Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit Leaves Desktop Linux Behind

Linux.com's Joe Barr has an interesting commentary about the recent Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit and the astounding lack of attention for desktop Linux. Now, a great deal of the monetary support driving Linux these days comes from companies with a vested interest in "big iron" but hopefully this won't completely eclipse the rest of the community. "Before I learned that the press was not welcome in any of the working-meetings at the summit on days 2 and 3, I saw and heard rumblings of discontent from more than one ordinary Linux desktop user. One example: a top-ten list of inhibitors to Linux adoption, created by a committee of foundation members, contained nothing at all relating to desktop usage. Nothing. Everything on the list was about back-room usage. Servers. Big iron."

Comments

Uh Oh

[ColdWetDog]

I guess 2008 won't be the year of Linux on the desktop?

Re:Uh Oh

[proudfoot]

I hear it's been rescheduled for 2009 now.

Re:Uh Oh

[ajs]

The year of Linux on the desktop was probably 2004 or 2005.

If you're waiting for Linux to wipe out the competition, it's not going to happen. It's just going to be a long, slow growth curve as both MacOS and Linux suck up increasingly large chunks of Microsoft's market share.

Re:Uh Oh

[Qwerpafw]

Linux on the desktop shouldn't be the goal anymore - 2008 is the year of linux on the laptop.

Vista won't run well on the increasingly popular lightweight and low end laptops like the eepc, olpc xo, and what are sure to be many imitators. People have demonstrated they're willing to use linux on these machines, and Microsoft has demonstrated they Don't Get It.

Re:Uh Oh

[TheAngryIntern]

It would be nice if the douchebags that come here to flame someone would have the balls to log in and post with their slashdot username. I guess the "anonymous coward" thing fits, eh?

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

so... you want them to intentionally lower their karma? Ya... good luck with that.

Re:Uh Oh

[strabes]

One could, in fact, play WoW natively in linux if that was how one wished to spend one's extra free time gained from not running virus checks, deleting spyware, clicking "allow", starting up, shutting down, rebooting, and defragmenting the pathetic NTFS filesystem. "Linux desktop is... unable to reproduce." You must be blind.

Re:Uh Oh

[calebt3]

go back to WoW OK

Re:Uh Oh

[nschubach]

Linux winning in any facet of business desktops would be a huge hit to Microsoft. I'm guessing they are referring to Desktop Linux as Home PCs, and not workstations? Either way, if Linux makes inroads to people's work desks, then it will naturally turn into users looking for similar home PCs. However, and Microsoft may be predicting this move in their recent gaming/entertainment push instead of stability/productivity. I can't totally rule out the idea of going to work in a Linux environment (all business) and coming home to a game/movie on a Microsoft box.

Re:Uh Oh

[Tawnos]

Because there's a lot of user time spent looking at each individual file for viruses, and everyone who runs Windows must have spyware. Obviously, that half a second to click "allow" is eating up years of our lives, and we must reboot daily or things never work. To top it all off, we have to keep doing things to make the "NTFS filesystem (NT filesystem filesystem...)" work.

You know, compared to all the time spent running apt-get to check for software updates, running netstat to check for ports that shouldn't be open to the world but for some reason are, deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update, and trying to defragment reiserfs only to realize you can't, so going back to ext3, which isn't much better (or worse) than NTFS.

Both systems have their upsides. Both have their downsides. Let's at least try for a little intellectual honesty when comparing them, instead of using hyperbole and strawmen to say why OS 1 sucks but OS 2 should run the world.

Re:Uh Oh

[kdemetter]

Actually , the linux desktop is doing quite nice on some distro's . If you take the most recent Ubuntu for example , you can easily the advancements they made , compared a few years ago. Properietary drivers are easier to install on linux than on windows , at the moment . But as always , linux isn't windows . So if by 'the perfect linux desktop' you expect a perfect windows clone , that's just not going to happen .

Re:Uh Oh

[Belial6]

For me, the year of Linux was 2006. That was the year that I came out of my office into my living room where my wife was having a "Moms Club" play date for the kids. As I poured myself a cup of coffee, I heard three of the stay at home moms discussing the move to Linux for their home computers. One had already moved, one was currently trying it out, and the third had heard of Linux but had not tried it. When stay at home moms are discussing Linux, it has obviously reached its "Year".

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

When you sit there and drink coffee, instead of feeding it to those stay at home moms in a giant orgy of sin, then I say that you're too addicted to coffee.

Re:Uh Oh

[sherpajohn]

Linux on the desktop shouldn't be the goal anymore - 2008 is the year of linux on the laptop.

Vista won't run well on the increasingly popular lightweight and low end laptops like the eepc, olpc xo, and what are sure to be many imitators. People have demonstrated they're willing to use linux on these machines, and Microsoft has demonstrated they Don't Get It. Increasingly popular with who? From 0 to something is certainly an increase. I certainly would not want a low end laptop to replace my old, but fairly high end at the time desktop. It just won't do what I want it to. For those who these new low end laptops cater too, its fantastic linux is working out well for them. But its not likely to be running on my desktop or my laptop (it is not personal, its my work laptop) any time soon.

Funny thing in the article though, it says how the big players won't *make* money pushing Linux on the desktop, but if your company has let say 300,000 desktops, would you not *save* a lot of money if you pushed for linux on your desktops?

Re:Uh Oh

[at_slashdot]

Every year when Linux gains more users is the "year of Linux"

Re:Uh Oh

[gmack]

You know, compared to all the time spent running apt-get to check for software updates,

Strange that's done automatically for me

running netstat to check for ports that shouldn't be open to the world but for some reason are

,

This was fixed two years ago AFIK

deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update,

This only happens in debian unstable. Complaining about it is like complaining about bugs in a Beta windows release

and trying to defragment reiserfs only to realize you can't, so going back to ext3, which isn't much better (or worse) than NTFS.

Reiserfs doesn't defrag because it's designed not to need to defrag.. same goes for XFS and the other more modern filesystems

I'm amazed this is the list you came up with when questioning other people's intellectual honesty

Re:Uh Oh

[westlake]

It's just going to be a long, slow growth curve as both MacOS and Linux suck up increasingly large chunks of Microsoft's market share.

Growth curve?

What growth curve?

Top Operating System Share Trend [By Versions]
Top Operating System Share Trend

I've played pool tables with a more visible slope than this particular measure of the trend line for Linux - and since these are web based stats, I am going to assume that the numbers for Vista for real.

- - a fair representation of Vista's strength in the consumer market.

20% by the end of in April. 50% probably no later than late summer or early fall. The Back-To-School sale.

In the W3Schools OS Platform Statistics it took OSX and Linux five years to edge up from 4% to 8% of the market - and these stats track the pro, the web developer.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, basically the problem is, Desktop Linux is "too hard to be profitable". It's one thing to introduce a good product into a market that's already hardened to the kind of bleeding-edge close-to-the-metal performance-sensitivity that high-end servers usually represent, it's another thing to fight the Desktop trolls.
For years, Windows has dominated the expectations of the consumer Desktop market, and has made its mark:
"Where's my control panel? Where's the start button?" It's a challenge that requires a lot of R&D money, a lot of advertisement money, a lot of support money, all of which MS has and Novell, HP, Mozilla, etc. just don't have (or don't have the balls to invest it in such a high-risk market)
I'm sure for a lot of these companies that desktop Linux is too much of a risk for anyone to take, despite the promise Ubuntu has shown in reaching beginner users.

Re:Uh Oh

[kris.montpetit]

Agreed. Although my hope is a couple linux OS's become major household desktop names just to keep Mac OS on it's toes during this transition. If microsoft has proven anything, its that monopolies are bad. very bad.

Re:Uh Oh

[JeremyGNJ]

I find this quite interesting. It shows an increase of Windows-based machines of about 1%.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

299,000 whiney bitches complaining that things don't work exactly the same as they used to will suck up a lot of support time.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

"deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update,"

"This only happens in debian unstable. Complaining about it is like complaining about bugs in a Beta windows release"

Bullshit... I've been trying to straighten out a library/dependency versioning problem in CentOS for a week caused by a package updater.

How can anyone possibly argue that double clicking setup.exe and having it just install isn't easier??

Re:Uh Oh

[ajs]

What growth curve? To quote your source:

We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. So, they're aggregating Web logs from a self-selecting group of Web sites.

My personal experience has been that more and more mainstream folks (especially under the age of 25) are using Linux because it's where the social apps are changing fastest.

Re:Uh Oh

[t1n0m3n]

What a fucking tard comment... and virus scanning is not done automatically either?

No comment on a AFIK statement

Linux=Debian bullshit again. Where is your argument for the rest of the distros?

ReiserFS - No comment

Re:Uh Oh

[xrobertcmx]

Now, not to argue too much. The key differences between my XP desktop vs. my SuSE 10.3, kubuntu, and EEEXubuntu machines is that XP needs to be updated about 2 or 3 times a month and rebooted about once week if I leave it on 24/7. SuSE and the 'buntu family receive updates on a daily or every other day basis. However my uptimes is roughly 72 days for SuSE and 8 days for Kubuntu. EEEXubuntu is shut down three or four times a day as unlike my MacBook Pro and very much like my old dell laptop suspend and sleep don't seem to work. In conclusion both systems have their annoyances. I've yet to encounter a major issue related to dependencies which either Yast or apt-get hasn't sorted out for me, and neither has destroyed my systems. On the other Hand a well set up XP desktop, which does take three times as long to get running, is stable, and if properly secured doesn't get hammered with spyware or virii. System maintenance can also be scheduled for 3am, when even I'm alseep most of the time, or 2pm when I'm at work.

Re:Uh Oh

[westlake]

My personal experience has been that more and more mainstream folks (especially under the age of 25) are using Linux because it's where the social apps are changing fastest.

The nature of social apps is that they are, well, social.

Meaning that the biggest draw will always be the sites and services that are most inclusive and with the farthest reach.

The tech isn't going to be decisive, but Windows is by no means poorly positioned here,Microsoft Partners with Top Social Networks to Put Users at the Center of their Data [March 25, 2008]

Re:Uh Oh

[strabes]

"compared to all the time spent running apt-get to check for software updates, running netstat to check for ports that shouldn't be open to the world but for some reason are, deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update, and trying to defragment reiserfs only to realize you can't, so going back to ext3"

Strange, I've only ever done the first action you mentioned, and it takes way less time (~5 seconds to type "sudo aptitude update" and for it to download package lists) than searching the internet for updates of every single windows program and driver I had installed, one at a time.

You're right; the user doesn't spend a lot of time looking at each individual file for viruses or spyware. I guess the extra time when running linux comes from not having to wait for all of those virus/spyware scanner programs to start up every time one reboots one's computer every time one updates any aforementioned program or driver installed on one's computer.

Nitpicking about my usage of the NTFS acronym was just childish.

Re:Uh Oh

[dave420]

I'm sure the fact that one of them is married to a slashdot user had nothing to do with it... :)

Re:Uh Oh

[Cyberax]

I can argue that.

First of all, it might not "just install". I have a lot of programs from 90-s and early 2000-s that just DoNotWork(tm) on XP/Vista.

Second, you STILL can get DLL hell if application tries to be nice and uses shared DLLs.

Third, you can get SECURITY hell if application does not try to play nice and stores private copies of DLLs.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're waiting for Linux to wipe out the competition, it's not going to happen. It's just going to be a long, slow growth curve as both MacOS and Linux suck up increasingly large chunks of Microsoft's market share.

A long slow growth curve... sans the growth curve, of course. Linux usage has remained flat, while the user bases of OSX and Vista have continued to grow grow grow.

In other words, if you weren't using Linux yesterday, it's probable you won't be using it tomorrow either.

Re:Uh Oh

[Colonel Korn]

Sure, but the original list of Windows nags was nonsense for any skilled user. For the people who post on Slashdot, there usually is no such thing as a computer problem. If we're just talking about how well our grandparents run an OS, then I can promise from personal experience that most grandparents will probably have a lot more luck setting up and using Windows on their own than Ubuntu.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to destroy your own karma you fucking imbecile.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a lot of programs from 90-s and early 2000-s that just DoNotWork(tm) on XP/Vista. Second, you STILL can get DLL hell if application tries to be nice and uses shared DLLs.

I'm sure both myself and almost anyone with half a brain cell can produce plenty of examples where this is equally true on Linux. Hell, Linux switched the entire C library ABI in the late 90's (The infamous libc5 to libc6 upgrade) so there are thousands of binaries out there that wont run without a lot of work. Same for DSOs: most Open Source authors couldn't maintain a stable ABI is or learn to manage library versioning if Ulrich Drepper himself threatened them with a very pointy stick.

Re:Uh Oh

[CptChipJew]

Except the "average computer user" cannot use the command line interface where you yupe "sudo aptitude update", because that's too hard, and this article is about Linux on the desktop.

If you want to argue Windows vs. Linux for uptimes, power user ease-of-use, etc., that's fine. For the average computer user, you can't really say that Linux is easier or as functional. And for those people, greater ease and functionality = better OS.

Re:Uh Oh

[mikael]

After upgrading to Fedora Core 8, apt-get and yum install hasn't been too bad recently, although I did encounter some bad mojo with my Nvidia drivers which turned out to be that the GL library file is now in /usr/lib/nvidia and not /usr/lib, and is not longer called libGL.so, but libGL.so.1 - I ended up just deleting everything nvidia and starting again, then got error permission with /dev/nvidiactl.

Codecs work perfectly, but the installed fonts and desktop schemes seem to change according to the preferences of the current maintainer. A workaround to this is to make a manifest of all the rpm's installed prior to upgrading to a new release, then making a manifest of the new rpm's, then doing a diff and installing the missing rpm's.

Those are minor compared to having the installed anti-virus tools on Windows slow everything down because they are are doing their full volume scans in the evening or at night. Even worse is seeing how much disk space they use up with their virus definition files - this seems to run into hundreds of megabytes now.

And with any pre-installed ISP software, you can never be quite sure what information they are sending out (CPU ID's, local username, local current user directory). Remember the reaction when Real networks was sending back the filenames of the files that users were viewing.

At least with Linux, when you set up your own connection scripts, you know exactly what information is going where.

Re:Uh Oh

[barius]

Vista is eating XP share, but it is not *growing* the Windows market. The desktop market as a whole has been growing at something like 8% per year since 2005. So, at best the Windows brand as a whole can only grow about 8%/yr. However, the growth of OSX is almost entirely at the expense of Windows (and, interestingly greatest in the laptop segment). The result is that Windows isn't really growing at all, it's practically stagnant.

The growth of Linux on the desktop is somewhat at the expense of Windows, but not so much as Apple. Most Linux converts are tech-savvy or early-adopter types that don't really figure into MS's bottom line. Most Linux adopters will likely have a copy Windows around 'just in case', so their impact on the market is practically nil. Where we might start to see Linux eat into MS share is on the entry-level products like the gPC and the EeePC. However, it is still too early to tell if these 'almost-appliance' products will have sustained demand in the market.

Re:Uh Oh

[mikael]

It's not that hard. Just make sure the fonts and schemes don't change from release to release, and make sure that the media players and codecs are easily installed across the Internet, if they can be supplied on the install CD/DVD.

I find that Web browsers and E-mail work as good as they can be. The only problem with OpenOffice that I found was the problem with lots of equations in a file, but that is going to be fixed.

