the reputation of being "only for geeks" or "really hard to install". The biggest thing standing in the way is support. Who do you call if something goes wrong? That is very offputting for quite a lot of people. Then there is the fact that most PCs are sold with XP or Vista pre-installed, so why change? They feel that it is like throwing money away. In it's favour, as more people are using ubuntu (the one that most people have heard of) word of mouth is causing others to be interested and think 'if they can do it so can i'. I'm expecting to see an exponential growth curve over the next few years
I think the whole desktop thing is as pure and simple as market penetration and the only folks bitching about the desktop usability are techies who are looking for a reason other than simple marketing. MS still controls the market and they have the penetration into the corp desktop and most machines come with their OS. So of course most folks are going to use them. Who the hell wants to remove the OS that came with the machine - even if a new one is free.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I would wager that many people think it's just an inferior OS that can't run what they want. In my experience working tech support at my university, a lot of people don't think that macs can run what they need. They have this concept that all of the good programs run on windows and people just don't use other OSs to do the stuff that they do on windows. Yes, I know I'm talking about macs instead of linux but if people have such doubt in macs, it doesn't take much to see how these same people would view linux (which most haven't even heard of). Mind you this is at a university so I was dealing with a young crowd which is commonly thought of to be more tech savy. To me it seems like these kinds of misconceptions are the biggest problem for linux
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
Music Players
Linux 10,000 and they ALL SUCK! Got iTunes?
Windows 50 of which 10 are good.
Apple 2.
Video Creation/Editing
Linux 20 and they ALL TOTALLY SUCK! Got Sony Vegas?
Windows 50 of which 10 are exceptional.
Apple 5
The list goes on and on and on and on but, you get the idea.
this is not true since programs and even windows are changing it's GUI on every new version. linux only needs to be on shopping centers, thats all! you only have to look at the asus eee pc..
I was already wondering where the yearly Linus Torvalds talk would be about how Linux will break through to the desktop Real Soon Now(tm). This has been a pipe dream for how many years now?
Seriously, you cannot keep taking this seriously. Apple should how Unix can be made interesting to Joe Average to get a good uptake on the desktop, but neither Linux nor the BSDs will cut it for Joe and Jane Average, it's simple as that.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
I don't recognize the "Linux isn't catching on"-argument. I do a lot of support and promoting work regarding the Ubuntu-distribution, and as far as I can tell, its use is skyrocketing - and not just in Linux-circles. Surely it is mostly open-minded people who are going to be interested in changing from CradleOS to something new, but there are a lot of these - and the fact that they are realising that CradleOS is a flawed system helps it along quite well. Linux is gaining in the desktop-market. It's no longer a question about when - it's a question about how fast.
you have the Bitboys Glaze 3D card. With the right drivers of course.
One thing I don't understand is that there seems to be a consensus that Apple got it right, UI-wise. Unix underpinnings, but an elegant interface (from what I hear, anyway....I haven't used a Mac since ~1994). The knock against linux seems to be that the frameworks are there, it's just sort of a kludgey interface a lot of the time. "Too much command line needed". In my experience, things like Ubuntu have made it a lot better, but it still seems like a bastardized version of Windows. Sure somethings are prettier sometimes, but a lot of times other parts aren't remotely close. So my question is....
Why not rip off the other guys? Rather than chase Windows, chase freakin' OS X. If Apple can make a glamorous OS based on Unix, why can't anyone make a glamorous OS based on Linux? Is it because Apple has those magical UI fairies? FOSS vs commercial shouldn't matter - people are ultimately the ones that make the stuff. Are you telling me there are no more best and brightest out there working in the FOSS world, that they're all snatched up and locked down for commercial project?
I love a lot of the aspects of the Linux desktop, but it just seems like the vast majority of FOSS projects' tagline should be "almost as good as the commercial counterpart, but it's free!". IMHO there are only a few major projects that have actually *improved* on their commercial counterparts and made a *better* product. And those projects are the ones that succeed. For Linux On The Desktop to actually work, it needs to stop trying to be the "free alternative to Windows or Mac" and actually be a *better* alternative, for more reasons than just not having to pay for the software.
I know there are going to be tons of posts saying the tried Linux on the desktop, etc etc. But I would just like to add my voice as one who has been using Fedora on my desktop for the past few years, quite happily, and not for lack of legal copies of WindowsXP, but because it I prefer the experience. It may not be ready for "the desktop" (which seems subjective) but it is, and has been ready for my desktop.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I finally bought a Mac for the family. They all hate Windows, especially my wife. But I held back because of applications. Two things are changing. One, more native apps for Mac. Two, VMWare Fusion, which allows me to run my Windows-only apps in a Mac Window. Now, everyone fights to get on the Mac. The same applies to Linux. When the apps are there, I certainly won't spend a bunch of money to get Windows, which is three on my list of OS's.
I think we are already seeing where the success of desktop linux will come from, and its affordability. Those cheap Wallmart PCs, the EEEPC, the XO, all point the way to where success will come for linux. Right now, from a hardware perspective, there isn't much driving the need for beefier hardware from a consumer perspective besides memory-hungry OSs. The average user wants to surf the web, watch video, and do some word processing. That's about it, and they don't need eight cores and sixteen gigs of RAM to do it. I'm old enough to remember the days when the Commodore 64 DESTROYED the (then hardly ubiquitous) IBM in sales by creating a $250 computer that you could take home and just plug in and go. The fact that you can build a very usable, snappy system with linux on a quarter of the hardware that you need to just make Vista run is going to be very attractive to a certain segment of the consumer world that are not already linux users. And, this, in turn is going to provide a user base that can propell the system forward. System manufacturers seem to be figuring this out, with more and more of these systems, like the new Shuttle KPC, targeting this market.
I'm not being anti-Linux here. But in any grand theory of poor Linux adoption, you have to account for the growth of Macs. Would you accept a grand unified theory that skips over gravity?
Why are people switching from Windows to Mac in significant numbers? And why not Linux?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The slow uptake has little to do with the quality of Linux/Unix/Apple as compared to Windows. It has everything to do with industry specific applications only being available in Windows. When the average consumer can walk into Best Buy or Wal-mart, easily find the Linux software, purchase it, and get it to work on their specific distro, then Linux will come to the desktop. Until that time, it WILL remain in second place. For businesses the old legacy apps will need to be ported over, and billion spent retraining employees and IT workers. This is why it is slow on the uptake, and I am an Ubuntu user BTW.
No marketing is a problem, Wintel have lots of money for that. Linux is STILL being seen as for geeks/nerds and not for the general population.
For me peronally, I know the situation is pretty similar to Windows, it's an old rant that still is not solved, but...
1) No 64 bit Skype.
2) No 64 bit Java (with web browser plugin that is).
3) No 64 bit Flash.
Yes, you can get 32 bit instead, but if you've got a new machine and got a Linux newbie to install the 64 bit Linux to install on their new 64 bit machine, they will be pretty p'ed on the complexity (and perverseness) of trying to get 32 bit applications working.
I am also p'ed that since Compiz and Beryl merged, the better coding of Beryl was not used, and compiz-fusion eats _much_ more processor then Beryl ever did. The Linux 3D effects walk all over Vista.
Oh, and for newbies, partitioning on first install should be explained properly and also the install routines not "just my guess" what a FAT32 drive letter might be (is always wrong anyway). The problem is if some newbie installs Windows, everything goes into the "c" drive and they don't partition. Linux does use partitions, so explain them.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Linux devs don't really care about the desktop. All they care about is the server. Otherwise we wouldn't still be having arbitrary response issues with random apps, driver compatibility issues that gives Vista a run for the money (especially once you start playing around with xen) and craptastic development time on wine(x).
Mind you, I say this while writing this post on my machine installed with Gutsy.
If you want to be taken seriously about linux on the desktop, get wine(x) working with apps released within the last year instead of being 10 years behind on your windows cross-platform application compatibility. Where's the DX10.1 port to linux? And if I'm gonna be paying for Cadega for my games, I might as well just install win2k or winXP dual boot instead. Because the linux desktop right now falls closer to Vista in usability than it does to either 2k or xp.
My experience (and probably many of yours) is starting with a computer from the Apple II, Atari, Commodore era. Wrote high school term papers on a typewriter. In college I did amber screen work and wrote papers with a dot matrix printer... The rise of the Linux desktop feels comfortable to me.
This middle-aged woman at the office listens to the "E-Z Rock" radio station. That's because it feels comfortable to her. She grew up with stuff like that.
Me? I turn that shit off the moment I get the chance.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I like his part about the final decision on design lays on the person who steps up and actually does the code. Also it is important to know that if you code that you should keep up to date with new versions of stuff in case it breaks your old code because releases are the time they're prepared for that stuff, not years later.
God spoke to me.
I don't know a lot about computers but am quite interested in them (that's why i read slashdot). Two years ago i tried an ubuntu-only system and it was disaster, crashes all the time, controls i didn't understand and very little info to be found on the net for absolute beginners. A few weeks ago i got a computer-savvy friend to install a dual boot system for me, i now have XP pro and Ubuntu, i have logged on to windows twice since then. The ubuntu system does everything i want it to do, it's faster, all software is free, it's more userfriendly, there's no viruses and security problems etc... next time i have to wipe my HD it will be an ubuntu only system,for me windows is something of the past, i don't need it anymore. The ubuntu forum is great for beginners and has a lot of easy info, whenever i've had a problem i found answers there. Also it feels great to work with a system that is developed for the users, not for profit.
She should be ashamed. Or adjust her meds.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
If better is worse if different, I for one hope Linux continues to get worse. Innovation will always drive technology- new ideas, new implementations, new ways of solving old problems, and new problems that need to be solved. If Linux ceases to innovate, there are others who wait quietly in the wings that will not.
Mod me down. But the single best thing that the Linux community can do is to develop a free IDE for wxPython development (the only sane environment so far for cross-platform development). Imagine the number of applications you would have when you have a single IDE which can provide you with installers for n-number of operating systems without any additional effort other than learning python. Also since the next generation .NET applications (WPF and the like) cannot run without a huge runtime (since .NET does not have a linker), this is the best time for such a killer IDE. Can the open source community wake up atleast now?
Linux is becoming a more viable and user friendly desktop solution with every release. I am absolutely amazed with the progress in the last five years. The major roadblock of widespread adaptation of Linux as a desktop has been and always will be lack of hardware drivers. I can't tell you how many times a certain network card, printer, tv capture card, or other device that is critical to my productivity is either not supported at all under Linux, or supported poorly with missing functionality. This is not from a lack of effort from OSS projects, but from a lack of useful documentation from hardware vendors who want to keep their hardware designs secret and refuse to release their specs to OSS projects even under a NDA. Without good specifications, writing good drivers is damn near impossible, and reverse engineering only gets you so far. I'm venting but this has been and continues to be a major obstacle for Linux becoming a full blown Windows killer. This is yet another chicken-and-egg problem for Linux. Widespread adaptation will not happen until we get better driver support, and better (any) driver support won't come from vendors until widespread adaptation.
Simply put, it's xorg.conf or something around there. I've given a dozen distros and flavors of Linux a try on the desktop and it always comes down the the exact same thing. Whether it's Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Linux Mint, Open Suse, Debian Testing, Mandriva, Red Hat, etc, No matter what video card (used 3 different ATI and 2 different nvidia) I use I cannot ever manage to drive my 1680x1050 LCDs properly at native resolution without completely hosing up X and the system in general. I'm talking to a point where I can't even get a TTY on screen without a reboot -- I have to SSH into the box and go back to driving everything at 800x600 with vesa drivers by restoring the config and rebooting. I'm probably a moron, of course, by all of your super-geek standards. But I've been rolling around in technology for 20 years now and if it's not a no-brainer for me, then I can guarantee that for mom and pop Linux is infinitely far away from useful.
Most people don't and won't use Linux because it's a bunch of random software. Open-source is great for producing libraries and software to an existing spec, but most o-s developers hate to ape a UI too closely, with the result that most o-s GUIs are appalling.
Commercial desktops are:
- designed = usability and consistency, actually considering the use cases that regular people carry out every day
- principled = they don't contain every random feature that some hacker thinks would be cool
Linux has a few key apps (browser and an office suite), but if it weren't for Java, it would be very limited. O-s hackers create tools, not apps.
There is a huge chicken-and-egg problem - a platform doesn't get apps until it has volume, and vice-versa.
If there was a coherent Linux desktop movement that created a common framework independent of any graphical toolkit (Gtk or Qt), and that focussed on users rather than on features, it might just gain users. The current situation with Vista was the perfect opportunity to promote Linux, but the big L wasn't ready.
Wow, the trolls are really coming out of the woodwork today, aren't they?
The OS that ships with the EEE is the first Linux install that I've seen that actually works out of the box. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the hardware is the same on every box, but still, the default UI they have is simple enough. I think it was designed for children and elderly.
1. Will it play my games? As in _all_ of them?
2. Will it work with my iPod?
3. Does it run Office?
Want to grab customers? Then Wine must play Win95 games better than Vista as well as _all_ of the latest releases, automagically.
Linux must also interact with an iPod and be capable of running Office _at the time of installation_. No extra stuff to download -- it needs to 'just work'.
Forget "free as in free beer" -- if that were going to attract Joe User, it would have happened already. Instead, Mac has the buzz, despite its higher price.
Free downloads of Kubuntu forever, but my father-in-law had better have the chance to buy the above at Wal-Mart or Linux will never capture the desktop market.
Don't you have to pay for the windows running in vmware? last time I checken vmware wasn't like Wine; It doesn't emulate windows, just a computer.