Re:Uh Oh

[Dextrously]

It seems somewhat an uninformed approach to rely on these web-based stats.

Not even taking into consideration that browser type and OS enumeration can be easily blocked and/or forged. And that KDE users have this capability installed by default in their browser, or that Firefox users most downloaded add-ons have this capability as well. NoScript among the most popular in addition to UserAgent being less popular.

Lets take into consideration which sites these stats come from. Anyone have a list? I don't see this information provided on their site.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

0.43% to 0.61% in less than a year is quite a good growth rate. The fact that it's not visible when you calibrate the graph to the 9x% of Windows is unsurprising.

Re:Uh Oh

[gmack]

Bullshit... I've been trying to straighten out a library/dependency versioning problem in CentOS for a week caused by a package updater.

He said apt-get and that's not normally used on CentOS. RPM is it's own special form of evil.

I've used RHEL, CentOS, Debian and Ubuntu depending on my clients demands and I can tell you I would never willingly use and RPM based distro.

Re:Uh Oh

[westlake]

Vista won't run well on the increasingly popular lightweight and low end laptops like the eepc, olpc xo, and what are sure to be many imitators. People have demonstrated they're willing to use linux on these machines, and Microsoft has demonstrated they Don't Get It.

The cheapest Vista Basic laptop at Walmart.com is $500.

15" widescreen LCD. 1.86 Celeron M CPU, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD, CD-R/DVD-ROM Drive.

The gOS laptop at $400:

1.6 GHz VIA CPU, 512 MB RAM and a 60 GB HDD.

The problem is that the next step up is all Vista Premium.

17" screen. 2 GB RAM. The dual core CPU and and so. For about $100 less than last fall's holiday special.

The problem is that - long term - even Walmart with its enormous purchasing power hasn't been able to sell OEM Linux at a meaningful discount.

The problem is that the Linux PC at Walmart is always the bottom feeder.

There is never a link to so basic an accessory as a printer.

While the specs on the Windows machine look significantly better even at entry level. It has a recognizable brand name - and what looks like "crapware" to the Geek - is familiar and reassuring to everyone else.

Re:Uh Oh

[Belial6]

Well, that's what I tell all my friends happened, but I figured the truth was OK for Slashdot.

Re:Uh Oh

[strabes]

My example was intended for those wishing to check for updates manually using the quickest method possible. If a user has problems with the CLI and wants to manually check for updates they can go to System > Administration > Update Manager, click "Check," and a few seconds later click "Install Updates" and their system will be up to date in no time.

Of course, none of that is necessary because ubuntu (and other distributions) automatically check for updates daily. If there are updated packages it pops a nice icon in the notification area which one can simply click on, and then click "Install Updates" in the newly-opened Update Manager window. One can also simply right click on the icon and click "Install All Updates."
It's sort of like the windows update thing except it updates all programs, drivers, and other packages on your system, it doesn't install anything without your permission, the names of things are straightforward and truthful (unlike things like WGA, disguised as a "security update"), and it doesn't constantly bug the user (it displays one notification after updating or rebooting if there are updates, and one can even disable its notifications by simply right clicking on the icon and unselecting "Show Notifications").

Re:Uh Oh

[Daniel Phillips]

Except the "average computer user" cannot use the command line interface where you yupe "sudo aptitude update", because that's too hard, and this article is about Linux on the desktop. If you want to argue Windows vs. Linux for uptimes, power user ease-of-use, etc., that's fine. For the average computer user, you can't really say that Linux is easier or as functional. And for those people, greater ease and functionality = better OS. Utter nonsense. Try kpackage or many similarly easy to use graphical package management frontends if you would rather not use the commandline method. Interesting, my wife, who is very nontechnical, prefers the command line method for installing packages. After I showed her how to open the console and give the commands she never used the gui version again.

Re:Uh Oh

[yuna49]

Are you using the nVidia drivers at Livna? Only once did they not have updated drivers available when I ran a kernel update on Fedora, and that was because I updated on the day the new kernel was released. If you can wait a day or two before installing the latest kernel update (personally I can wait a lot longer than that), running "yum update kmod-nvidia" after adding the Livna repo is a cinch.

Re:Uh Oh

[westlake]

The desktop market as a whole has been growing at something like 8% per year since 2005. So, at best the Windows brand as a whole can only grow about 8%/yr. However, the growth of OSX is almost entirely at the expense of Windows

If this is true why does Boot Camp play so big a part in the marketing of OSX? Boot Camp. Run Windows on Your Mac. What is the purpose of a product like the headless Mac mini?

The truth is that Apple and Microsoft carved out distinct markets that have been quite stable from the beginning, looked at closely, their relationship is more symbiotic than predatory.

The thought comes to mind that you are not looking at the global market.

Is the Mac a significant challenge to Microsoft outside the US?

It seems a fair question to ask, given the extraordinary numbers Microsoft has been posting for fiscal 2008. 20% growth in European revenues. 30% in the emerging markets of Asia, Africa, etc. Each quarter.

Re:Uh Oh

[mikael]

Yes, I did - that's what I did when I first installed FC8. That didn't work because there was a kernel update from:

kernel-2.6.24.3-50.fc8 to kernel-2.6.24.4-64.fc8

which confused the nvidia driver (it went for the 3-50.fc8 kernel) but updated the current X server anyway. So I'm stuck with a half working system - I get the nvidia flash screen, but the X-server won't fire up.

I tried uninstalling the kmod-nvidia driver, but 'yum' then wants to erase a whole bunch of applications.

I resolved this by removing all nvidia drivers, removing the old kernel and reinstalling the nvidia drivers.

Re:Uh Oh

[harlows_monkeys]

Vista won't run well on the increasingly popular lightweight and low end laptops like the eepc, olpc xo, and what are sure to be many imitators. People have demonstrated they're willing to use linux on these machines, and Microsoft has demonstrated they Don't Get It

I'd prefer to see people pushing Linux on high end machines. The spate of low end laptops with Linux, combined with the puzzling propensity of penguin proselytizers to promote Linux on old hardware that would otherwise be throw out, is going to give Linux an image of being what you run when you can't afford something better.

Aim for the high end, not the low end. That's the way to get people interested.

Re:Uh Oh

[domatic]

I've played with and like a 4G EEE PC. The problem is that at $400 it costs about $200 dollars too much to be what you're wanting it to be. Laptops with full size screens start and more than 20GB storage start at $450 if you really bargain hunt.

The OPLC as originally envisioned is much closer but that project has some strange blindsides. I've seen K12s in the US willing to give it a real shot but they are so stuck on their vision of "pure philanthropy" that they damage the very cause they want to promote and won't make them more generally available. A million or so of these things being bought by First World educational institutions (which can be quite cash strapped themselves!) would kickstart the economy of scale and get the price a lot damn closer to the $100 they were talking about in the first place.....which they could then turn around and provide to those classrooms in developing economies.

I believe that the $200 and even the $100 dollar laptop is coming but the market and economy of scale needed to make that happen is just getting started and Linux will be a real force on them. However, it Windows 7 turns out to be what it is cracked up to be then we may see a leaner modular Windows on them as well.

Re:Uh Oh

[jaxtherat]

Bullshit... I've been trying to straighten out a library/dependency versioning problem in CentOS for a week caused by a package updater.

Yes, but that's probably because you used a 3'rd party rpm repository.

Re:Uh Oh

[CrazedWalrus]

One more convert today -- lady whose computer constantly had malware, very little memory in it, and much higher priorities than a new computer. She can't afford Vista, and XP has been overrun with malware within a month the last two times she's reinstalled.

I set her up with Ubuntu, made sure all the codecs and necessary software was installed, and she was off to the races. The only call I've gotten so far was to ask how to set up the printer. 5 minutes later, over the phone, she has a working printer and is once again a happy camper.

I've been using Linux for 11 years, and the fact that I can explain to a total Linux newb in 5 minutes over the phone how to configure a printer is nothing short of amazing. I'm old enough to remember when it took one hell of an effort to set up printers -- and it wasn't all that long ago.

I explained the situation: that her machine will not run Vista, and that XP will never cease to be overrun by malware -- especially when MS finally pulls the plug on security updates. She has the option to reinstall XP if she's really not comfortable with Ubuntu, but that it's probably in her interest to give it a real chance.

She's thrilled with the lack of malware, thinks the eye candy is spectacular (especially the fire close animation and the desktop cube), and is really enthused about the huge menu of free-beer software (she could care less whether it's free-speech).

I also made it a point to tell her that some things are still under development, and that there will be times that something doesn't quite work the way she'd expect. In those cases, there's usually a work-around, the software is constantly improving, and the upgrades are free.

I don't think I gave her any false expectations, and I think she's happy her old computer is not only young again and virus free, it even does cool eye candy that her friends newer machines don't do.

Overall, a win for everyone, and probably a win for the community. The year of Linux on the Desktop had to have come already; if it hadn't, the odds of success here would be hugely against. As it is, I think she's going to like it.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't that why people karma whore all the time?

Re:Uh Oh

[Nullav]

Except the "average computer user" cannot use the command line interface where you yupe "sudo aptitude update", because that's too hard, and this article is about Linux on the desktop.

'Average' =/= 'Elephant with a keyboard'
I've seen people do some stupid things with computers (like forgetting about the power cord), but I've never seen someone unable to use a keyboard.
Granted, an 'average user' probably won't know what the hell goes in /etc/, /var/, or /sbin/, but anyone with hands can click that 'funny-looking icon with the black box and the bracket' and type a command. Perhaps you meant 'first-time user' or something equally non-average.

Re:Uh Oh

[Teriblows]

thats hilarious. hoping the hardware stays insufficient to run a ms app is a losing proposition. cheap speed and memory are here. light weight os frankly is not that important.

Re:Uh Oh

[chdig]

Here's a shocker for ya: my Vista has been stable and runs for more days than I've bothered to count. It's a resource hog, oh yeah, a bad one, but it does fix a ton of those rotten XP annoyances. But I digress...
The one and only non-starter for Linux on the desktop is the terrible package management systems there are strewn about in a mangled mess amongst the various distributions.

Even as a web developer, try installing the latest apache-php-mysql on Ubuntu (Feisty)... you'll only get 2 year old versions of each. Want to change? Then you uninstall about 20 packages of apt stuff (if you can figure them out), before dropping to compiling from source, all the while sudoing everything in sight. It's a three downloads, three clicks,maybe even three UAC screens before it's very quickly and easily installed in Windows.

Re:Uh Oh

[ajs]

The nature of social apps is that they are, well, social. Meaning that the biggest draw will always be the sites and services that are most inclusive and with the farthest reach. You can rationalize all you like, but I know that there's a large ground-swell of young people who are convinced that if they want the latest and greatest tools, they need to be running Linux. In many cases, I think they're wrong, but that doesn't really matter. It's the perception of the thing that's driving them.

I'm interested to see what happens to IM especially in the next few years. It's been dominated by AOL, but Google has forced open the field, and is allowing users to communicate with anyone (all of AOL and Google Talk (including the Jabber cloud) can inter-operate freely), which makes Google Talk the largest IM network in the world, all of a sudden.

Re:Uh Oh

[barius]

The brilliance of up-marketing Boot Camp on OSX is that it helps people overcome their fear of losing Windows compatibility. The idea is to get people onto the Mac platform in a way that makes OSX the primary desktop while Windows becomes 'just another application'. I think that long term this is a great strategy for weening leery Windows users off that platform as it hides the MS branding behind the OSX branding.

I would agree that Apple was not a direct competitor to MS for many years. They were not trying to be. However, it cannot be denied that their markets are overlapping considerably today. Apple has made its' iLife products very attractive to young people who are more involved in the 'online social revolution'. MS is trying desperately to find a way to exploit the same market segment, but have so far had little luck.

It seems a fair question to ask, given the extraordinary numbers Microsoft has been posting for fiscal 2008. 20% growth in European revenues. 30% in the emerging markets of Asia, Africa, etc. Each quarter. I am talking PC hardware sales, a metric which is considered one of the most reliable means of estimating install base. The 8% estimate was for 2005, though I went researching and that number was 11% in 2006 and 13% in 2007. Back to your point, note that increased software revenues do not necessarily reflect an increase in the number of installations. In the case of Vista a 20% increase in revenue can almost entirely be attributed to the increased cost of the OS itself. This cost is more pronounced in the EU where MS has made it even more difficult to acquire XP (over Vista) as compared to the US.

The growth in Asia is similar. MS has historically looked the other way while Asia pirated their software. With the introduction of Vista MS has implemented several new initiatives aimed at getting the millions of Asian users that already have pirated copies of Windows XP to upgrade to a legal copy of Vista. The fact that these users are now paying for Windows (at a much reduced cost, btw) does not imply a larger install base.
I am not, however, implying that the growth will not increase substantially in Asia. It should be noted that much of that growth has been in the low-cost segments, where Linux products like the EeePC really shine. Will Asian consumers prefer cheaper Linux alternatives over more expensive Windows? I don't know, but if even a small percentage, say 5%, chose to do so in the next few years as the market grows it will be a success for Linux and a chink in MS' armor in the future.

Is the Mac a significant challenge to Microsoft outside the US? That's a very good question. Honestly, I haven't really looked into it. I am only aware that Apple has been doing extremely well in the US, and that this year they were the (by far) leader in online PC sales (see links below).

With Apple pushing that much hardware the only plausible conclusion is that people are switching and where the US market goes, others' tend to follow.

Is MS doing well? Sure. But is it climbing faster than their competitors? I think the numbers refute that claim. Given a decade or two we may see a market in which Apple commands as much as 30% and Linux may be approaching double-digits. With such adoption of competing platforms MS would be forced to put more effort into interoperability, open standards, and real innovation. I think we can agree that would be good for everyone.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/03/19/apple_us_retail_sales_feb/
http://www.internetretailer.com/internet/marketing-conference/30424-applecom-at-top-computer-hardware-sites-nielsen-netratings-reports.html

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh! Sorry, I didn't realise anyone was still using those...

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister, while telling me that she couldn't work a particular program in Windows so there was no way she could handle this 'linux' with its weird alternative programs, proceeded to complete that very task. She still protested that she didn't know computers but in three months of her using that computer (it was shared) she didn't have a problem. She went out and bought a Windows machine. Guess what!! I'm supporting her regularly on that machine. You can't tell me Linux is too hard to use. Some people are just to stubborn to acknowledge they are wrong.

Re:Uh Oh

[PenGun]

Got that cheap Acer, added a gig. A little jewel. Vista is gone and Slack has the machine. A sweet somewhat heavy GPS. Goes in the backpack and it's nothing on the dirt bike.

  My backyard:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=49.222338,-124.50745&z=13&t=h&hl=en

Re:Uh Oh

[Thundersnatch]

A workaround to this is to make a manifest of all the rpm's installed prior to upgrading to a new release, then making a manifest of the new rpm's, then doing a diff and installing the missing rpm's.

You're saying the above is better than having a Windows machine slow down once a week during a virus scan? You are one seriously brainwashed fanboi, my brother.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do these stupid propaganda stories always get modded up.
What kind of wives sit around and talk about Linux.

Nothing to do out in the middle of Kansas?

I could mention Linux to probably 200 woman that come walking through a Los Angeles street have never heard or seen Linux, maybe I am guessing 2 might have heard the word Linux but have no idea what it relates to.

Is Linux a type of vacume cleaner?

Get back to the real world....

Re:Uh Oh

[westlake]

Mot even taking into consideration that browser type and OS enumeration can be easily blocked and/or forged.

That objection is rediculous when you looking at the global share of mass market OS.

There is no intelligible reason to believe that a significant fraction of the billion or so Windows users on the desktop know or care about the user agent - and even less reason to believe that would edit - forge - an agent without having the faintest notion of what the consequences might be.

Re:Uh Oh

[Almahtar]

1 Apple + 2 Oranges == 1 bad analogy.

The .rpm package system is not like the .deb package system at all. Many (including me) have had a hell of a time with .rpm based systems (Mandriva, Redhat/Fedora/Centos, I'm looking at you) but found the Debian system to be a joy. I'm not saying it's without flaws, but I have yet to encounter any and I've been using it for half a decade.

I'm not saying you're an idiot, but a bit uninformed. I'm not the only person I know that was frustrated with installing programs on Linux until I tried a Debian-based distro.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Top Operating System Share Trend [By Versions] [hitslink.com]
Top Operating System Share Trend [hitslink.com]

Do they take All the embedded devices and their OS installations ? ADSL Routers, Network printers, etc. ?

Re:Uh Oh

[Hal_Porter]

Reiserfs doesn't defrag because it's designed not to need to defrag.. same goes for XFS and the other more modern filesystems

Any filesystem, modern or not will get fragmented. If you delete a file in the middle of the disk, you leave a hole. If you want to extend a file and the space after it is used by something else, that file will be fragmented

Re:Uh Oh

[rohan972]

No need for the manifest and the diff, really:
$ rpm -qa --qf %{name} > old-release.rpmlist
Do your distro upgrade.
$ yum --skip-broken `cat old-release.rpmlist`
or whatever the apt equivalent is. Compared to individually installing each program you use after an OS upgrade, yes, it's far better.

Re:Uh Oh

[daffmeister]

Grandparent specifically referred to apt-get, which is the debian (and derivatives) repo manager, and generally _very_ reliable. The exception is the debian unstable repos which are, of course, unstable.

RHEL, which is what CentOS is based on, uses RPM which is not as reliable (although my direct experience is a little old now).

Re:Uh Oh

[drinkypoo]

Reiserfs doesn't defrag because it's designed not to need to defrag.. same goes for XFS and the other more modern filesystems

This is a stupid argument. It is stupid because it is untrue. In fact there is a tool for defragmenting XFS filesystems, it is called xfs_fsr. I run it regularly. It operates by creating a contiguous file (XFS in fact allows you to request a contiguous file, request realtime access to files on a realtime volume, create sparse files, or perform various combinations of some of these things) and then copying the old file to it, then cross-linking the files and unlinking the original. It will never relocate a file with a single extent, however, so it doesn't reorder files. That job is instead handled by readahead.

It is still hard to figure out what ports are open and why, although you can just install firestarter and have a GUI interface to iptables and make the problem relatively non-problematic. It is still hard to get a clear picture of network activity. It is virtual impossible to get a clear picture of disk activity (although there's that systemtap thing that promises eventual relief, I couldn't get systemtap example scripts from their wiki to run in the systemtap gui, which is a gigantic download. pretty lame.)

I don't let apt-get run automatically, because I have multiple systems and create my own pool. I haven't gone through the trouble to get apt-proxy working (I've barely got a handle on apt-ftparchive and apt-move at this point!) so I have to handle things a bit manually. But even with my setup this is hardly a problem.

Re:Uh Oh

[Thundersnatch]

Compared to individually installing each program you use after an OS upgrade, yes, it's far better.

Except you don't have to do reinstall anyting on Windows, either. Maybe AV software if there is an incompatibility, but not much else.

Re:Uh Oh

[Dextrously]

That objection is rediculous when you looking at the global share of mass market OS.

There is no intelligible reason to believe that a significant fraction of the billion or so Windows users on the desktop know or care about the user agent - and even less reason to believe that would edit - forge - an agent without having the faintest notion of what the consequences might be. Let me try and put this in form of a simple analogy. Lets say I have 30,000 (websites) blind people randomly allocated throughout the U.S (internet). Now, I have specific buildings (website) where they distribute certain rewards (content) for having you visit them, the catch being you must provide them with your age (user agent). Certain buildings (websites) have taken it upon themselves to provide more rewards (content) for being less than 40 in age (using IE). Now based on the results of collecting this data, my organization states that 80% of people are less than 40 years old, 12% are between 40-50, and 8% are 50+.

Website Statistics blindly accept whatever the user tells them. Additionally, you have no clue where the stats are coming from, you are blindly accepting data from an unidentified source as well. You can rely on data sources like this if you like, but I won't.

Re:Uh Oh

[rohan972]

System upgrade from 98SE to 2000 or XP was that seamless? Or XP to Vista? Ill have to take your word for it since I haven't had a windows box for quite a while, but I was of the impression that drivers etc + other programs were different.

I usually do a clean install and dual boot until I'm happy with the new distro on my home machine, that way I don't upset my wife. Much better to have difficulty with _any_ OS than with the wife. :)

Re:Uh Oh

[Thundersnatch]

I never used the 9x series much; we went from 3.1 to NT 3.51 back in the mid 1990s.

But 2000->XP was completely seamless on almost every machine; we deployed that upgrade via scripts. The only two XP->Vista upgrades I've done required only an update of AV software, and the DVD player software on my laptop. No messing with drivers at all.

Granted, we now usually do re-images for most end user machines, but since 2000 the upgrade process in Windows on the Workstation and Server products has been impressively robust IMHO.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu has run right off the back (wifi and all) for most laptops I've tried in the last... 2 years

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

ReiserFS: The only fragmentation is in the author's wife's skull.

Stay away annoying journalists.

[TechyImmigrant]

TFA is very sniffy about press not being allowed in the technical sessions. As far as I'm concerned they can bloody well stay away for good.

When engineers get together in technical meetings in standards groups, SIGs and the like, they have deep technical and commercial problems to solve that leads to long, difficult, nuanced discussions, all aimed at getting to a solution that will work, get implemented and be commercially feasible.

What no one involved needs is the press sticking their noses in and printing these arguments in the press, dressing them up like some narrative in a thriller. Its happened to me several times and every time, the uninvited journalist got it hopelessly wrong, presenting technical work as interpersonal bickering and being clueless on the technical matters.

Journalists are a pox on standards meetings. They can eff right off.

When the journalists turn up, propose work items on desktop issues and promise not to run away and write up events in some rag, they will have dragged themselves out of the bottom of the barrel.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[original_papasan]

so much for 'open', eh?

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[Daniel Phillips]

When the journalists turn up, propose work items on desktop issues and promise not to run away and write up events in some rag, they will have dragged themselves out of the bottom of the barrel. Joe Barr is not just any journalist where Linux is concerned. He is right that this "summit" was non-representative. We are getting a lot of that lately, just look at all the Linux invite-only "summits" going on, with key players not invited.

This particular "summit" seemed largely useless to me. I don't really know anybody who cares about it or even knew about it other then the participants.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[Otter]

And given this article, you can see why they set the policy they did!

Anyway, it's not as if the "ordinary Linux desktop user" doesn't have any other opportunities to loudly voice his opinion. (If nothing else, he can just write Linus an email!) It doesn't seem surprising that a meeting focused on high-end servers doesn't want to open the floor to a bunch of Ubuntu fanboys to squabble about WiFi driver configuration.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[asc99c]

The Linux open-source model is fundamentally open and this sort of thing is a consequence. A group of interested parties have got together to discuss the problems getting Linux adopted in an area they are interested in. Hopefully they will decide what they can improve and go away and do it. With companies like IBM involved, there isn't great need for the community to implement the stuff. They aren't breaking Linux on the desktop - just improving it on big-iron servers. There's no need for it to be 'representative'. It's quite valid for a few companies to hold a closed meeting and do what they want without outside interruption. The source code will make its way into the world and if the key players who weren't invited / represented think it's doing something useful it will get further modified and brought into distros like Ubuntu.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[BigGerman]

really? When was last time that something "that will work, get implemented and be commercially feasible" came out of some meeting?

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[yuna49]

Calling yourselves "The Linux Foundation" suggests a degree of breadth and openness that this group clearly does not demonstrate. I don't have a problem with corporations holding meetings to determine what they might undertake collectively, but then call it what it is, the "Corporate Linux Users Foundation" or something like that. It's nice that they pay Linus's salary, I guess, but do you really think Novell or RedHat or IBM would tell him to take a hike if he offered to work at one of those places instead?

I wonder what kind of access you get for an individual affiliate membership of $25? Somehow I doubt they'd pay much attention to me compared to those Platinum sponsors at $500K. Reading the Bylaws tells me only that as an affiliate member I can't vote for members of the Board, vote to dissolve the Foundation, etc. Other than that, whatever privileges Affiliates get is determined by the Board. I didn't see a list of those privileges, but I can't claim to have scoured the site.

And, doesn't Adobe have a few interests on the desktop?

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[TechyImmigrant]

>really? When was last time that something "that will work, get implemented and be commercially feasible" came out of some meeting?

Several standards beginning in 802.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[PenGun]

Joe Barr is an idiot. Google mplayer and that moron.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[Daniel Phillips]

Interesting, I missed that whole mplayer thing. Looks like Joe stepped in it. I still think he has done more good than harm for the Linux community. It seems he would benefit from a big drink of mellow.

For what it's worth, I love Mplayer and I am awed by the dedication of the Mplayer development team. The next geek toy to arrive here will most likely be the MP965D, which is to be a kick-butt Mplayer box to sit beside the PS3, which is a great media center as far as it goes but just can't do everything a general purpose Linux box can.

Re:Stay away annoying journalists.

[PenGun]

Insightful ??? The morons have total control here.

Big Business is ten years behind

[Archangel Michael]

It looks like Big Business is about ten years behind the industry curve. If my understanding is correct, big business will start paying attention to Desktop Linux in about eight more years, when they start replacing Windows with Linux Desktops.

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[427_ci_505]

Sorry? Isn't big business *the* industry curve?

What is your definition of industry curve?

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[nicklott]

I think you have cause and effect mixed up. Linux desktops will start replacing windows when Big Business starts paying attention.

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[moderatorrater]

It looks like Big Business is about ten years behind the industry curve How so? The article never adequately addresses the fact that the Linux Foundation is populated by people who use linux on servers. Why should he be surprised that these people are focusing on server issues?

The author worries about the developers ignoring the linux desktop without seeming to realize that the kernel hackers use linux as their desktop. He doesn't mention the scheduler changes to make it more friendly to the desktop. In fact, he comes across as a pouting child who wants their desktop worked on before the servers.

Is it that hard to realize that the linux foundation is about servers and keeping market share in the area of servers while ubuntu and the kernel hackers focus on making the desktop faster? Right now server linux is a business, desktop linux is a side note. Asking them to focus on the desktop at the expense of their big platforms is dumb and short sighted.

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[compro01]

i think he's referring to "industry curve" as the software industry. basically, what software developers are making vs. what software major businesses are using.

i'd say his lead time is a bit off (i'd cut that to maybe 5 or 7 years), but the concept holds that major businesses are slow to change to the new latest-and-greatest software. i'm sure there are still places transitioning to XP still.

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[poetmatt]

An interesting philosophy. I don't think I know enough technically to make a good evaluation of what I think about this, but 5-7 years does sound about right for when "everyone is using linux/macOS". I figure one more release of windows that is so horrid that even non pc literate folks are able to decide to figure out a linux distro instead. Follow that up with 1 more release of windows that fits into "nobody cares" and then everyone will abandon completely. Definitely seems to be heading towards that way little by little.

I'll be celebrating the day it comes, but it is nice to know that it is at least coming, albeit a bit slow. I admit I had some computer illiterate customers I couldn't transition them away from windows and even they (1yr ago) didn't want to go to vista.

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[abolitiontheory]

I agree with this view. Being one of those "hometown hero" techies, I see the sluggishness of both the corporate offices I've worked in and my own parents to move from "what works" to "what works best." I have some more geeky friends who have sold their girlfriends and even a few unsuspecting bystanders on the virtues of Ubuntu or some other distro, but it's hardly going to penetrate into the enclave of workstation hell or any other large business model anytime soon, let alone the home living room.

Plus, doesn't this just make sense? From bleeding edge to common usage there is a trend, and a time span. Why do we, those who repute ourselves as being fairly up-to-date, malign "sluggishness" of big business, when it would be like asking the titantic to steer like a surfboard to behave like we do. We can ride the crest of technology, they have to stay in deep water.

Should business have adopted linux a long time ago? No doubt, but only in the same way that most superior technologies are slighted in deference to tradition and apathy. Why doesn't the US use metric yet? or why don't we all type in Dvorak? I guess I share the frustation, but unless there's some conspiracy going that actively opposes the adoption of Linux or other alternate M$ technologies, I'm not sure what's news about this.

People will be listening to pop music in 8 years, even though we all know its terrible, middle-of-the-road, mediocre crap. It fits waiting rooms because it challenges nobody. In the same way, Windows fits the office space, and the home desktop. .02

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[plague3106]

Sure it will, and they'll just toss all the investment in other software they bought that only runs on Windows too. Sure. Absolutely.

Re:Big Business is ten years behind

[westlake]

I think you have cause and effect mixed up. Linux desktops will start replacing windows when Big Business starts paying attention.

someday, perhaps, the geek may realize that the PC market splintered into distinct segments a long time ago.

that placement on the enterprise desktop doesn't give you anything more than placement on the enterprise desktop.

but I am not holding my breath.

Linux on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux on the desktop is like Windows in server space. It's just wrong and you know it.

Re:Linux on the desktop

[tepples]

Then what Free operating system for desktop computers isn't just wrong?

No windows compition

[InsaneProcessor]

This is what prevents linux from being and alternative to Windows. It provides no competition 99% of computer users. Thus the M$ monopoply (apple doesn't count).

Re:No windows compition

[east coast]

And why exactly shouldn't Apple count? Don't get me wrong, I'm not fanboi and I've never been tempted to "swing on that side" except for my iPod, but Apple should be counted.

Granted, it's a different business model and a different product offering from Linux but if anything Apple should show that the mythical Windows stranglehold on the desktop is just that, mythical. Apple has gotten to the places that I heard that Linux was going to be in 5 years ago. They've actually done it, it's not a lot of talk and hype. For Apple it's as real as the dollars in their bank account. If anything the target users that Linux was suppose to rope in went Apple. I think that it's important for the Linux community to understand why and how.

I personally only had a minor interest in Linux and it went south for several reasons that I've ranted on about before. If I were forced to take up a new machine running either OSX or Linux today I would give Apple a try. Linux for me has turned into the "been there, done that" bad experience of computing for me. And even in the years that I've been following Linux both as an interested bystander and for a while as a user I still see the desktop Linux revolution as a bunch of vaporware.

Maybe something will happen, maybe I'll change my mind. But I wouldn't place bets on it. And turning away from Apple as not counting is a grave mistake in understanding what it's going to take to get Linux the kind of marketshare that Apple has proven to be available.

Windows will not dominate forever, no. But I don't think it will be Linux that will take it's place on the desktop.