You're not wrong. For me (and for a good number of other
For those who want a computer that isn't Windows, but "works", you're right in talking about a Mac, 'cause for now that's your alternate (and a damned good one, too). Linux as a desktop OS still not for the faint of heart, even Ubuntu (which I use daily). As a Windows "power user", you are in the worst position to switch: you have a lot invested in customization, apps, and comfort level, and you need to see a truly superlative offering to make switching worth it to you. As you've correctly found out, Linux isn't it, for you. Heck, most Windows power users would probably load XP if someone dropped a brand new iMac on their desk, and never boot back to OS X again!
You decry that Microsoft is ripe for the picking, if only geeks would make things that "just work". Well, I'm not a developer, and even I know this: making things that "just work" is very, very HARD WORK! The developers of Linux desktop environments, applications, and the like do an amazing job, given that many are pure volunteers, and those that are paid don't have the same resources behind them. Making GUI interfaces slick and bug free, and testing them against myriad combinations of hardware platforms and software combinations, is just not fun! Microsoft (and Apple) pay good money to many, many people to perform the unsexy, boring, yet necessary work of trying to do this, stuff that geeks have no interest in doing if they could do "their own thing" instead.
I'm afraid that I don't see what you desire happening. Linux will always be the "geek" OS. People who use it will have to be ready for an experience which is somewhat more "down and dirty" than Windows. If that's not good enough for you, sorry man! You have to weigh which is more painful to you: Microsoft's forced upgrades, security risks, and ever-increasing hostility to its customers; or learning to deal with a less "friendly" OS and applications. Because until you feel greater pain from the former, it really makes no sense to switch to the latter.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
I had an epiphany lately. You see, I've been into technology for around 20 years or so. I really like Unix and how it works, and I have to say I was really excited when Linux came into my playground.
... I also realized there was a Linux client for our product. This is where I got really excited. I can do whatever I want on my desktop, including run Linux.
I have Mac friends, I have Linux friends and I have PC friends (even have a PC wife). But we're all geeks. We love computers and technology.
Now at my last job, I really enjoyed it. It was an ISP and over the years I worked there as a system admin, I enjoyed helping to convert it from a solaris/cisco shop to a linux/vmware/cisco shop.
But then we (my family) decided to relocate. I packed up my Linux experience and cisco certs and moved 800 miles away, far away from the reach of my ISP job.
When I moved to this new locale, everything was different. Even the culture was different. The culture of being a geek (around here) was different. I landed a job as a Sr Network Engineer. But MS was God around here. We're actually an ASP and some people act like Linux is something you stepped in outside in the grass. We're even an "MS Gold" partner. All does not bode well for me.
I was really disappointed. I missed the ISP job and my Linux geek friends. We kept in touch on IRC.
But my networking capabilities floated my career, and I continued to use Linux at home, and setup a few small Linux vmware-server guests so I could do my work on the command line as I'm accustomed.
Recently our products (at the new ASP job) have really matured. We can offer someone a secure website where they can login to all their apps.
Here comes the epiphany part. The people who resent their computers the most are the ones who don't want to use them but are forced to. They have to buy a laptop, stage it with antivirus software and a dozen windows apps, like office, ugh what a headache.
Not anymore
The people who don't care about computers, but just want to sit at a box and do work, will be happy. Myself, who likes to tear them apart, figure out how they work, study protocols, run Linux and learn more, will be happy.
Plenty of our customers use thin clients. They don't care about technology other than how it effects their business and as long as Office lives somewhere.
Perhaps in the future, we'll evolve into Time Machine-esque creatures where the geeks hunt the non-geeks for food. And MS will just be the rancher that cages them in for us.
FLR
AutoCAD. That's the showstopper for me.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Not quite ESPN.com but I work for a UK based consumer web site with a reasonable amount of traffic and our split for 2007 was:
Win: 97%
Mac: 1.8%
Lin: 0.2%
This compares to my personal site's trickle of traffic:
Win: 78.4%
Mac: 7%
Lin: 5.5%
For the record, here's the browser splits:
IE: 89.9%
FF: 7.4%
vs.
IE: 46.5%
FF: 36.1%
Go to the wayback machine. The VERY first cached slashdot page (from 1998) there has this interesting article conviniently titled Linux Affecting MS Sales? " ( http://web.archive.org/web/19980113193017/slashdot.org/slashdot.cgi?mode=article&artnum=419 [archive.org] ): From the article: "Could 98 really be the year Linux breaks into the main stream corporate world in a big way?". Really, it's not funny anymore.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
The real reason is pre-installation
If all PC's had Linux pre-installed and Windows would be something that people would need to download and install, I am sure the percentage of Windows users would be much less then the percentage of Linux users is now.
And I do mean pre-instalation on each and every PC that leaves the factory.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I am with Linus on this one.
I firmly believe that not agreeing to Linus is treacherous give the good that Linus has give to us.
When windows people come to my home they see my desktop and the first thing they say is: "I want that! How do I install it in my computer?" They don't even know what "that" is.
Well, "that" is a themed gnome desktop, full of eye candy running fast with an integrated Intel graphics card. Try that with Vista (which is on the other partition and I only used it once to format my iPod, yuck).
The linux desktop can be fine. More people are getting floored by it everyday.
The conclusions of law in the Microsoft antitrust trial laid out very clearly why the OS market won't change until some remedy is introduced to break Microsoft's monopoly. Unfortunately the remedy was hijacked by a change in administration.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been trying to switch to Linux for the last four years on my personal desktop. The longest I've gone is half a year (Ubuntu). For me, the Linux desktop is very promising but it really isn't there yet (for me at least). The desktop is much slower on my hardware than Windows. I'd been using Ubuntu for so long I just thought that my computer was naturally that slow. But, after switching back to XP it's amazing what the difference was. And people always talk about how Windows is resource heavy. I have 512mb of ram and it is really tough to get Gnome or KDE running smooth (and yes I know there are alternatives, but I'm the average user, I'm not going to figure out Flux or something else) but on my Windows installation it runs great. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. I think it's great for so many things and in some areas even ahead of the competition. But in my opinion, it's just not ready yet. I think that buying a computer pre built with Linux compatible hardware may help but right now that's too much to ask for (for me). I honestly want to make the switch to Linux permanent (I've gone through many different distros) but I think it's going to be another year (at least) before it's the "Year of the Linux Desktop". I've tried to make it clear that I don't think Linux is terrible, I just think it's not ready yet. I mean, Apple and Microsoft did have a headstart in the OS business right?
At the end of the day, Windows bends over backwards to make sure everything runs as smoothly as is possible, sometimes to the point of being less secure and stable in doing so.
Again, I quote games as a fine example; on Vista, I can run the same binaries for games, unpatched, that was compiled years and years ago 100% fine. At most I'd have to tell Windows to pretend it's Windows 98 or something.
Name me one binary in Linux that runs today as it did 10 years ago unmodified. In linux, if I update my kernel I have to rebuild my NVidia drivers (yeah I know they're proprietary, but the nv module sucks for performance in comparison).
Also, I've yet to come across anything at all in Linux that resembles the Active Directory services baked into every version of Windows in the last 10 years; client and server. ADS is release on release accelerating further and further away from Linux, which explains it's popularity in the enterprise too.