Re:No windows compition

[InsaneProcessor]

And why exactly shouldn't Apple count?

The answer is real simple. I cannot purchase and get support for the OS on my PC. You have to buy single source hardware.

Re:No windows compition

[east coast]

They still made the headway with such vendor lock-in? Even more reason to see what they did right because they're obviously against the grain of everything everyone around here said about why the Linux revolution would happen. They obviously did something so right that all the things that people claim were going to be the death of MS appears to be working out fine for Apple and even under harsher conditions.

Re:No windows compition

[Plaid Phantom]

The reason is pretty clear to me: marketing. Apple has managed to brand itself among consumers as the 'sexy, easy-to-use' alternative to Microsoft. Linux is still viewed by many as 'that geeky thing those nerds are obsessed with', if they know what it is at all.

no surprise

[FireXtol]

Linux has always been an oddity in the desktop market. And I, for one, think it will be this way for quite a while. Sure there's 'intelligent phone' replacements... browsing, email, a few other general purpose apps... but Linux is highly specialized. There's no standardization for interaction. You have different shells, different window managers, different distros. All with their own pros and cons. Now don't get me wrong.... I like Linux as much as I like surfing the web. Without it much of the web wouldn't exist as it now does, and I see Linux as having been crucial in making it better, as well as sadly making it worse. Given the powerfulness of the kernel to tackle complicated tasks, but usually is best fitted for single-mission services. Compared with a mature GUI model, with a tight integration with the kernel, a highly sophisticated, and highly extensible threading model, as well as other modular subsystems, would be Windows NT-based (2k & XP)... exclusively. Then again... I wouldn't even dare hosting a critical web service on Windows, regardless of version.

Re:no surprise

[Shados]

but Linux is highly specialized. There's no standardization for interaction

Thats why I feel that the future of Linux in user's hands is in the form of "appliance" type machines. Things like the EeePC, cellphones, Tivos-type things... we already have, and it works quite well. Now push it a notch further... a desktop machine with everything a user need, but locked down. Can't install or remove anything, except for the SD card or USB stick to store your data. Different models with different software for different people (and maybe like the EeePC, let people hack it up, but not by default).

Linux is -really- good at that kindda stuff. Linux desktops work great when they're preconfigured and you don't change em too much (which is when, for a regular user, all hell breaks loose).

I remember at my fiancee's college, most of the computer clusters were like that. Locked down desktop linux installs. It worked amazingly well. Since you couldn't screw it up, everything just worked, Mac-style. Very clean, all your files were saved on a network drive (as opposed to USB as I said above, but still), and you could install a limited amount of non-disruptive things.. if you messed up, you could just re-init it like you would a router.

There's nothing special about that...nothing that can't be done with Ubuntu and a few minutes/hours of tweaking. But if you sell that directly to users, you'll have a winner.

Re:no surprise

[SanityInAnarchy]

Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're not communicating very well...

There's no standardization for interaction. You have different shells, different window managers, different distros.

Interaction between what?

There are many standards. POSIX provides standards for shells -- a shell must support a certain set of features to be POSIX-compliant, and a POSIX-compliant shell script can run with #!/bin/sh on any remotely POSIX-compliant system.

Without it much of the web wouldn't exist as it now does, and I see Linux as having been crucial in making it better, as well as sadly making it worse.

I don't really get how Linux is responsible for either of these things. All I see is cheap, commodity webservers, which made it easier for a startup to get somewhere. Remember, even Google was a startup not very long ago.

Given the powerfulness of the kernel to tackle complicated tasks, but usually is best fitted for single-mission services.

WTF?

What do you mean by a "complicated task"? And what do you mean by "single-mission services"?

Compared with a mature GUI model

X was released in 1984. Nineteen eighty-fucking-four. If you are less than 25 years old, Linux's GUI system is more mature than you.

with a tight integration with the kernel

Why is this a good thing?

Performance? Depending on the drivers, Linux has frequently beat Windows at raw 3D performance for awhile now.

Other than that, what is the point? Why would I want all that GUI crap in my kernel? Seems like even Microsoft has started to figure out that this is a Bad Idea, and newer versions of Windows are splitting more and more drivers away from the kernel -- the next version of Windows Server should be able to boot without a GUI.

a highly sophisticated, and highly extensible threading model

What does that even mean?

Linux has threads. Linux also has lightweight fork()s. Linux can spawn new, whole processes faster than Windows or OS X -- or any other OS I know of.

as well as other modular subsystems

I'm sorry, "tight integration with the kernel" is the opposite of modular. Tight integration is the opposite of modularity, full stop.

I wouldn't even dare hosting a critical web service on Windows, regardless of version.

Many people do, now. Windows is now a viable server platform. There are still many good reasons for preferring Linux, or any Unix, but to say you wouldn't "dare" suggests that you see some security risk that just isn't relevant anymore -- Windows can be locked down as tightly as any Linux, and the more dangerous vulnerabilities are usually in the application, now.

Let me ask you this: When was the last time Microsoft.com was 0wned?

Re:no surprise

[FireXtol]

Yea, I don't communicate very well, I'm at work and have limited time to reply. Sure there's basic POSIX... and it defines how an OS should work at certain levels... not really a standard for GUI(afaik) unless you consider the command line a GUI.

Who wants to use a shell when using a desktop? Not many (fully acknowledges the perhaps 10% of people who still love an intelligent prompt over a intelligent GUI).

You think the internet boom would of been such a big pop if people weren't so backed by cheap hosting provided by Linux-power? Sure, UNIX has always been a choice, and still is, but I also can't help but think there wouldn't be so much crap out there without something similar to Linux(FLOSS), if it did not exist.

Complicated tasks.... Lets see.... Maya on Linux! I love 3D movies. Huge cluster farms... Google..! Audio mixing.... Whatever you want.

But that's what these are, single-mission set-ups! There's a service to be provided, a task to be performed, and it can do this great.

Not general purpose, do everything, run a bunch of crap that this guy who knows nothing about what a command prompt is, does'nt know what
print "Hello world" does in basic... and barely feels confident about clicking all those 'Next' buttons when installing an app.

That guy is what Desktop PCs are made for. Most end-users do not have a single mission or purpose. They are not requiring a specialized set-up. Be it CAD, audio recording, web serving, etc. Linux lets you do a single-task very efficiently. More so than any other OS, atleast for the price (to my knowledge). Windows was coded from the ground-up for multitasking business work, and this works very well for general usage. Take the continued evolution of Windows... with this almost always the mantra of the OS (til XP? Which is Windows for dummies.)

I didn't mean to convey GUI-code is inside the Windows kernel (I don't know). Simply that Windows integrates the modular NT structure very seamlessly, resulting in the product called Windows. Sorry for confusion.

Sure a server booting without a GUI would be great. A DESKTOP OS doing this? I think it's a bad idea. No there's need... nor desire. Atleast not without an option. (where's the desktop???)

Windows, to my knowledge, has the most advanced threading model for a desktop multi-threading/tasking OS (no, I'm not going to explain why, Google it, there are better references out there).

I use Windows XP and 2K... I get enough patches for (paraphrasing) "Microsoft has discovered a vunerability in that may allow a remote attacker to take complete control of a Microsoft Windows-based system"

And those are just the ones it has figured out!

I love the end of the day! Time to go home.

Re:no surprise

[FireXtol]

Ok, Mr. Insightful, heh (no personal offense intended!)

Well now. We have specialized linux distros, made simple enough to be used by the typical user, or even a new user. This is great. But it leaves the user at the mercy of what might as well be a proprietary OS (only less stable, reliable, etc?)! So they CAN modify the source... 90% atleast will never even comprehend C syntax ever.

Writing in C reminds me of typing out a long bash script. At that level of complexity... mastery takes a long while. Especially because both are fairly strict.
This results in an end-user only using what is easily provided.

Ok... anyway...

When Linux gets wide-spread telephone support, extensive driver support(yes, it's always getting better... even Vista may be toppled... but otherwise Windows supports the most consumer-used hardware).

I have three parts in my PC that I'd be atleast somewhat shocked to see Linux run without any hassles: 5 Port USB PCI Card, a Universal Controller Adapter (PS2/XBOX/GC to USB plus 2 USBs), and my Sansa MP3 player software config/control via USB. Well? Inform me!!!

Re:no surprise

[domatic]

Unless the first two use ultra strange chipsets they should be handled by standard OHCI/UHCI/ECHI drivers and USB HID drivers. I've had four port USB PCI cards work with no hassles whatsover. As for your player I couldn't tell you although I have used iPods, music players that mount as USB storage devices, and one of those oddball Creative players that insist on WMP9 to update the firmware with Linux. Admittedly, I didn't update that firmware with Linux but then downgrading from WMP11 to WMP9 just to admin a player wasn't exactly the height of user friendly.

I wouldn't buy a player that requires some weirdo Windows only software to work but then that is just me. My experience with 5 or 6 random MP3 players in the past couple of years leads me to believe that I could at least move music on and and off the player with Linux which is all I really care about. I'd expect to be able to fully control everything else on the player itself.

Re:no surprise

[SanityInAnarchy]

not really a standard for GUI

Which is where X comes in.

Who wants to use a shell when using a desktop?

I fully admit to being in the minority who enjoys it. But I do think it's useful to know, because then you get to do shell scripts. GUIs are not really scriptable.

You think the internet boom would of been such a big pop if people weren't so backed by cheap hosting provided by Linux-power?

There are many things that contributed to the Internet being a big deal. Linux is only part of it. (And if it wasn't Linux, it would have been BSD...)

But I would say that it would have been about as big, anyway. There was an insane amount of money coming from venture cap firms, etc -- everyone had a dotcom, and they all had Underpants Gnomes business models. Cheap Linux may have accelerated it, but requiring expensive Windows (or Solaris) really just means more money.

But that's what these are, single-mission set-ups! There's a service to be provided, a task to be performed, and it can do this great.

Yes. So can most OSes now -- we're past the memory leak, bluescreen every five hours BS.

Not general purpose, do everything, run a bunch of crap that this guy who knows nothing about what a command prompt is...

Which has nothing to do with running more than one task, and doing it well. I think you've got multitasking and user-friendliness confused, and I have no idea how you got them confused.

Trivial example: Xen virtualization. Amazon EC2 does this now, as does Slicehost. It means that a single physical Linux machine may be running some 30 virtual machines, each of which, if its admin is particularly unimaginative, is only doing one thing.

And for that matter, Amazon EC2 is establishing itself as a general-purpose, do-anything, CPU-on-demand solution.

and barely feels confident about clicking all those 'Next' buttons when installing an app.

That should be a point for Linux, not against it. True, some apps are going to require manual installs that are far worse than anything Windows has...

And others are going to be packages, which can be installed in a few clicks from the package manager, or a very simple command on the command-line. No "next" buttons in sight. It may be more complex, the first time -- but so was a next-next-next wizard, until users figured out they could ignore everything and just keep hitting next until it was done. And once the user knows it, they can confidently install or uninstall anything in the repository.

Most end-users do not have a single mission or purpose.

Again: Neither do all Linux servers.

Windows was coded from the ground-up for multitasking business work...

Windows wasn't even coded from the ground up; large chunks of it were stolen from Apple, originally.

And it's also not entirely accurate -- it took long enough for businesspeople to quite grasp the concept of multitasking on Windows.

I didn't mean to convey GUI-code is inside the Windows kernel (I don't know). Simply that Windows integrates the modular NT structure very seamlessly, resulting in the product called Windows.

Funny you should say that. I find that Kubuntu/KDE integrates a ton of projects, made by completely different people, fairly seamlessly, into one product.

It's also not why people use Windows. Ironically, desktop users continue to use Windows largely because of third-party software, which is not necessarily integrated very well. Linux may not be as "tightly integrated", whatever the hell that means (I think you mean consistent, navigateable GUIs), but the things it does integrate, it integrates pretty much as if they were third-parties.

Trivial example: Anyone can create a Debian

Re:no surprise

[Burz]

As someone who has been using it for nine years, I would say that X11 is old and immature. We are talking about a GUI subsystem that can't even fall back to a safe res/refresh when something goes wrong. Its config tools are terrible, often producing erroneous or unworkable conf file; None of the FOSS X11 projects like Xfree or Xorg ever took ownership of the configuration usability issue.

And then there is the putrid audio architecture: I still have audio apps unintentionally blocking each other on my 'modern' distro. So I can't count on hearing my calendar alarms, or phone ringing, and too often I have to hunt through a process list to find a 'blocker' before I can make a quick call (which is no longer quick). NEVER have I had this problem on an NT-class Windows system or a Mac.

Once you've gotten that bad at audio AND visual, then you're pretty much hostile to the end-user. Not focusing on these areas is sheer absurdity, and I guarantee that the Linux Foundation gives a rats a$$. They aren't absurd for turning their back on desktop users; they're absurd for not telling desktop users to STAY AWAY.

Re:no surprise

[FireXtol]

I had to stop reading.... You bore me. But I'll respond a little for grins.

Windows 2000 is my favorite OS. I've used Advanced Server(AS), with all the server components stripped. I found this ~$1700 version of Windows in a Sony CD-ROM drive I purchased, used, for $20. They key was, of course, on the disc.

My last installation of Windows 2000 AS lasted 5 stable, and efficient years (I fucked it up, BTW). I recently downgraded to XP due to drivers...(you're fucking stupid if you think this doesn't matter) but I think I'll be going back anyway, or atleast dual-boot. Plan to customize an install with nLite and then image the disc after I set everything up right.

Yup, that's it. Go show someone else how far your head goes up your ass. I'm not impressed.

Re:no surprise

[SanityInAnarchy]

We are talking about a GUI subsystem that can't even fall back to a safe res/refresh when something goes wrong.

Except, apparently Ubuntu Hardy does exactly that.

Its config tools are terrible

You mean xf86config? Those are almost never done directly, and the vast majority of systems boot to a working GUI off the livecd. If a livecd can boot properly, there must be a tool somewhere that's generating a workable conf file, right?

And then there is the putrid audio architecture

I quite like it, actually, but then, I suffered through OSS.

I don't know if ALSA defaults to falling back to software mixing when it runs out of channels. I'm fairly sure it can. But I know I was grateful both to have a sound server (back when I switched from Windows 98, where I could play sound out of exactly one program at once), and then later, I was grateful to not need a sound server (back when doing the mixing in hardware was a significant speed boost).

Actually, a quick Google search confirms it: you can get software mixing in ALSA. I suspect that this will eventually become the default -- and according to this page, it already is, at least for some builds of ALSA. Do you have this problem on Hardy? (A fresh install, so it can properly autodetect?) The thing was less than two weeks from release when you posted, so it would have been fair to test...

Once you've gotten that bad at audio AND visual, then you're pretty much hostile to the end-user. Not focusing on these areas is sheer absurdity

Which is why they are focusing on them, I would think. Hardy apparently has some things to make X easier.

That was why it was founded!

[Per Abrahamsen]

The Open Source Development Labs was formed by "big iron" vendors to cooperate on the development Linux for of enterprise computing, so I don't find it surprising that is where their focus is. OSDL later merged with the Free Standards Group to form the the Linux Foundation, but OSDL was the larger part of the merge.

I don't find that more noteworthy, than freedesktop.org focusing on the desktop. Different organization have different focus.

Re:That was why it was founded!

[Yath]

Seriously, I don't see a problem with this. As long as they aren't inhibiting desktop development, what's there to complain about? We happen to have a bunch of self-interested parties doing things that are in their interest. Not much of a story.

Re:That was why it was founded!

[Daengbo]

Thank you!!! This was my first thought when I read the summary. Linux is a kernel, for god's sake. Let them worry about drivers and filesystems and other low-level stuff. FD.o is where all the action is. Standard menu categories. Standard notification interfaces. Heck, a recent post on the FD.o mailing list even had a new proposal for an API to configuration information spanning Linux, BSD, Apple, and Windows.

Focus on strength!

[quarrel]

I don't really see this as a major problem.

MSFT 'attacks' other pieces of the market because of its near monopoly on the desktop and in Office apps. Linux can do the same.

Why shouldn't the Linux Foundation focus on Linux's strengths and continue to shore up that area, particularly if the people with the money have those priorities? If Linux is the major player in several segments then it can leverage that strength to gain others.

Linux on the desktop isn't going to become a winner because a technical committee somewhere listed its strengths or weaknesses. It'll take a nimble, energetic core of developers to drive and make decisions that are innovative and exciting to users. Always playing catchup is probably not the way to go.

Meanwhile, if Linux dominates at the Big Iron/Appliance/Server areas, then it will become easier for the desktop driven folks to achieve their goals. This is particularly so in a world where the buzz words are virtualisation, "in-the-cloud" etc, that remove many applications from directly being on the desktop, as application adoption and readiness for the desktop is one of the high barriers to Linux becoming a force on the desktop.

--Q

Re:Focus on strength!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

MSFT 'attacks' other pieces of the market because of its near monopoly on the desktop and in Office apps. Linux can do the same.

MS has been gaining market share in the server space by intentionally making it as hard as possible for Linux servers to interoperate with Windows desktops. They can do this, because they control the desktop space. Linux does not monopolize any market and even if it did, there are numerous Linux distributions so breaking compatibility would have to somehow incorporate a change into all the distros is such a way that MS did not have access to the same information. Basically, because Linux is open source and different distros interoperate via open standards, Linux can never leverage their influence in one market to give it the same type of advantage in a new market (as MS has done repeatedly to take over new markets).

Linux is the major player in several segments then it can leverage that strength to gain others.

Linux cannot "leverage" their strength in the same way MS leverages their monopoly power. At best, Linux will always be fighting on a level playing field in some markets and in one skewed against them in others.

In a different way, however, Linux can leverage their main advantages into the desktop that have kept them alive on the server. Development costs are shared and overall costs are less. This means Linux can undercut the price of MS's other markets. In fact, if antitrust laws were enforced effectively Linux would probably slowly gain ground in most markets until it had significant share, then grow very rapidly. The main disadvantage from a business perspective is Linux will never allow any given company to extract as much money as MS does. Still, in a fair market, companies will settle for a share of a smaller pie, than no share at all.

It'll take a nimble, energetic core of developers to drive and make decisions that are innovative and exciting to users. "Nimble" is not really Linux's strength. There is no one person to make decisions that will extend to all Linux desktops. Revolutionary changes are very hard because so many people have to get onboard and incompatibility with other distros is a huge negative. Really, it will probably take a serious investor willing to make such choices and break compatibility with other Linux distros to really bring it into the desktop space effectively.

Always playing catchup is probably not the way to go.

I think this mischaracterizes Linux. It is not always playing catchup, even in the desktop space. There are numerous areas where Linux is the best desktop offering. This is certainly not all of them, but the poster child OS X, which has been gaining install base, has certainly copied a lot from Linux.

Meanwhile, if Linux dominates at the Big Iron/Appliance/Server areas, then it will become easier for the desktop driven folks to achieve their goals.

This is very true, in that it gives MS one less near monopoly to leverage and it provides for more cross-pollination.

This is particularly so in a world where the buzz words are virtualisation, "in-the-cloud" etc, that remove many applications from directly being on the desktop, as application adoption and readiness for the desktop is one of the high barriers to Linux becoming a force on the desktop.

I don't have a lot of confidence in this... not because the benefits are not real, but because MS's intentional crippling of the Web via their control of IE keeps these solutions second class. Web developers have been excellent at hacking partially implemented 8 year old Web standards to do new and better things, but in the end they are still partially implemented 8 year old technologies and will always be crufty.

Lack of Desktop Focus?!

[BacOs]

I was at the Collaboration Summit and am surprised by the comment of "Lack of attention to desktop Linux." According to the agenda, there was a Desktop Panel on day 1, and all day Desktop Workgroup meetings on days 2 and 3. That doesn't seem like a lack of attention to desktop Linux to me. I attended the Desktop Panel and part of the Desktop Workgroup meeting and they seemed like attention to desktop Linux rather than a lack thereof.

Re:Lack of Desktop Focus?!

[initdeep]

Stop trying to make the writer look like an idiot.
That's his job to do to others.

Haven't you understood that "Journalism" isn't abou the facts.
It's about what the "Journalist" wants it to be instead.

Sheesh.

Re:Lack of Desktop Focus?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to make the writer look like an idiot.

He can't make the writer look like an idiot. God beat him to it.

well...

[abolitiontheory]

no one wants to play with small iron.

*Everyone* is ignoring the "desktop" market

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the whole computer industry (Microsoft, particularly) is ignoring the desktop market (i.e. individual users and developers).

The money and attention is on business-oriented software.

The only significant user-oriented market left is the gaming industry.

Still, niche markets abound and opportunities still lurk.

jkeelsnc

[Anonymous Coward]

I love ubuntu and in fact I kicked Microsoft to the curb recently. However, it is attitudes like this that has kept Linux from being adopted en masse on the desktop. Someone needs to be put over someone's knee and have their behind spanked for acting like a child. I am technical and love digging into the internal aspects of Linux. However, being elitist and arrogant does nothing to help Linux gain traction in the desktop world. Maybe we SHOULD give that idea up if we are going to act like this.

Re:jkeelsnc

[PenGun]

Get a grip. I'm big and strong you will not be happy if you try your knee thing. We don't need no stinkin' masses and if you can't do your own thing go back to the sludge head world and get Steve and Bill to wipe your ass.

  Have a nice day ;).

Re:jkeelsnc

[NDPTAL85]

Ohhh you're such an independent rebel..... .... just like all the other identical independent rebels!

Re:jkeelsnc

[PenGun]

The Night.

only a matter of time

[ILuvRamen]

With Vista out there and God only known what Microsoft has planned for windows 7 and their subscription bullshit, desktop linux is about to get really popular really fast. So I wouldn't worry too much about people forgetting about it and focusing on businesses. Plus if people use Linux at work, even if it's on a server, they're going to come home and want to use it too since it's free and they're familiar with it. Kinda like with Macs in schools except Linux doesn't freeze up and crash every 5 minutes like Mac OS 7 and 8 did when I was in school so people will actually come home and want to use it :P

Re:only a matter of time

[InsaneProcessor]

Not until someone actually makes it work for the mainstream. Grandma cannot go to the store and purchase her greeting card software, put in the CD and install it with one or two clicks on [OK]. Until someone makes it a whole lot closer to "plug and play" (like the windows), it isn't going to happen. It is still to complicated for the average non-programming user. Some will like it, yes. Most cannot use it. It is unfamiliar.

I can buy a toaster or a even a TV from different companies, hook it up and turn it on without even looking at a user's manual. Linux isn't even remotely close to easy enough yet. It has to come a long, long way.

Re:only a matter of time

[ShieldW0lf]

Ubuntu is easier to use than Windows, not less. It's also easier to install. You can install all that crapware that grandma likes through Synaptic without having to spend a dime.

Re:only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this seems to be a popular comment around here. Microsoft is digging their own grave, they suck so badly, people are going to start ditching microsoft for linux. Every year for the past like 5 years has been the year of the linux desktop. And yet...here we are, 2008 and microsoft is still dominant. Linux needs to do more than be just the OS to go to once you've had is with MS. There needs to be pull from linux, as well as this push away from Microsoft, if Linux is actually serious about desktop.

I mean, the fact is that most people think of linux as a server product still, if they have even hear of it at all. The perception still is that linux is hard to use, that there's a steep learning curve. It will likely take some time and some significant ease-of-use improvements before people will consider Linux as a main OS. It will probably also require a change in attitude too. Telling a potential user how much they suck because they chose MS and simultaneously telling them how leet you are because you use linux really does give the impression that perhaps linux is not a good choice since they obviously know so little about computers.

Re:only a matter of time

[nicklott]

With Vista out there ... desktop linux is about to get really popular really fast

They said that a year ago and it didn't happen.

I'm no MS apologist, but I think you should actually try using Vista before making statements like that. Despite what you might read on slashdot, there is nothing fundamentally broken in it and most "average" users find it a step up from XP. Frankly I've had less trouble with Vista than I've had with Ubunutu on the same machine.

Plus if people use Linux at work, even if it's on a server, they're going to come home and want to use it too since it's free and they're familiar with it.

I don't really understand how using it on a server makes you familiar with an OS? To most people the "server" is that folder with funny icon on it, or, for the more technical, where their web pages come from.

I run CentOS or RHEL on all my public servers and would never dream of using anything else, but I ain't about to get all my staff to install ubuntu; for one they couldn't get the software to do their jobs. I still think that if linux wants to make headway on the desktop someone needs to come up with a distro to go after the gaming market. That's the only demograph that hardware manufacturers really pay attention to and what is cutting edge now will be standard in 12 months. Unfortunately you can't even get recent games that run on linux yet, so it's no wonder the hardware guys are a bit behind.

Re:only a matter of time

[masdog]

Yeah...but can Grandma understand how to install all that crapware that Grandma likes when you try to explain Synaptic to her? Or will she understand that her old greeting card software and favorite card game will not work?

Re:only a matter of time

[IceDiver]

I'm no MS apologist, but I think you should actually try using Vista before making statements like that. Despite what you might read on slashdot, there is nothing fundamentally broken in it and most "average" users find it a step up from XP.

I don't know about the other guy, but I have used Vista, and have worked with other Vista users, who are generally unhappy with it. In my experience, it IS fundamentally broken: Driver problems (and not just one company's drivers, either), software compatibility problems, user confusion about interface changes, excessive hardware requirements, stability problems, networking problems, sound problems, and more.

Yes, some people have had no problems with Vista, but of those I have worked with, most have had several problems. About half of them went back to XP.

Re:only a matter of time

[initdeep]

i call BS

I run Vista on three homebuilt machines, four freshly installed older Dell machines, and Fedora on three other machines. (9 Beta on two).
These are used by myself, and others without regard for buying certain components out of the box.

Vista, other than UAC being annoying for the first two or three days while you reconfigure everything, has been no problem at all.
Getting drivers (for 64bit versions) has been no problem at all, running software (including a copy of MS Money 95) has been no problem at all other than downloading a few patches for certain games.

it seems to me, that the person you replied too is more likely the one to listen too.

Re:only a matter of time

[ShieldW0lf]

It's a giant library where you browse a vast list of free programs and install them with a click. She understands it a hell of a lot easier than running D:/setup.exe.

Face it. Microsoft are dead. Move on.

Fork, or perhaps not-fork?

[Millennium]

Lots of projects exist that extend and/or fork the Linux kernel for specific needs. We have SELinux for heightened security, RTLinux for realtime processing, uCLinux for embedded machines, and so forth. These forks, if they can be properly called that, seem to get on more or less harmoniously with the core Linux kernel group.

Perhaps it is time for a "DeskLinux" project along similar lines, specifically to cater to the needs of desktop users. This would allow the core Linux kernel to keep its ostensible neutrality toward what systems it runs on, while still letting those who favor desktops to resolve what many people see as some very real issues. It even opens the way for a "BigLinux" later on, to bring enhancements specific to big iron that do not need to be in the core.

Re:Fork, or perhaps not-fork?

[nawcom]

I sortof agree with you. One thing I don't like about the current stats of linux is what runs off of x.org. as you know, x.org is for all unix operating systems that it can be compiled for, so the same ubuntu themed desktop can run just fine on freebsd, by building from source.

These days people are arguing over what distro is better because it uses kde or gnome or uses an easy frontend for this or that. I think it's dumb.

maybe i'm just some old classic copylefter, but people seem to forget about the gnu part of linux distributions. these days it's "with distro is better". People assume I have linux on my laptop, but i have to take time and show them that i'm running fluxbox on openbsd, not linux.

well what does this have to do with the parent? i guess i'm saying that somehow directly linking the desktop to linux might help out and show people that even if they are using their special distribution for themselves, that no matter what it all comes down to the fact that they are running linux.

on a side note, i don't think linux will "make it" until hardware providers really start helping out with giving source code for driver development. also, no matter how easy of a distribution you have, some people have to pull up the terminal at one point to fix a problem. this scares people away. many many many windows users have never run cmd.exe and will call up some tech support guy if they do have to run some command line apps. when it comes to linux, i am a slackware user, so that sorta shows im a friend of building from source, and doing command line work. I just hope we can fix this link that seems to be breaking apart with linux users, and the state of mind of seeing linux as a desktop os.

Re:Fork, or perhaps not-fork?

[Hatta]

Why fork? In fact, why does the kernel team itself need to care about the desktop at all? As far as I can tell, the kernel supports all the features needed to have a linux desktop. What's missing are the user level apps that make a desktop nice for users.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. What modifications to the kernel do you think are necessary to run a desktop on linux?

Re:Fork, or perhaps not-fork?

[Millennium]

As I understand the controversy, the major problem some people seem to have is with the task scheduler. Certain types of scheduling are better suited for certain types of tasks than others, and according to one side of the debate, the current scheduler is optimized toward big iron (batch jobs) at the expense of the desktop (interactive tasks).

Re:Fork, or perhaps not-fork?

[Fri13]

"maybe i'm just some old classic copylefter, but people seem to forget about the gnu part of linux distributions. these days it's "with distro is better". People assume I have linux on my laptop, but i have to take time and show them that i'm running fluxbox on openbsd, not linux."

People really seems forget GNU. There are plenty of Ubuntu users who promote Ubuntu as different OS than any other GNU/Linux ("Linux") distribution.

Many thinks that the whole package (kernel, applications, support, brand etc) is OS, what they get when they install Ubuntu.
For them it's very hard to understand that KDE or GNOME isn't part of GNU/Linux OS (Even that GNOME is part of GNU project), but running desktop enviroments (applications) top of it. And those DE can be run top of the different OS, like just a *BSD or a Solaris. Normal user just see the GNOME or KDE as OS, but never the OS under them. And even that OS would change, they still might think that user is running Linux (GNU/Linux) or Ubuntu.

I'm bretty tired for Ubuntu fans, because they brake so much whole FOSS community, because when they change from Windows to GNU/Linux (Ubuntu) and starts speaking that same market B**S*** about Ubuntu what isn't working on this side, as it worked on MS world.

I think that there should be somekind good explanations for normal users that what is Linux, What is GNU and what is GNU/Linux and how KDE/GNOME can be used top of different OS's.
No, there currently dosn't seem to be any and info what is needed is scattered around internet for these projects.

So What?

[Doc Ruby]

So what? All that means is that a better name for the foundation would be the "Linux Server Foundation". It's not their obligation to care about Desktop Linux, if it's not in their business interest to do so.