Linux has it's superior points too; but these reasons I've mentioned here is why Windows is damned popular.
Begin the flames if you must.
throw new NoSignatureException();
What really soured me was when I worked for a company porting their Irix Applications to Linux. We ported the software and said specifically "Will only work with Red Hat 5" (this was a few years ago). That application made up less than 5% of sales and almost 40% of tech support inquiries because "OMG, it won't work on my custom hacked slackware/debian install why not!". Tell them, "Sorry, we only support RH" and then we'd get blogged on how bad we were on not being "Open".
Well, OSX came along, we ported to mac and dropped Linux support all together. Personally, at OS 10.2 is when I switched to OSX and never looked back. Most of those "switchers" I knew back then were Linux users who jumped to Mac OSX.
When my time became worth something to me personally, the fact that I could have MS Office, Photoshop, a complete Unix-based development environment all on one machine. Including use of tools like Quickbooks, when I started out as a consultant, and all the ProTools.
When my clients give me the choice, I deploy on BSD. When I don't get the choice I still stratch my head at how simple things like the MySQL start command are located in different locations depending on the distro. It's this lack of standardization that was annoying back then and while better, is still annoying now.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Games? May work.
iPod? I thought you didn't like apple having a monopoly? and it does work but you're going to pick something (anything) that doesn't work as well
Office AND open office.
Vista doesn't play win95 games. XP barfs on most of them.
I am typing this from my Macbook Pro in Firefox 2.0. My work computer runs XP, and in VMWare I have OpenSUSE, Mandriva, Trustix, Ubuntu, and FreeBSD.
.02
I can never see Linux as taking over the Windows world. But I do see new markets where it could prevail. ASUS Eee PC is the perfect example. A very cheap laptop. Walmart has *nix on very cheap computers.
For the person who doesn't have a computer that simply wants Internet access, *nix is perfect. OpenSUSE is my favorite contender for this market space. YAST is the thing that most distro's need, but lack. A single interface for all options - something GUI that makes all configuration changes easy.
The low end market is an excellent fit for *nix, imo. Especially as Vista requirements have climbed so high.
My 600 office PC's will never run *nix because most of the software I run to drive my business do not run on *nix. I could go TS or Citrix, but the costs are higher - not lower - to do that.
I want games. So I dualboot into XP on my Mac. If *nix could open up a very nice "console" type graphical suite with good DRM, perhaps it could make a good gaming console? But without DRM, that won't happen. Give then open nature of *nix, DRM is unlikely.
my
The funny thing is that desktop linux is closer to the XP/2K experience than Vista is, which is why Ubuntu and recent iterations of other distros are seeing an uptick in adoption. But unlike the XP/2K desktop experience, linux runs far faster and without a fraction of the headaches that MS has. For instance, there are no stability issues, and virii, spyware, adware, and bloatware aren't an issue.
We recently had a lot of non-tech savvy relatives stay at our house for our wedding. Our household machines all run linux. Everyone did what they needed to do on them without any explanation--in other words it looked and behaved exactly like they're used to on Windows. A couple cousins, who are engineers but not of the software variety, noticed that we ran linux and subsequently switched their home machines to linux because they were impressed with the ease of use and performance.
I am happy when others discover the virtues of linux, because my altruistic instincts celebrate when the world and people's lives get better. But professionally, it suits me just fine that my competitors are held back by Windows' limitations, because it confers an advantage on me. Many is the time that I've been able to execute quickly on linux when my competitors were still waiting for a patch on proprietary software; once I even equipped an entire division with abandoned machines I dug out of a forgotten closet and loaded with linux while the company I.T. dept. was struggling with license and budget limitations.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This looks like a case of YMMV.
I hate picking on Amarok because the issues apply to most Linux applications equally but, since someone else brought it up...
I don't think that there is any variation in the facts. Amarok's features are buggy and incomplete. Development of the current branch has stopped and a new even more backward and more buggy branch now consumes development resources. There's great amounts of fanfare even though it is presently a major step backwards.
This theme has been repeated ad infinitum in the Linux MP3 player space. Remember XMMS? For quite some time, it use to be THE Linux MP3 player although it never quite caught up with WinAmp. It's still around but development is virtually nil and fewer and fewer people use it as it has been eclipsed by the likes of Amarok and Rhythmbox.
SourceForge, in it's new paired down incarnation, presently lists 3,256 Linux MP3 players. Today many people trumpet Amarok and I absolutely guarantee that it will be replaced by another not-quite-ready player before it gets its act together. And we will start again with YACLMP(Yet Another Crappy Linux Music Player). I wouldn't be surprised if this shift were brought about by people's frustration with the new Amarok 2.
These facts haven't changed in the past ten years and there is no indication that they will change in the near future.
While the likes of Windows and Apple software developers seem to be refining the "wheel" with pneumatic tires and alloy rims, the Linux application developers seem to prefer to keep reinventing the original stone wheel that, while not bad, was never quite right and doesn't hold a candle to an alloy wheel with pneumatic tires.
For anyone in the real world, one word: Office
If you share documents with other people, you have to have Office.
I use OOo regularly, and I'm sorry, it ain't quite there yet with compatibility.
(Outlook is the other biggie of course, but not quite as ubiquitous as Word and Excel).
Isn't that like calling a near empty glass 1/2 full?
People don't care *why* things don't work. They don't care who you blame. They only care that it says "Ubuntu" on the box, and their wireless doesn't work. That's it, period.
Harry Truman was famous for having a plaque on his desk that read: "The Buck Stops Here." Linux is engaged in playing a endless, circular, blame game where every flaw in their distributions is to blame on somebody else: Linux can't play DVDs legally because the DVD forum won't give out free licenses. You can't use Linspire's licensed DVD player because it's proprietary!
Linux needs someone to just get in there and take care of the damned problem. Microsoft is successful because of people like Raymond Chen ( http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/ ) who is willing, able, and even eager to drill a problem down to the source, the machine code, to fix the bug and deliver a quality product. Linux doesn't have people like that, and it doesn't seem to know how to motivate them, so instead of someone saying "hey, look, I figured out this wireless driver thing once and for all" all you get is "it's Broadcom's fault! It's Apple's fault!"
Comment of the year
I work for a program in San Antonio called iMAK. (interactive Media Applications at Krueger.) We are technology magnet within the Northeast Independent School District. I was hired on as a technology teacher last year, and after the first semester I started imaging the Dell 620's in my room to run Ubuntu/--Now Gutsy. It has been challenging creating an independent Linux lab within such a large school district, but it's VERY successfuly. The kids, parents, and the other technology teacher I drag in from around the district really like what I've done. Here is a link with pictures: http://www.neisd.net/imak/classroom.html My podcast! http://www.neisd.net/imak/Beck/podcasts/Beck/rss.xml Thanks, Josh Beck NEISD School District San Antonio, Texas
Making software is easy. Making _really_ good software is hard.
The thing with a corp of developers like Apple is that they can be mandated to follow certain strictures and desktop guidelines. From the top down everyone must play by the same rules. If the developer goes cowboy and makes some widget ugly and bloated because his ego is tied up into it and wants it to be the biggest baddest piece of shit on the desktop, then said developer can be fired, or moved somewhere where they can't inflict so much damage, like maybe writing test scripts.
In FOSS, it's a little harder to control. It took them a lot longer to understand the difference between ugly/elegant and come up with appropriate standards/guidelines. And they (in my opinion) are still struggling with enforcing the standards across the board. There's just too many pieces made by too many people, many of whom don't give a shit about making their piece elegant. Or they'd rather toss in the kitchen toilet of features just to show they can. Nobody wants the kitchen toilet right next to say their food processor widget except for the inventor of the kitchen toilet widget.
That's why it's so much harder to get a really good desktop in FOSS.
Linux is for people who hate Windows. BSD is for people who love Unix.
I honestly beleive the first part of that phrase is alot of the problem. Until developers get past the OMG Winbloze sux, and stop going out of there way to make everything as non Windows like as possible, just for the sake of making it as non Windows like as possible becasue of some personal prejdice.
To me, it's like politics. Microsoft's developers are the Republicans, Linux Developers are like the democrates. One is doing this, and the other will immediately go and do the opposite, simply becasue the are the other guy.
This is the argument Linus makes in the article. I agree with it to some extent, but I also think the way he presents it is a little misleading. He makes it sound like Windows and Linux are just different, so there's absolutely nothing the Linux community can do to encourage adoption of Linux on the desktop -- it's all a matter of users' ingrained prejudices. But Windows and Linux aren't just different by design, they're also different in terms of their bugs. If you use Windows as your desktop, you encounter bugs. If you use Linux as your desktop, you encounter bugs. For instance, I've just spent half an hour this morning dealing with an issue in CUPS where every time I boot my Linux box, it starts spewing page after page of raw postscript. (Deleting the job from the queue didn't help. It just reappared the next time I booted the machine.) Well, this is a bug that I know about now, and I have workarounds for it. (Delete the printer and then reinstall it in CUPS's web interface.) Bugs in the Windows desktop aren't a strong motivation for Windows users to switch to Linux, because they're used to those bugs, never really think about them much. But if they were to try Linux, they'd say, "Oh my god, this OS is a total piece of crap. Look at the printer spewing page after page of garbage, and it starts again every time I reboot. This is pathetic. I'm sticking with Windows." They notice the Linux bugs more because they're unfamiliar and mysterious, and also when you switch OSes, you get hit with lots of these new and unfamiliar bugs all at once.
So it's not just a matter of user preference, and it's not something that's outside the control of developers in Linux's OSS ecosystem. The quality of the Linux desktop sucks -- sometimes I think it sucks almost as much as the quality of the Windows desktop -- and it needs to be improved. If that happens, it will increase adoption of Linux on the desktop.
Find free books.
I know my opinion won't be popular on this, but Linux doesn't make strong progress in the desktop market because it's not useable to the average desktop user. The sooner Linus and everyone else pulls their head out of the sand and addresses this, the better off we'll be.
Windows "just works". Linux can be made to work usually. There is a world of difference between the two. Linux has a whole other layer of usability issues that Windows doesn't in that a Linux user often has a bunch of hoops to jump through just to get something to work at all, whereas Windows usability problems usually start with a crappy interface. Case in point, my laptop with Broadcom wifi. I don't want excuses. I just want my hardware to work without undue effort on my part, and I want my software to work when I get to the end of the installer with nothing more than a reboot at most on my end. I dont want to hack around driver limitations, edit .conf files, change ld_library settings, update my tcl library (especially not from source), or any of the other crap Linux has required me to do in the past. It's not worth it.
If I want a desktop Unix system, I'll buy a Mac. Wake me up when Linux catches up.
Yeah, thats what I thought.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
At one time we were an IBM AIX lab -- even had our own SP2 if you know what that is. Then we saw the light and bought cheap PCs and ran linux on them. Time went on. Now we still have a bunch of linux boxes but everyone is sitting in front of an iMac. Linux is still used but only as back end servers for compiling, data storage and analysis, no desktop work. On the Macs we are using Matlab and IDL, compiling and running our models--unix-like work. On the Macs we also get the other side of things -- iTunes, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc., even Word (I do discourage that, many of us use LaTeX). For the price of an iMac you really do seem to get the ideal mix of tools for a present-day science lab with little fuss and bother.
Of all the benefits that linux has over windows, how many of those does the average user care about? Security? Aside from "security by obscurity," the average user is no more secure on a linux machine than on a windows machine; he's still going to click on links he probably shouldn't, and when dangerous content DOES get blocked by existing settings, he's just going to get his geek friend (who is usually, in this scenario, far less able than the user perceives him to be) to fix it for him. Stability? As noted above, the lack of restraint and forethought on the part of the average user will rather quickly render a linux machine no more stable than his windows box. The whole list goes on. Next to none of the advantages linux has over windows are going to even be noticed by the average user, and few will prove to be any real benefit given his practices. Probably the only advantage the average user could note would be the price. In most cases, however, the average user is not pricing a system out component by component, but is buying a completely prefabricated, preloaded, "plug in and go" machine. In this case, with windows overwhelmingly prevalent as the preinstalled operating system on such machines, windows doesn't appear to have a price; its just a part of the total. The disadvantages that linux has compared to windows, on the other hand, will be FAR more noticeable to that average user. This is argued all over the place, with people citing that this desktop environment or that is user friendly and easy to use, etc, etc. But does the average user even know what a desktop environment is? No, not at all. In fact, the average user doesn't even really understand the interface of his windows machine, just knows that he clicks on this to do this, and that to do that. Whether the average user knowing how to use his machine or not is not even worth asking- the answer is no, no, no! The question to ask here, is when the average user inevitably breaks his machine, is whether his geek friend can fix it. Fact of the matter is, there are far more people out there who are marginally competent enough to fix a windows PC than there are people who know the first thing about linux. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that perhaps this was part of microsofts plan with their certification programs- how much value would any of us put on the average microsoft certification? But hey, you can fix a windows PC if someone breaks it... The fact that there are alternatives to windows programs available on linux is immaterial to the average user- he walks into a store to buy his programs. How many boxed copies of open office, gimp, etc. Do you see on the shelf at best buy?
The year of Linux will come when there are prime time advertisements for systems with Linux preloaded.
Palm trees and 8
... a German friend of mine said. Why is it called Excel? it should be called "Get By".
Let me start by saying that I am an avid Linux fan, and prefer it when dealing with servers from a reliability standpoint however..
:)
Linux will never have a measurable market share of the desktop, unless Microsoft releases a Linux based Windows. Linus is correct in his reasoning. The other reasons why?