By the same token, they don't "own Linux". When there are people who care enough to improve Desktop Linux, they'll do it (as many are). That's how Linux works: it's Open Source not just to read, but to write with your patches. When those people make money off Desktop Linux, and form a "foundation", maybe they'll have the sense of proportion to call it the "Linux Desktop Foundation". There's already plenty of orgs with those interests. So what if "the" Linux Foundation isn't one of them? And who's got the right to tell them they should be?

I figure it's because it's getting enough work..

[NekoXP]

With Ubuntu and SuSE and KDE and GNOME releases going on at a pace, Intel dealing with desktop/laptop powermanagement, wireless and so on drivers being the hot topic in the kernel, why does the Linux Foundation need to bother with organising more development on the desktop?

On the other hand, servers are getting fancier every day. Infiniband, 10Gbit/100Gbit ethernet, clustering are all real important to get a hold on or Linux is going to be left behind in favour of something else. If you want to run a datacenter, are you going to wait 12 months to use the latest and best technology for your needs, while some hobbyist hacker reverse engineers the Windows implementation for OpenBSD and then someone slaps a GPL license on it and ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE?

This story is factually incorrect

[br1an.warner]

While I respect Joe, he unfortunately missed the fact that on the other two days that he _wasn't_ at the conference, there were all-day desktop Linux meetings.

The focus was split pretty evenly between the desktop and the server - although journalists were only invited to the first day and that session was, admittedly, weighted towards the server. However, the two all-day desktop meetings and many of the other sessions (Printing in Linux, virtualization, energy efficiency) involved significant Desktop content. I'm not sure that his claim can be substantiated.

From the conference agenda:

Wednesday, 9-5: Desktop Linux Architects Meeting

• State of the Linux Desktop - Linux Distros
• OEM vendor round table: what they need to have a successful Linux desktop
• Building a Desktop Environment Ecosystem - Gnome / KDE
• Linux Desktop Implementation Case Studies

Thursday, 9-4:30: Desktop Linux Architects Meeting

• Virtualization on the Desktop
• State of X
• OpenPrinting Joint Session
• Creating Portable Linux Applications, Joint Session with the LSB Workgroup
• Desktop kernel requirements
• Desktop project Lightening Talks

Re:This story is factually incorrect

[fdisk3hs]

Hmm. "While I respect Joe, "...

Have you read Joe? I won't start a personal attack or anything, but I've long since stopped reading his articles. I can't decide if he has trouble verbalizing things he knows, or if he just doesn't know them.

Re:This story is factually incorrect

[yuna49]

So there were sessions about the desktop, but they were closed to the media? I fail to see what purpose that served. Looking at the titles of those sessions, it's hard to see what might make them so secret. Weren't they largely slide presentations and a lot of chatter? It's hard to imagine someone letting slip some trade secret in a room full of competitors.

People at the Linux Foundation should know that holding closed-door meetings won't be well received by a substantial fraction of the Linux userbase.

Re:This story is factually incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

The second. I can't read his articles either because they're always either insipid and useless, or he's whining (like now).

The little guys care about the desktop

[mathimus1863]

It's the little guys that care about the desktop, and they're the ones who improve it for free. Obviously it would be nice to see big names like IBM supporting linux desktop development, but their business is in "big iron," and there's plenty of nerds sitting in their basement saying "I wish this or that was better.... wait, I can do it myself!"

Netcraft confirms it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux on the desktop is dead before it was born.

Re:Netcraft confirms it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we agreed that life doesn't begin until you are born; thus, Linux on the Desktop never existed in the first place. Or maybe somebody just aborted it.

Not Likely

[JeremyGNJ]

There's a breaking point when it comes to adoption of both Linux and MacOS (though Mac has more potential)

Linux will slowly bring over the technical crowd, though most of the ones who are going to switch already have. You just have some niches left and the "less technical techies" who will still convert.

MacOS has made great strides in woo'ing the "stylish elite", and the "wealthy cool kids"....but they still lack a wide selection of applications, and the price-point that would convert the "average web surfer".

Re:Not Likely

[Builder]

They lack a wide selection of applications? Care to justify that?

I can run almost anything that I can on Linux on OS X, but there is a lot from OS X that I _can't_ run on Linux.

Re:Not Likely

[cp.tar]

MacOS has made great strides in woo'ing the "stylish elite", and the "wealthy cool kids"....but they still lack a wide selection of applications, and the price-point that would convert the "average web surfer".

The Mac is not so successful on the desktop, but is making great strides in the laptop market.
Apple isn't offering anything in the low price range, though; that would probably help them even more, though lately I've met quite a few people willing to save up to buy a Mac. Besides, in the upper middle class of laptops, Macs are quite comparable in price to equivalent PC laptops. They're just prettier, more polished, and come with a better OS and less crapware installed.

Re:Not Likely

[ajs]

There's a breaking point when it comes to adoption of both Linux and MacOS (though Mac has more potential) No, no there isn't. There, that was as easy to say as the reverse. Let's look at your points in more detail and see why you think that:

Linux will slowly bring over the technical crowd, That was last decade's news. The news today is that an increasingly large number of younger folks are finding that their friends are using "the latest thing" under Linux, and there's a certain chic in using it. Ubuntu and the various "social apps" have really pushed this envelope.

The next wave has begun, and that's the push to create highly market-specific Linux desktop offerings. You've already seen this in the "just mail, IM and Web" boxes that have been sold recently by large corporations. There are already offerings in the digital film-making arena, and then there's the mobile world which you may or may not conflate with the desktop world, depending on how you see things merging or not.

MacOS has made great strides in woo'ing the "stylish elite", and the "wealthy cool kids". More and more, the people I see using Mac laptops are the young and upwardly mobile that fall pretty much smack in the middle of the demographic space. They're not wealthy, but they've had their first taste of financial success. This is where Mac laptop purchasing has been exploding, at least in the social circles I've been observing.

but they still lack a wide selection of applications EH?! You haven't used a Linux or MacOS system recently have you? It's not the selection that limits their adoption. There's a gigantic selection, and in some domains (e.g. digital media for Mac) the selection is broader than other platforms. The limiting factor is and always has been Microsoft's proprietary application suite. If you've ever tried to get Office for Mac to read a file from Office for Windows and been thwarted, you know exactly how Microsoft keeps their market share.

People don't want "selection," they want the apps that "everyone else uses."

the price-point that would convert the "average web surfer". No one avoids Linux for the price-point. There are $200, fairly nice boxes at your local WalMart running Linux.

Macs are more expensive, but they have a brand loyalty that's hard to contend with.

Re:Not Likely

[JeremyGNJ]

I'm not talking about the standard Word/Excel/PhotoShop/Multimedia apps.

I'm talking about things that promote product adoption such as.....accounting suites, scientific apps, games, collaboration tools (mature ones), and even niche programs.

Re:Not Likely

[CajunArson]

I can run almost anything that I can on Linux on OS X, but there is a lot from OS X that I _can't_ run on Linux.

Now I know that Mac fans look down on Windows, but it's rare to see them ignoring it completely as if it doesn't exist. The RDF isn't as much fun if there isn't something to look down on in contempt is there?

Re:Not Likely

[LWATCDR]

I would have to say that doesn't fit with your first post.
"MacOS has made great strides in woo'ing the "stylish elite", and the "wealthy cool kids"....but they still lack a wide selection of applications, and the price-point that would convert the "average web surfer".
The average websurfer doesn't care about scientific apps, collaboration tools or too many niche programs.
As far as accounting goes for the average user Mac does have Quicken. That is what most average people use. Also the mac includes a nice set of software that fills the needs of the average user.
Most average users I know use a browser and maybe an email program, Quicken, TurboTax, some photo software, and ITunes. They may use Office.
Games is the only big thing I see missing for the "average home user" but I have to admit that a lot of average home users just don't play games on there PCs all that much. Most PC games are just too complex for the average user.
BTW I am a Windows and Linux user. I can go Mac or all Linux at home because I love to play FS2004 and FSX.

Re:Not Likely

[Murrquan]

I think Linux is the OS that'll convert the "average web surfer."

We think of it as catering to the technical crowd, but that's only because techies are most likely to install a whole new OS. Once it's installed, Linux is incredibly easy and hassle-free to use, and I say this as one who first tried it less than a year ago.

So. Low price point, wide selection of applications, AND catering to the average web surfer. Or MySpace user. I think Linux just might have that covered (for better or worse).

Re:Not Likely

[Apagador-Man]

Call me an ungrateful bastard, if you will, using other's people hard work and whining.

I work as software developer/analyst and would love to spit in microsoft's face by using linux for every darned thing that I do.

However, I don't. Why? I Don't give a rat's ass about the reasons, or who is to blame (CERTAINLY not everyday user who just wants...things to work).

Until games start working NATIVELY on linux (don't give me that emulation crap) and WIRELESS support is up to par with windows, I won't touch the thing. And I know lots of other people with the same mindset.

Face it... market forces don't give a damn about linux fanatics' idealism or wet dreams. And despite its' crappiness, for me Windows... just works. I am not some retard that will open every damned single email item without a thought, and don't run freaky crap without double checking it first. You say Linux does not have those problems... alright, and I and most people out there say it is a small price to pay for having things work on our systems and won't touch your pet OS in a serious fashion until the industry shapes it up ina away that is satisfying for most people.

That said, keep on the good work... who knows?

Re:Not Likely

[jp10558]

Until games start working NATIVELY on linux (don't give me that emulation crap) and WIRELESS support is up to par with windows, I won't touch the thing. And I know lots of other people with the same mindset.

See, the problem isn't games working on linux, it's games working on *computers*. Have you been in a GameStop recently? 90% of the store is console games, consoles, and accessories. Gaming on the PC seems to be about dead save for MMOs, and I think that's going to work ok on XBox 360 or PS3. I'm frankly tired of trying to get games to work on *Windows*. I think the majority of the market is tired of gaming on the PC with all the problems that entails. Want to game, use a console. That really *just works*, and is much cheaper to boot (only have to upgrade every 5 years or so, game install is poping in the disk and hitting start).

I really think this is going to hurt Windows quite a bit, the continued massive move to gaming on consoles, because that's a really hard problem that's just gone away for Linux or MacOS...

As to wireless support, I have to admit, my only experiance with Wireless and Linux is on the EeePC, where it just works - and actually works the same as in Windows XP... You click on the tasktray icon, select a network and say connect ... That's it. On Mac Laptops, it's the same, you run the little configurator from the menu, and select a network...

Re:Not Likely

[drinkypoo]

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I want a MBP simply because it is the ONLY laptop I can find which does not feature ATROCIOUSLY STUPID AND UGLY DESIGN. I have a compaq nw9440 which is quite similar to the first-gen MBP except uglier, bulkier, and with Quadro graphics. If the MBP had come with nvidia graphics back then, I'd have one of those instead, and I'd be running Linux on it. My NEXT high-end laptop purchase is intended to be a quad-core MBP 17" (while my lady is planning on the 15" quad-core MBP.) They'll go quad eventually, and that's what I want.

Flamebait is Missing The Point

[mpapet]

1. The computer desktop is not a major source of revenue for anyone. Don't whip out Microsoft on me here because their desktop business is through resellers like DELL and HP. Their retail product is costly as hell compared to a reseller like HP or Dell. Compare Vista sales through Dell versus how many retail licenses were purchased at Worst Buy.

2. Backend/Big Iron is where the most dollar opportunity are with Linux.

3. The desktop problems are much more difficult to solve and the payoff in dollars is worth maybe a nice dinner.

There are *still* new and interesting things happening on the server side in storage, virtual machines, memory, you name it. Desktops? Not so much. What's the last legitimately different desktop environment you, or anyone else has tried?

Re:Flamebait is Missing The Point

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The computer desktop is not a major source of revenue for anyone. Don't whip out Microsoft on me here because their desktop business is through resellers like DELL and HP. Their retail product is costly as hell compared to a reseller like HP or Dell. Compare Vista sales through Dell versus how many retail licenses were purchased at Worst Buy.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. What does it matter who MS sells their desktop OS to? They make a buttload selling it to OEMs for pre-install. While they don't make much selling it at boxed at Best Buy, they do brisk trade selling site licenses to enterprise business and government organizations. All of that is money spent that could be going to someone else or be saved by the OEMs and big site license customers.

2. Backend/Big Iron is where the most dollar opportunity are with Linux.

Currently Linux developers do make money selling servers and using Linux to facilitate the sale. That, however, is not the only way people are making money by a long shot. Linux for appliances is used to sell everything from cell phones to industrial robots. Support and services for Linux deployments, both on the server and desktop, also pull in some big bucks. It makes IBM more cash than their server hardware business.

3. The desktop problems are much more difficult to solve and the payoff in dollars is worth maybe a nice dinner.

There certainly are some hard tasks to making a good consumer desktop, but a lot of those have more to do with MS's monopoly influence on the market (and intentional breaking of compatibility) than making a good desktop being a lot harder than making a good server. There is momentum to overcome, since there is lot more experience using Linux as a server and there is the question of what happens when some fundamental change is really needed for Linux on the desktop, but is detrimental to Linux as a server. It may be that the userspace will have to fork eventually.

Desktops? Not so much. What's the last legitimately different desktop environment you, or anyone else has tried?

OS X.

I can't agree with your implication. There is a whole lot of room for improvement in the desktop space and someone may well make a whole lot of money doing it. Imagine getting a nice multi-year contract to supply all the new desktops to the government of Germany. That can be a lot of cash for long time and a high visibility reference customer that can really open up other big sales. Realistically OS X, Vista, and Ubuntu all have useful features and capabilities the others do not. Simply setting some developers to clone all of the missing features into a Linux desktop, do some extensive usability testing and supply some closed source end user software and hooks to your services and you could really be in a good place. It can happen and might start with low-end machines like the XO laptop or even lower down with cell phones that slowly gain more and more functionality of normal desktops. Or maybe Lenovo or HP or Dell will finally be confident the antitrust laws will be enforced against MS (at least in the EU) and will take the plunge and invest in an alternative Linux based desktop to undercut the competition. Heck, it might even be Walmart that does it. Eventually though, someone will probably do it.

Re:Flamebait is Missing The Point

[westlake]

Compare Vista sales through Dell versus how many retail licenses were purchased at Worst Buy.

For thirty years, give or take, the PC has been marketed as a plug and play home appliance or office machine.

When you upgrade to a new PC you upgrade to the latest iteration of the Windows OS. Hardware and software at the OEM price. Installed and tested. Sales of the retail box are simply a bonus.

The desktop problems are much more difficult to solve and the payoff in dollars is worth maybe a nice dinner.

The client division has paid off handsomely for Microsoft in fiscal 2008. $4.34 billion in the second quarter. Up 68% from fiscal 2007. Microsoft Q2 2008 by the Numbers

This is good.

[miffo.swe]

I cant think of any drawbacks in having much work in linux going into improving linux under heavy workloads. This benefits the desktop user just as much, especially with all the multicore cpus coming out.

Linux on dekstops is getting much attention in the kernel, its just not that visible to the user. The performance gain to be had from tailoring the kernel is very small compared to the gains to be had in userspace applications. Performance hogs like nautilus, openoffice, mono-apps and firefox will only improve some percent by work on the kernel while much greater performance gains can be had by targeting those applications directly in their own code.