100+ distributions
KDE vs Gnome
Support for newer hardware is too slow or buggy
I'll give you an example. Over the past year I built a media center PC. My intentions were to purchase hardware that would be compatible with both Linux and Windows. The first thing I wanted to try was MythTV, because a friend of mine had a setup that looked great, and it accomplished all of what I needed it to do. From a distribution that was supposed to work right out of the box, it DIDN'T work at all with the TV tuner, and it wouldn't do the resolution I wanted. Not only that, but the remote control setup was a whole different set of issues. What did work? XP Media center edition, immediately. I was able to watch and record TV in less than an hour.
Another example? My HP Laptop. Linux installs and performs great, except wireless, which is an absolute key feature. Yes, I could fix it with an NDISWRAPPER, but again, Windows just worked.
I do consider myself a highly technical person, and I know that if I did mess with it enough, I would have got it to work. If i didn't have a newborn baby at the time, I would be running MythTV right now.
I'm not saying Linux is junk, because there are many nice things about it, just not for the average desktop, unless it looks like windows.
Yep, and the truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?
Yeah, and that's why people choose to use Nero, WinAMP, Norton Ghost, McAfee and Irfanview instead? And how descriptive are names like Excel, Powerpoint, Access, Publisher and Visio? In your point of view those products couldn't be a success, but yet they are. Think about it, and you'll see their names don't say anything.
Different market, same issue: why do you order a Pasoa, Piña Colada, or Bacardi? Like their names tell you what the product tastes like. You either heared about them, or tried them yourself A commonly shared opinion makes "Bacardi" sound cool but in reality it is no different then "Pacardi" yet that sounds strange.
It's not the names that matter. The branding does. All those products above have well established brandings. K3B and Xine also have it.
The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2
Linux = opsys kernel + a bunch of drivers. Doesnt even come with shell.
Desktop = KDE, Gnome, Looking Glass, Xfce
Get with the program, will you ? You can moan why a particular distro doesnt make it to desktop ( my gentoo box cant make it today, still compiling ) or why uptake of certain desktop framework is slow etc.
Kernel, whether its Hurd, BSD derivative, uClinux, Linux or vxWorks will never, ever make it on desktop. Not this year, not next year.
Now, if you want to work on a problem with slow uptake of anyBuntu, Mandriva, Suse or even DesktopBSD, start hiring usability designers or fix some bugs.
The essence of my post : you cant fix a problem if you start by stating it wrong.
there, that feels better.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
"but is there an easy (no command line editing of config files or crap like that) way to setup my MX1000 Logitech mouse under Ubuntu?"
Hey you! Leave that registry alone! Oh wait.
It's already dorky. Who gives a shit? People need to get shit done, this isn't like cellphones with bling glued on a ringers and WHERE U AT
Fuck this shit. Fuck wired. The industry is so out of touch with itself that it can give itself a handjob and a pat on the back.
And fuck slashdot too.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Ubuntu MX1000 Doc I used this doc from the ubuntu community site and it worked perfect. Only has to be done once, small price to pay to get full functionality. Also doesn't cause issues with video driver updates to xorg.conf
From another post in this thread,
"Slightly off topic, but is there an easy (no command line editing of config files or crap like that) way to setup my MX1000 Logitech mouse under Ubuntu?"
You dorks getting this yet?
Are you thinking that widespread adoption will happen before a simple device add like a mouse requires a visit to some forum and then command line configuration and for the avg user that answer is no.
If you cant sell it to Anyone you cant sell it to Everyone
Do you buy a car and have to adjust the brakes, or tune it, of course not
The reason Linux will not see widepsread adoption and continue to be a more niche oriented product is that it does not pay... money changes everything, people gotta eat
Recent very true story:
.doc file. I try to open them. Surprise!! Windows has no clue what to do. I didn't have this problem in Linux. Stuff just opened right up.
I put together a new computer a couple months back: An Intel MB with and Intel Core 2 Duo. Nothing fabulous.
I installed Fedora 7 on it. I ran the Fedora installer. I picked my preferences, chose options, no problems. Everything just worked. The networking worked (I installed it off the network), the sound worked, the 3D graphics worked at the exact resolution of my LCD monitor. No problems.
A week ago my wife and son tell me they have to have some games that are released in binary only format for only MicroSoft XP. I should be able to do that, I thought.
I didn't want to completely disconnect and open my computer to install another hard disk, so my first plan was to buy an external USB disk,and install XP on that. Then I could set the bios to boot off USB first. When I wanted to run XP, I could just flip the on the external drive and reboot. That would be sweet.
So much for sweet. XP will not install on an USB disk. What year is this? I can do that with Linux. Oh well...
I open up my computer, install another hard drive, and try to install XP on it. What? XP will only install on the primary disk? But my primary disk is IDE and my new one is SATA. What year is this?
Work around: unplug my primary Linux disk so XP does not futz it while I install. Then replug in Linux disk and use grub's map to fool XP into thinking it is on the primary drive when it boots. GRUB rocks! How do people install XP without Linux, I wonder.
Finally, XP installed and booted. Why is there no network device? I have to download and install the drivers myself? How can I do that? I don't have a network.
Boot to Linux, download device driver from web site, put on USB stick. Reboot to XP. Install driver. Reboot (?)
How do people install XP without Linux, I wonder.
Why is there no sound device? Where's my 3D acceleration? Back to web site. Download more drivers. Install more drivers. Reboot. Reboot.
I go to read my web mail. An associate has sent me a PDF file and a
My question is: If Microsoft products do not support your hardware, and they don't provide software, what is the point? Why do people buy this crap?
i see all these posts about UI and installer, it like the windows installer has been the same way for 10 years, i knew debian 4.0 was a turning point due to just hardware detection on a console installer. linux has never promised a UI, if fact linux has nothing at all to do with a UI, but if we want to train the monkeys to use computers they must be able to point and click.i say it comes down to if your the kind of person who is a sheep in a flock or your someone who WANTS to TAKE THE TIME, to LEARN how to use linux to its fullest extent, which does NOT come from point and click menu's. ls /etc(period) the XwindowSystem and linux can be configured to accomidate just about every need you can think of. its just a matter of a little free thought + choice.
There is no such thing as desktop Linux. It's a server with a GUI bolted on.
/etc on XML and write a style sheet for it.)
I am fascinated by Linux and have used many distributions, primarily Slackware. I love Linux as a server. It's robust, scalable and reliable.
Running a GUI on GNU/Linux does not make it a desktop operating system. GNU/Linux distribution are made up of disparate pieces of software loosely coupled together with scripts. This does not work for a desktop operating system. These pieces need to work together as a cohesive whole. A desktop operating system should be a framework in to which applications and features merge seamlessly. Part of that merging should be common configuration method in which each application/feature has it's own GUI for configuration. (My idea = standardize
As long as instructions read like this "get the cvs version of this....patch that....edit these files....run this script on alternate Tuesdays in July".....There will never be anything know as desktop Linux. (Or the slice of the pie will be 1%).
As a side note.....
I'm assuming Linus uses GNU/Linux? He MUST be able to see how unsuitable it is for mainstream desktop use. (scheduler + not a cohesive system)
I'm assuming Bill Gates uses Vista? He MUST know how bad that sucks too.
I want to get off Windows, but there's nowhere to go.......
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.
There are tons of slashdotters who are very passionate about Linux and trying to encourage people to switch over from Windows to one of the nicer Distros.
That's nice. But DO something about.
If you tagged this article 'thisistheyear' and you really DO want this to be the year... then do something that will actually help:
- There has been alot of new Linux users who have experienced hostility and noobie bashing on Linux forums. So, why don't you step up and help noobies (like me) with their troubles without talking down to them or sending them to the man pages.
- Write professional, clear, tutorials geared to helping new Linux users figure out common tasks. Something like.. "this is how you did it in Windows... this is how you do it in Ubuntu".
- Provide in-person training to people you know. Hold the tech-speek.
Really, I tried to use Ubuntu on a new laptop, and after running into several issues and getting virtually spit on in the forums, I gave up. It's a shame.
I hope that this is the year... but let's actually help the cause!
...About the same time with Fallout 3.
What's next? Flying cars? Pigs? Commercial fusion? Life on Mars? Singularity? World peace?
This year surely looks special.
.. it's also the applications people run/use. Port that to Linux, and I guarantee you this change will be far smoother than you think.
Personally, I'd like to see the OSX type of GUI, PDF-centric all over, but... I'm not sure if Jobs is feeling that generous, yet, to give that away so it can be adapted to Linux.
Desktop apps along with a solid GUI (not necessarily X-based), is the last mile for Linux....to major domination on the desktop.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Allow me to add a few points:
I'm one of two nerds in our community of 1200 who has a handful of distros in a CD case, and can show off SUSE or ubuntu or dyne when curiosity is expressed. I give away refurbished old pentiums with Puppy linux on them, and offer a discount for linux support. While most people just want their old way of doing things to continue, the fact that the local school has switched to Fedora and Mac has helped quite a bit. At the next local computer fair, I plan on showing some compiz razzledazzle.
OK, so now I'm off to replace an XP install with ubuntu, since the user's a newbie and offended by all the XP pop-ups (and aforementioned WGA false accusations), and just wants to use picasa, web, email, word processing, spreadsheets.
Damn those pesky terrorists
While I posted earlier that there is no such thing as desktop linux...Ubuntu is the best attempt at it.
My main problem with Ubuntu is that it is BY FAR the SLOWEST, MOST SLUGGISH distribution I have ever used. This includes my Athlon 3700 X2, my Pentium M laptop and my Core 2 duo w/2GB Ram. It is obviously this way by design, because it continues in every new release and doesn't change based on system specs.
I would run Ubuntu if I didn't feel as if I was running in mud.
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.
Many folks were appalled when the shredder was removed from the linux distros that featured the 2.6 kernel. The shredder as part of Konqueror was very handy. It is missed so much that many will not use the new distros because they are insecure. Windows' distros all have shredders available to them in this day of common identity theft. To not have them in linux distros and lie to the public when they are willfully and 'in yer face' taken out is arrogant nonsense and we the linux public will neither beleive it or stand for it. I use the old SuSE which was not stolen yet by Novell/Microsoft, version 9.0. It uses the 2.4 kernel and KDE 3.1 and is secure. I am not in the stats of so called 'desktop users' because I am not a current purchaser of new security crippled systems. Believe it. This is the reason that folks are not moving to linux on the 'desktop'. All the paid for testimonials, large corporation financed ad/propaganda campaigns, and outright lies by so called developers will change this. Until and unless the shredder is
put back into the new linux distros, they will not sell. And we the purchasers make the decisions on that!
Wow. Lots of talk and rants. My turn...
;)
First please make a clear distinction between operating system and desktop. Do not confuse end users.
Then decide what you think is the better operating system, Windows or UNIX (and all its variants). Remember to include the Mac operating system in the UNIX camp. After you have made your decision, support the growth and adoption of that operating system by using it. Maybe the lame one will die by attrition and we can then entertain ourselves by arguing over our favorite desktop... mac, gnome or kde.
I have used or touched all sorts of operating systems and have experinced many different desktops. My favorite is Microsoft Bob. I love the drawers and opening... ok joking. Seriously the linux desktops are wonderful. I have used gnome and kde for many years and the progress they have made is fantastic. I am so glad that I have an opportunity to express my thanks and gratitude to the people who have worked on them. Good job! Not to mention the progress of openoffice, and the many apps that grace our linux distros. Again good job!
My goal is to move forward with our operating system of choice, explore new things that we may not have considered, and not get mired in comparing it to the lame one. Lets move on. IMHO windows desktop has been copying the mac desktop for years now. The linux desktop has made great strides and is now competing in the corporate world, and is working on better multimedia support. Who cares about office, internet explorer, and outlook, you dont need them. You dont need Windows. You dont need Microsoft. Lets move on.
How do you move forward in the work place? Well if youre data center is full of "UNIX" servers, and your end users are using windows on their workstations, this is an opportunity to move the workstations to linux. If the data center is full of windows servers, and workstations are windows, well forget it.
How do move forward at home or in general? I agree that its your work and what your trying to accomplish is what you should focus on, then the application that does it, then the OS that app runs on. The Mac, beautiful and elegant desktop, and the hardware is also cool looking. But undertand that its a unix operating system running on proprietary hardware therefore there are no issues with drivers etc. Unlike windows and linux distros that you can install on different hardware. And between the two as far as installation, updates, network and driver issues its a wash, with more time spent dorking with windows.
What do I use? I'm a sys admin and tend to use what I use in the data center. One place I worked they used Suse, so I ran Suse and kde on my workstations. I got Red Hat in the data center where I work now, so I use Fedora and gnome. Love the code buddy in Fedora 8. At home fedora and windows. Windows!? Yes I use it to run premiere that I edit training videos on. Someday I will have the money for a Mac
people on ludes should not drive
I wonder why there is no GUI that expressly tries to clone a Windows UI, say XP (although I still like the W2k UI better than XP's candy.) The typical user doesn't care about what's going on under the hood, so as long as it walks like Windows and quacks like Windows it must be Windows. Or something like it.
If the UI looks a little like Windows at first glance but then behaves differently users get confused. Cloning Explorer including the desktop and some basic applets like display, network and printer properties would make a big difference.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Why doesn't M$ just jump on the open source Linux bandwagon and make it's own distro of Linux?
Maybe you are right but i don't think so.
I have two macs and a Linux box at home. I have only recently purchased the macs. Sadly OSX doesnt yet run Amarok or Digikam and therefore 99.9% of the time my mac book pro runs Slackware in a VMware fusion virtual machine. There is not one bit of software I have on either of my macs that comes close in features and ease of use to the Linux equivalent except "bibble" and "Firefox" but that is only because I have both of those on Linux too.
It's getting more and more difficult to pirate Windows! Seriously that's what's making me move. I use a Linux box for surfing the internet, and now Word processing. Only keep my Windows box for WoW and Netflix Instant Viewing. My company is nearly 100% Windows in the Data center, but as I develop my skills in Linux I may be offering better alternatives. Sorry Microsoft you were originally enriching your business customer licenses by allowing home users to pirate easily, but that will soon change.