Re:This is good.

[Geoffrey.landis]

I think I agree; I'm not sure what the downside is to Linux on the "big iron" servers with the heavy workloads-- sounds like a good application to me.

Re:No windows compition[sic]

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And why exactly shouldn't Apple count? Don't get me wrong, I'm not fanboi and I've never been tempted to "swing on that side" except for my iPod, but Apple should be counted.

I don't know what the previous poster was intending. OS X and Linux are both being used on the desktop. In the US they count together as something nearing 10%. They count even more if you're counting all the new devices, like smart phones, that are starting to take over some of the tasks traditionally reserved for the desktop (Web browsing).

On the other hand, if you're looking at things in terms of markets, neither OS X nor Linux counts as part of the "desktop OS" market the EU is referring to in their antitrust actions against MS. The main customers for desktop OS's are large organizations (business and government) and even larger PC OEMs. Apple refuses to sell their OS into this market because it monopolized and there is no business case. Linux is licensed such that it is not salable. Most Linux development shops do so because they are users and use it to sell other products, in many cases support and services using Linux or (like Apple) hardware that ships with Linux pre-installed.

So considering the latter perspective, no Linux and OS X do not count in terms of whether the desktop OS market is monopolized, but they certainly do count if you're just trying to figure out install base for other reasons.

Granted, it's a different business model and a different product offering from Linux but if anything Apple should show that the mythical Windows stranglehold on the desktop is just that, mythical.

It is true that MS is slowly losing install share to Apple and for that matter to Linux on the desktop, although that is really just getting started in the mainstream. This should not, however, dissuade one from understanding that it is a poor investment to try to compete in the desktop OS market. The ROI is terrible because unlike healthy markets your investment is partly wasted chasing MS's intentional un-interoperability. Further, since MS has multiple monopolies you have to commit to investing in all the markets they influence or finding partners to do so. This includes server OS's, hardware, end user applications, some services, media downloads, gaming systems, etc.

If anything the target users that Linux was suppose to rope in went Apple. I think that it's important for the Linux community to understand why and how.

I have personally seen a big move to OS X on the desktop from former Linux on the desktop users. In the security industry it has been a revolution. I can think of several reasons why this seems to be including:

• - Most pertinent to this article, the main use of Linux has been on the server and Linux on the desktop has been unable to make revolutionary changes that might cause any disadvantage for Linux's use as a server (often this is simply in the name of preventing "bloat" and instability).
• - Linux development is dispersed among many companies with less organization and much, much less hierarchy. There is no Steve Jobs of Linux to make a decision and make everyone go along. (This can be good and bad.) It is good because you have more choices and customizability, KDE or Gnome, RPMs or .debs, and so on. It is also a disadvantage in that developers and users don't focus on just one thing so there is duplicated effort and incompatibility problems.
• - The development cultures are very different and I'd argue that at this point Linux on the Desktop is less open to borrowing from other cultures or even technologies. I can think of a dozen features Apple has more or less copied from Linux, Solaris, *BSD, and even Windows. I can't really think of any of the new features Apple has introduced that have been successfully copied and made part of default Linux distros. There are plenty of projects designed to clone OS X features, but very few if any that are incorporated and turned on

No desktop mention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? It isn't as if the Linux community hasn't been able to take care of most of your desktop needs on its own.

For that matter why should I care what the Linux "Foundation" has to say at all? There may be a lot more corporate interest (and influence) upon Linux development now than in the past, but these people seem to be forgetting something rather important -- that we can do without them, and if they bite us in the ass, we -will- do without them. Remember XFree86? A lot of new folks to Linux distributions probably haven't even -heard- of it. Look it up sometime and then tell me that Linux can't survive without corporations.

Punctuation Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

see your signature for correct usage of punctuation. YOU DON'T PUT SPACES BEFORE COMMAS AND PERIODS. You might as well just put them before apostrophes as well why don ' t you ?

Re:Punctuation Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of the signature, I think it's "whose", not "who's".

Grammar isn't exactly my strong point either, but this one I picked up.

So Con Colivas was right

[slashdotlurker]

And Linus was just playing his golden eyed boy games.

Still to big a hassle

[the_rev_matt]

I used linux as my full time desktop both at work and at home for 4 years. And I enjoyed it mostly. I was able to do most of what I wanted to. But multimedia production (video editing, multitrack music production) was a huge pain in the ass to do and from what I've seen hasn't improved much.

Thing is, back when I used linux full time (99-2003) I didn't own a house. I didn't have kids. I enjoyed building my own computers and futzing around with configuration and getting packages to build for hours or days at a time. Now I've got kids, a house to maintain, and little or no free time.

If I have to spend a half hour on administration a month on my computer then I simply won't even turn it on, it's not worth the hassle. There's way more important things I can be doing. I can either spend the next two hours trying to figure out why an upgrade to a kde or gnome core library broke Totem or I can play with my kids. Easy decision to make.

I switched to OS X for all my multimedia production needs in 2002, and shut down my linux box permanently in 2003 as the birth of my first child approached. It does everything I wanted linux to do and I don't have to *do* anything to keep it running. My priorities are obviously going to be different from that of a lot of linux fans, but those fans need to realize that most non-fans will have no interest in linux on the desktop until it becomes less of a pain to use than Windows is.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN.

In 2005 I relocated half-way across the US, and bought a house.

In 2006 I met my wife (lots of sex!) and got married.

In 2008 we're having our first child.

I'm looking at buying a mini to replace two linux desktops. I've got an iBook G4, and it's been utterly fantastic.

Unfortunately, I do not have time like I used to, and quite frankly, the cost of having everything 'just work' is VERY worth it.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[JustinOpinion]

I agree with your points about OS X being a wonderfully low-maintenance operating system. However, you ended with:

My priorities are obviously going to be different from that of a lot of linux fans, but those fans need to realize that most non-fans will have no interest in linux on the desktop until it becomes less of a pain to use than Windows is. Less of a pain than Windows? In my experience, Linux is decidedly less of a maintenance pain than Windows. Just this weekend, I spent a bunch of time trying to fix some issues on a friend's computer. It involved all kinds of cleaning up, installing anti-virus software, removing malware, and installing some new applications. All of that maintenance would have been unnecessary on a Linux machine. (Tangentially, I'll mention that the Linux repository system, with its expansive set of software, not only makes administration easier in the sense that it's faster to find and install a needed app, but also because it reduces malware considerably--alot of junk on Windows computers comes in from users installing random apps from the Internet or downloading trojaned software off of P2P.) The experience reminded me why I switched from Windows to Linux.

One could argue that Linux takes a bit more care to set up, although even that is quite debatable these days. But once running, in my experience keeping a Linux system running smoothly is much easier than a Windows system.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[turing_m]

I never had the patience for running a linux desktop despite trying multiple times since 1997 or so. You must have been one of those rare people with enough patience. My opinion changed about a year ago, when I installed Ubuntu for the second time. If I had left Linux in 2003, I would have had the same opinion as you.

Any maintenance issues I've had have lasted less than half an hour a month. It is certainly less of a pain to use than Windows was, a bit of work up front for (so far) a year of working extremely smoothly. The only issues have been reinstalling video drivers each time the kernel upgrades. The fix takes less than 10 minutes. That is the ONLY routine maintenance I have to do (other than click and install updates when they come, which would be the same on a Mac).

Since I don't edit video, I can't comment on that aspect of Ubuntu.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[Anonymous Coward]

I used linux as my full time desktop both at work and at home for 4 years. And I enjoyed it mostly. I was able to do most of what I wanted to. But multimedia production (video editing, multitrack music production) was a huge pain in the ass to do and from what I've seen hasn't improved much.

Thing is, back when I used linux full time (99-2003) I didn't own a house. I didn't have kids. I enjoyed building my own computers and futzing around with configuration and getting packages to build for hours or days at a time. Now I've got kids, a house to maintain, and little or no free time.

If I have to spend a half hour on administration a month on my computer then I simply won't even turn it on, it's not worth the hassle. There's way more important things I can be doing. I can either spend the next two hours trying to figure out why an upgrade to a kde or gnome core library broke Totem or I can play with my kids. Easy decision to make.

I switched to OS X for all my multimedia production needs in 2002, and shut down my linux box permanently in 2003 as the birth of my first child approached. It does everything I wanted linux to do and I don't have to *do* anything to keep it running. My priorities are obviously going to be different from that of a lot of linux fans, but those fans need to realize that most non-fans will have no interest in linux on the desktop until it becomes less of a pain to use than Windows is. Exactly, this is why most people are scared of any other OS besides Windows. It isn't common and easy. Some people even have problems with MAC because they don't know that it can do everything a Windows can, but with less hassle.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[AeroIllini]

I switched to OS X for all my multimedia production needs in 2002, and shut down my linux box permanently in 2003 as the birth of my first child approached. That's a shame; you left 3 years before Ubuntu started to get really *really* good.

Video production is still a pain in the ass, however. Non-linear video editing is just not there.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[domatic]

If using an nvidia or ATI card just be sure that the "linux-restricted-modules" for that kernel gets installed as well and you can get those ten minutes back.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[isorox]

Thing is, back when I used linux full time (99-2003) I didn't own a house. I didn't have kids. I enjoyed building my own computers and futzing around with configuration and getting packages to build for hours or days at a time. Now I've got kids, a house to maintain, and little or no free time. Ironically that's the exact reason I dont use windows at home. And why my inlaws have recently moved to linux. I dont have time to do anything when I'm at home, I get to spend time on the train reading slashdot, and I spend all day working with computers, but the only computer-related things we do at home are
1) Watch TV (mythtv)
2) Banking
3) Looking up occasional facts on wikipedia etc.

I dont have the time to admin a windows box, let alone the inlaw's box. I dont have time to play PC games (although we're getting a wii and a few controllers). A mac might well work, but I've got a macbook pro at work, and it's a right pain. I hate the trackpad, and I dont spend enough time on it to customise it correctly. Hell, I tried to install VLC the other day, haven't got a clue how to get it working in safari or firefox. It just works with linux.

Re:Still to big a hassle

[Kjella]

I've played around with Linux since sometime around RHL7 (2000) and if Linux did most of what you wanted to do in 1999-2003 you were good. Personally I didn't make the switch to make it my primary desktop until Ubuntu 7.10 was released last year, though I'd used a KVM earlier. Linux has come a long way since 2003, while there are still many aches there's many tings that irritate me in Windows too and that you'd never work out on your maintenance allowance. The killer for your time budget is probably getting used to a whole new set of applications.

What I'm most impressed with recently is WINE. Set compatibility to Vista and Sam & Max episodes 202-205 play out of the box, savcgame lacks thumbs but otherwise it's perfect. Also with tweaks I'm now playing Neverwinter Nights 2, latest patch without crack and while there's a light problem in bright sunlight (still playable without waiting for nightfall) it works just fine. World in Conflict works fine with some tweaks too. In short, it's closing in on XP compatibility and I think by the time XP is phased out I think it'll be at a "ready to leap" status.

Linux needs to stop being elitest

[vallef]

Shame about the lack of Linux emphasis on the desktop. Linux has tried to catch up with AIX, Solaris etc. But still ZFS, Dtrace and many other innovations forge ahead and leap ahead of Linux, Linux still struggles to keep up. Linux being Unix should have been the desktop Unix, it warped into a market that already had good Unixes. After 9 years of Linux laptop useage I hate to say it I am using Windows more, XP that is. Expectations were high were are we with desktop Linux now, Linux power management is no so good. Why all this emphasis on the kernel.

Please, make Linux the Unix desktop environment, don't bother re-inventing what AIX and Solaris do better. It is such a pain going from the various Linux flavours, Mandrake, Red Hat, Suse. There seems to be no commonality between them. This is a Linux promise/hope that we have lost. Not the first time in the industry.

The challenge is make Linux the best platform for the desktop. Linux for the server is not adding anything we could not do before. Actually makes it more complicated, any large corporates done a Linux migration from Red Hat to Ubuntu, or Suse to Debian. The cost to migrate from one Linux to another is as big as Win to Mac. Actually, I would call all these distributions proprietary as the are so different, it is in the interests of the distributions that people to not migrate to another Linux. Once you are tied to one Linux, there is near lock-in. Not what I expected in the early days of Linux. Make me a desktop linux with good power management and driver support, drop this server development, help the world.

Re:Linux needs to stop being elitest

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to be less of a fag.

Re:Not Likely - Bullocks!

[Spudds]

Pure poppycock!

I myself know a handful of people that I or friends have "converted" for various reasons. All the converts are very non-technical and they are all very happy with linux. Between the "No viruses? At all? Wow!" to "That moving cube thing is Awesome!" to "That's all I have to do to install software? And it's all free?!!" they are very, very happy with it.

Breaking point my right butt cheek.

It will take a long time for Linux to claim the majority of the desktops, but it is an absolute eventuality.

Re:No windows compition[sic]

[Weedlekin]

"Apple refuses to sell their OS into this market because it monopolized and there is no business case"

It's more likely a case of Jobs remembering what happened the last time Apple offered MacOS to OEMs, who ended up competing with them in the existing Mac market instead of expanding it as Apple had hoped.

Top Ten List

[bigredradio]

Anyone have a link to the copy of the "Top Ten" list? I would like to know what issues they feel are important.

Re:No windows compition[sic]

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's more likely a case of Jobs remembering what happened the last time Apple offered MacOS to OEMs, who ended up competing with them in the existing Mac market instead of expanding it as Apple had hoped.

It is more or less the same thing. The market for Macs is limited by OEMs afraid of retaliation by MS and by users who are locked into Windows. Apple has great brand recognition for mid and high end systems. This leaves only bargain machines. Bargain machines are marketed mostly by touting the low price and trying to make it seem like you're getting the same product as a more expensive system. Just like last time their would be bullet points and number comparisons that tried to make a system look like what Apple offers, but using lower quality components. This means more failures, many of which are blamed on the OS, and tarnishes Apple's brand, while at the same time stealing some of their sales.

Why is the Linux Foundation attacking LUGs?

[joabj]

Did anyone check out the Linux Foundation's reply to Austin LUG guy?

Talk about snide. I'd expect such hostility from Microsoft, but evidently such FUD tactics are not beneath the Linux Foundation either.

Maybe this is their way of trying to put an end to the hobbyist Linux crowd.

Re:Why is the Linux Foundation attacking LUGs?

[br1an.warner]

Snide? Really?

Looks pretty neutral and factual to me, honestly. Although if I read it in a nasty voice it could sound sarcastic, I suppose.

But in all seriousness, it doesn't seem that bad...?

Breaking news...

[Chineseyes]

Business people discuss what makes them money. The horrific details at the bottom of the hour.

Linux IS Desktop-ready

[Yvanhoe]

Linux IS Desktop-ready. All my personal experiences with inexperienced users prove that someone who can use Windows can use Knoppix or Ubuntu. Technologically-wise, these distros are desktop-ready. The rest is marketing and evangelism, it is not developers' main business.

In terms of portability, ease of use and performances, I really think many linux distribs fare better than Windows Vista. It is time to leave the "year of the linux desktop" meme on Slashdot. It now belongs to the Financial Times.

squishy non-consensus

[epine]

From way back, my stance has been that "Linux on the desktop" is an unworkable slogan for an unworkable mandate.