The company at which I work recently allowed some of its staff to go purchase a computer for use at home on condition that it could connect to the office network over a vpn.
All of these people bought a mac because they look cool. Three bought iMac and two bought a mac book pro. By con-incidence three of these people used Windows at work and two used Linux.
After about three weeks every body had got so fed up with the OSX interface that the Windows guys installed Windows on their machines and the Linux guys installed Linux.
I don't think the "slick Apple UI" is slick for everyone. Personally I think the GUI is worse than Windows but the "terminal" application is its saving grace.
Well run vmware on Linux too then. It's free on Linux and works just as well as Fusion though has a slightly more fussy interface.
Yeah, problem with an OS environment with plenty of choices are that it doesn't work to good if everyone call their editor "editor" their browser "browser" and so on. Also Bowser are way cooler!
.. Thought if the user are to lazy to learn the name of his favorite application maybe he shouldn't be using computers at all .. The world would be such a better place :D
As long as the menu contains generic names instead of application names I don't see the troubles, or even:
Applications > Text Editors > [Text Editor] gedit, [Text Editor] gvim
Applications > Internet -> [Internet Browser] firefox, [Internet Browser] Opera
Or whatever
Btw, I guess firefox may be used as a dorky replacement of "lynx."
The various distros should advertise their Linux OS's. Give plenty of exposure to Linux and what it can do for the average PC user. The hardware support is good. The applications are there. There is plenty of good eye candy to go around. Today's Linux distros have good installers and application management tools. All I see it needs is plenty of exposure, not just word-of-mouth, but on TV and non-geek Internet sites.
I am typing this in Vista (yes, I know, not cool), but I have used plenty of Linux distributions for a few years. My first exposure to Linux was seeing it used on an old show on TechTV before G4 fouled it up("Screen Savers" I believe). I have tried Mandrake/Mandriva, Fedora, (Open)Suse, PCLinuxOS, and (K)Ubuntu. I've settled with OpenSuse 10.3 with KDE on my dual-boot system. I like how it works well with dial-up, and its Online Update is great. The only problem is that neither XGL nor AIGLX will work well with my ATI Radeon X1600 PCI-E card. I'd appreciate it if someone knew of a good workaround for this.
Thanks
BJS
There were some great comments to my initial reply, so I'm going to respond here:
I was NOT trying to start a mac os x vs linux war. They obviously have very different strengths and weaknesses. For the record though, I've had some pretty bad apple based experiences (vendor lock in, crashing, device drm, high price, slow speed, incompatibility). My favorite example is quicktime. That whole system makes me want to kill people, and then myself. Another great example of Apple Evil would be iTunes. It's the ultimate in everything that is wrong with corporate America (and the rest of the world): DRM, artists being ripped off, difficult and poor and closed implementation, vendor lock-in, outright criminality, inferior codec choice.... I could go on all day.
That being said, Mac does some stuff very right. There is no better video editing application anywhere on any system. There is no better video chat. The Operating System as a whole ergonomically is/was probably light years ahead of most distros and Windows. But I agree 100% with the guy who said the most important 5% of the OS sucks. I would use a higher percentage, because I'm a FOSS snob, and if you haven't jumped on the FOSS band wagon, you're really just fooling yourself at this point. Firefox is the tip of the ice berg, but in 20 years anything not FOSS will be not worth mentioning (maybe longer for games). That's my prediction.
Any body trying to put their relatives on meds should reconsider. I realize that was probably humorously meant (and I appreciate that!), but just in case let me put my rant about health right here:
Prescription meds do far more harm than good in today's society. Our bodies are designed solely for meat, fruit, and vegetables, and plenty of exercise. Instead everybody sits on their ass, and pounds breads and grain (and soda, and hydrogenated soybean oil and high fructose corn syrup), and this leads to a plethora of physical health problems, and (often consequently) mental health problems. Prescription meds seem like A. A money making scam, and B. A crappy white wash job. I myself have not seen even 1% as many people benefit from prescription meds or surgery as I have from simple and basic lifestyle changes. Pound at least a pound of fruit, a pound of vegetables, and a pound of meat a day, and then swim at least 1000 yards. If anybody here can reasonably tell me that doesn't improve your health (over 3-4 months) a million times over any prescription and medical sham, I'll literally give you one of my toes. Not to mention what other side benefits arise from leading a healthy lifestyle. Sex is SO much better when both people look and feel good.
Linspire/Lindows looks interesting, but "It's the implementation, stupid." It doesn't really look or act like Windows (enough), and also is not Free (as in beer), and further suffers from other ugliness and lack of homogeneity, hegemonic software emulation, and honestly bling. I think Ubuntu is probably closer, actually. It's numbers would also seem to support that. If only Ubuntu wasn't ugly shit brown and came with thunderbird instead of evolution, the milk drop plugin (project M), Urban Terror, TVtime, Avant Window Navigator, and an option to just install and run as root. Linux Mint solves one or two of these issues, but still not all of them, and also doesn't have the momentum that Ubuntu already has. Also, there is a real lack of good console emulation on Linux. The Windows derivatives are much farther along. And most of the emulators are open source!
In my opinion, despite what Linus and others say, I don't think developers are REALLY that interested in converting the world to Linux. I think they are devoted to converting to the world to their ultra secure non-pretty, non-fun, and draconian vision of what computing "should be". While I admire their skill and dedication, I'd be more impressed if they were more effective, by actually attempting to be compelling to John Q. Enduser.
Imagine an OS where you showed up instantly on
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
then what about the eeepc's apparent rampant success?
or is most people picking it up, and then installing windows xp?
hell, isnt that the same fear/suspicion as to what happens with the cheap wal-mart computers running linux? that people bring them home and install xp (most likely pirated)?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
-metric
Honestly, give us a brake. , and O/S's that don't support their favorite software. Well genius, you may be there into something.
Honestly, I'd say it's about 100x's more likely that OSX gains significant ground to the point where it makes sense for apple to source out OSX to third party system builders than it would that Linux gains any significant headground. You know, unless the Linux community understands and finally makes strides to make Linux a) look like a program you would actually go out and spend your hard earned money on and b) make the UI and naming convention on the included software logical. There is nothing logical about any UI. Anybody claiming this is misinformed, all arrangements in a UI are completely arbitrary and use and custom popularize certain ways to do things. Put different desktops in front of complete neophytes and you would be surprised.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?
1998 was the year I first saw Linux deployed in a very conservative investment bank. Officially.
As a matter of fact I ran Linux in a private company for 2 years prior to that.
Today Linux in the corporate world is a reality. All serious companies have now a Linux policy (normally replacing UNIX servers, but not only that) and nobody will raise eye brows if a Linux solution is suggested for a particular problem.
So the article was bang in the money and the joke is on you.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
qwerty
Not me personally. I use what I feel like. Whatever anyone else thinks of it is no concern of mine.