I regard this phrase as nothing more than a handy banner people can rally behind, to amplify complaint, without ever agreeing on anything. My desktop requirements are as different from the guy next to me as my server is from his laptop.

It's a ridiculously over-broad mandate. One could argue that Firefox all by itself is almost a desktop experience. I wouldn't be surprised if I've spent more time tuning my Firefox than the whole of my desktop experience.

Here are some workable mandates:
* blob-free video drivers that actually work, fully support the capabilities, with short release cycles that track current hardware
* beautiful fonts in all sensible sizes -- I had a font I loved for editing code, changed distros, there was nothing comparable, too late to go back
* standardized mouse acceleration profiles -- every time I've changed distros lately, I've been unable to exactly replicate the precise mouse acceleration curve I had before, and have to learn subconscious fine motor skills all over again
* better support for managing multiple desktops and multiple screens -- never got this to my liking, maybe I've too lazy to enter into a long term relationship with my window manager; each time I get it to barely tolerable, encounter some limitations, and then quickly lose interest
* a permanent end to the proprietary codec fiasco

Actually, I'm having trouble thinking of anything else about the desktop I really care about.

The package managers in Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu all get the job done. Updates update.

Beautiful icons. Don't care. Fancy theme. Couldn't care less. Graphical installer? Only if it does sensible things by default and lets me take control when it can't.

I do like distros that make it easy to set up netboot installers via my tftpd server. Every Jo Blow has one of those. We're certainly all on the same page here about the ideal desktop experience.

The server people busy themselves accomplishing well defined chunks of utility. The desktop people wallow around in the diffuse and ill-defined "user experience" nebula and wonder why they make less progress.

Linux on the desktop has always meant to me a grab bag of lightning rods that people with short attention spans rally around when their gratification is delayed by ten minutes after installing their new distro, because they didn't have the common sense to buy hardware known to have good open source support. Every complainer is carping about a different set of lightning rods, there is really no mass agreement at all about what the priorities should be.

I have a list of about twenty applications I never live without on my desktop. Why am I hand picking these with new distro I install?

I should have a key fob where I declare that I am a power user for these twenty applications, and my distro had better get its act together and install the entire bag (and every distro dependendent pre-req).

Don't even bother partitioning the hard drive until I've been assured by the installer that all twenty of those applications will be working fine by the time the install completes.

It wouldn't hurt to also have a list of known hardware, such as my screens and expected resolutions, my network printer, etc. All of that had better work too, or don't bother even starting the drive partition.

Maybe what we need is a meta installer where you input your hardware and software requirements profile (included required fonts and size, mouse acceleration, profiles, applications, known hardware, etc.) and then it presents a table of Linux distros scored based on how well these requirements can be met, from which you can pick one that hasn't screwed up something you particularly care about lately.

I have one major gripe concerning fonts. Too many distros have small fonts with line leadings too close together. I prefer being able to parse the entire s

Re:squishy non-consensus

[mikael]

* better support for managing multiple desktops and multiple screens -- never got this to my liking, maybe I've too lazy to enter into a long term relationship with my window manager; each time I get it to barely tolerable, encounter some limitations, and then quickly lose interest

A couple of extra buttons on each window would help:

o Expand across another window
o Expand down another window
o Expand over all windows

Rather that just minimize and maximize/restore.

Linux is where the money is

[ThePhilips]

Anybody surprised?

Did anybody actually tried to sell a new desktop system? Does anybody even make money on desktop software??

Servers. Big iron.

Because that's where you can sell pure technology. That's where most people are engineers - the people who are not biased by subjective perception: they buy what does work best for them.

That doesn't work for desktop software. Take a look at top two desktop OSs - Windows and MacOS - and try to recall how long it took for them to be where they are now. Inertness of desktop market is ridiculous: some people are still dreaming of Amiga OS...

And there was me thinking linux was transparent

[Stu101]

It has kind of peed me off a little, press not being allowed in. It used to be everyone can see anything if they so wish. Now the suits are taking over and playing partisan games. It sucks. Linux used to be about freedom. How can this be freedom behind closed doors?

Upgrades....

[DrYak]

299,000 whiney bitches complaining that things don't work exactly the same as they used to. Oh ? So you installed Vista / Office 2007 in your company ?

Re:Upgrades....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting. Your average sheep knows that Microsoft is Right, so if Windows or Office seems to be broken, they know that it's really their fault for being such unworthy users. It's only non-Microsoft products where any problems they have are total disasters that would never have happened if only they'd been using Microsoft like everyone else.

Hence: nobody ever got fired for buying IBM^H^H^HMicrosoft.

(Which carries in it a kernel of hope: some day there'll be another set of ^H's and a different company name on the end of that saying. Apple, or Google, or something. Of course, whoever it is, Slashdot will hate them...)

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this is due to the patents threats that Microsoft has been throwing out there.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!

Say what?

[HangingChad]

deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update

I'm running Ubuntu on five different machines and that's never happened on any of them.

Overall, the automatic apt-get updates on my Ubuntu boxes work better than Windows update.

Re:Say what?

[drinkypoo]

Overall, the automatic apt-get updates on my Ubuntu boxes work better than Windows update.

I'd say the next big problem is differential updates. Why has no linux distribution created patch packages yet? It doesn't even seem like it would be particularly difficult. I get a zillion updates of huge packages where maybe 3% of the package changed (say, OO.o) and I live in the boonies, so I'm on a particularly bad modem connection. I practically have to go into town to run updates (apt is not very good about retrying failed downloads, seems like it should be a very easy problem to solve but no one has bothered?)

Re:Say what?

[Nevyn]

Maybe you mean the next big .deb based thing? Lots of rpm based distros. have had "patch pkgs" for a while now. Fedora is probably the most recent/biggest (although it's not a default feature, yet). But SuSE (and I'm pretty sure mandrake) have had them for a while.

IIRC the reason debian never added them was the same reason Fedora havn't made them a default/core feature yet ... it requires a lot more from the mirrors.

Re:Say what?

[drinkypoo]

IIRC the reason debian never added them was the same reason Fedora havn't made them a default/core feature yet ... it requires a lot more from the mirrors.

Not really. You only need to provide a differential update from the last most popular version to the newest one to save the majority of the space - and possibly one that will provide a differential from the packages for the current install version (the latest cd/dvd) to the latest version. This requires only that additional packages be made available, the work need only be done at the time of packaging, and would result only in additional package files on the mirrors, which would then do less transfer since the packages would be smaller. All in all this reduces the load on the mirrors.

On the other hand, I have been wondering if it wouldn't just be easier to rsync the changed files.

And just WHO is this "Linux Foundation"?

[HiThere]

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members

I notice some Linux supporting companies there, but a lot of companies whose support is, at best, half-hearted.

(I'd have copied out the list, but it's all pictures of the names. Look if you care. IBM and Red Hat are there, but so is Adobe. And a bunch of companies I've never heard of, as well as many whose position on Linux I don't know.)

Re:And just WHO is this "Linux Foundation"?

[Per Abrahamsen]

You will notice that almost all their platinum members are hardware manufacturers, which explain their emphasis on big iron.

Adobe only recently joined Linux Foundation, in connection with their decision to port AIR to Linux.

Linux is for servers

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine most Linux users go through the desktop obsession phase. It has its place in an IT environment, maybe your work machine, but the thought of endlessly tweaking my personal tablet's primary OS, the machine I use to check personal mail and listen to MP3s and bought because I wanted all the built-in hardware to work all the time... makes me not feel too bad having paid the Microsoft Tax.

Anyway, Linux is a great server, but its as an appealing desktop as a bag of broken glass.

It's a FREE fucking OS, WinServer is $$$^$

[Anonymous Coward]

Priced windows servers recently? It's a fucking HUGE expense. Why pay MSFT so much fucking money when they can get a free OS, free future OSes, all for the price of a keg or two of beer. A little hand-crafting here and there, and viola, thank you for the bamm, maam! The desktop, however, who the fuck cares? Windows desktop is fucking as cheap as Linux, more so when you factor in that nothing worth a damn (it's all free, see) runs on Linux so no one REALLY WANTS to use Linux on his desktop. Linux-Server is a money saver to the extreme. Linux-Desktop is nothing much about anything except an oddity.

You are full of it

[Per Abrahamsen]

i call BS I see you call, you are full of bullshit. I'm posting this from a Vista machine, and it has been a nightmare. Everything was pointlessly different from XP. It was very difficult to hook up with the corporate net, I have still not fully succeeded. Lots of software didn't work properly. It seem to require a reboot slightly more often than the old laptop (every other week rather than once a month).

It still fells slower than my previous laptop when not compiling or running numeric simulations (its main purpose). It is no longer unbearable slow as it was in the beginning, but I had a change to try my old laptop (a 1 GHz Pentium-M vs a 1.5 GHz Core 2 Duo, and the old actually felt more responsive.

The official company police is to install XP on all new computers. I got mine just before that policy was established, and I'm keeping it because Vista is, no matter how much we hate it, the short term future.

[ My advice: Keep your old XP computer as long as possible. Your next computer will run Vista, but the longer you wait, the less the pain will be (because Vista is bound to better, and the rest of the world is bound to adapt). And keep an eye open for any chance to lessen your dependence on Microsoft technology. ]

But the experiences with Vista will help make organizations more receptive to the idea of using software where their own plans are not bound by the "strategic planning" of another company. There is no doubt there is still a huge market in XP, which Microsoft is choosing to ignore, because they see it in their best interest to get everyone switched to Vista. And we have no other vendor to turn to for XP based solutions.

I wonder why some people like to defend Vista here. I see four possibilities:

1) They have been unusually lucky, maybe had their old XP machines filled with accumulated crap so Vista seemed fast in comparison.

2) They like to hurt other people. They suffered, so must everyone else.

3) They never tried Vista, and are just talking trash. Maybe they see themselves as a heroic counterweight to the "group think" of those of us who actually speak from our experiences.

4) They are paid by Microsoft (unlikely, 2 and 3 are probably common enough for that to be unnecessarily).

Re:No windows compition[sic]

[Weedlekin]

"Just like last time their would be bullet points and number comparisons that tried to make a system look like what Apple offers, but using lower quality components."

The 'clones" weren't using lower quality components when Apple sold their OS and ROMs. They used commodity components and lower margins to undercut Apple in every segment of the Mac market while often offering superior performance, so Apple found themselves in much the same position same as IBM were in when their PC and AT sales were hit by wide-scale cloning, but they didn't have IBM's gigantic corporate user base to help alleviate the situation.

"This means more failures, many of which are blamed on the OS, and tarnishes Apple's brand, while at the same time stealing some of their sales."

I've seen no evidence to suggest that the old Mac clones were less reliable than Apple's own machines, or that people blamed the OS for any failures that occurred with them. The problem was that the Apple which existed in the period between Jobs getting ousted and coming back again was unable to find a way to differentiate its own large range of far from universally wonderful machines from the cheaper and frequently better clones, and the licensing revenues they were earning from those manufacturing them weren't enough to offset the impact they were having on Apple's hardware sales.

It would be even harder for Apple to to differentiate themselves today if they licensed OS X, because they're now selling X86-based PCs that use commodity hardware which other manufacturers can buy off the shelf. It's a better class of commodity hardware than one gets with a budget PC, but it would be extremely difficult to claim that it's objectively better than some of the kit that's available from the likes of Lenovo, Sony, and even HP, who have a higher priced range of business computers that's much better in quality terms than their consumer-oriented offerings.

Linux desktop gaps: No video editing

[LinuxLuver]

The desktop costs to much to win and generates too little revenue. MOre likely the future of the client is seen as being "thin" anyway. So why invest in the past? Having said that, I'd being using linux exclusively on the desktop (as I did for 5 years) if Linux supported a good range of video cameras / devices AND included an editing application for composing videos that was akin to Windows Movie Maker....simple as that is. I have yet to see anything of that standard that doesn't segfault immediately. Cinelerra didn't segfault, but I couldn't see how to use it and there were no docs. What I did attempt screwed up the sound so badly amost immediately there was no point carrying on. Blah blah. So now I use Windows most of the time as my client. I'd like to buy an Apple when I get some spare cash. I have some Linux desktops here....but they can't do video so they get used as Internet access systems by the kids or whoever. For what it's worth. Xandros 4.1 Professional is STILL one of the est Linux desktops out there despite being over 2 years old. Ubuntu is still trying to match it...but the move to the SMP kernel-only on Ubuntu renders it uninstallable on my systems due to my wifi cards having only Uni-kernel driver support. Blah blah.

Re:No windows compition[sic]

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The 'clones" weren't using lower quality components when Apple sold their OS and ROMs.

Independent testing at the time said otherwise. While Apple's hardware reliability ratings were not as high then as now, they were still above average. Some of the clone makers (notably Radius and Daystar) had decent hardware reliability, but numerous driver issues. Others, like Umax and APS had some of the worst hardware reliability of any computer at the time. Sure they shipped the same size hard drive, but it was from the cheapest, least reliable manufacturer of the day.

I 've seen no evidence to suggest that the old Mac clones were less reliable than Apple's own machines, or that people blamed the OS for any failures that occurred with them.

You should have read the periodicals of the time. "Brand poisoning" was a huge concern at Apple and Consumer Reports has always been pretty good when it comes to hardware reliability comparisons.

The problem was that the Apple which existed in the period between Jobs getting ousted and coming back again was unable to find a way to differentiate its own large range of far from universally wonderful machines from the cheaper and frequently better clones, and the licensing revenues they were earning from those manufacturing them weren't enough to offset the impact they were having on Apple's hardware sales.

Apple had built their entire business model on using hardware sales to fund the development of their OS and application business. They still have that strategy. The problem of the day was not that Apple had nothing to offer, but that they underpriced their OS in an attempt to "get it out there" but overestimated the consumer's ability to differentiate hardware and software quality. At the same time they completely misunderstood MS's monopoly position and its ramification on the industry. Apple thought clones would lead to more sales and an MS like business model. What they found was sales were nearly flat since so many users were already unable to choose anything but Windows because of application availability, software purchases as an asset, and other incompatibilities. MS's influence was very strong, but Apple assumed it was still a free and competitive capitalist market. Instead of growing their OS business they found it was flat and instead they were just losing a chunk of their hardware business.

Now if Apple had been "the best" at hardware among all entrants, this might have been different, but it still would not have gained them much market share, if any. The clone makers were able to target their sales and make niche systems that appealed to specific customers. Daystar even developed and installed custom applications for a big customer and Apple was not able to compete with that, not with a market that was artificially restricted from growth.

It would be even harder for Apple to to differentiate themselves today if they licensed OS X, because they're now selling X86-based PCs that use commodity hardware which other manufacturers can buy off the shelf.

That is actually less of a concern today. Apple has other income sources with the iPod and iPhone and applications business. They could strategically absorb a hit to grow the install base. The problem is, MS's lock in is much, much, much stronger today than ever, having grown to four long standing monopolies and dozens of significant abuses in other markets. Apple licensing their OS today would mean even less ability to benefit by growing their OS share. They'd be better off investing in a partnership with a Linux on the desktop developer and contributing to a low-end version of Linux that is compatible with OS X.

but it would be extremely difficult to claim that it's objectively better than some of the kit that's available from the likes of Lenovo, Sony, and even HP, who have a higher priced range of business computers that's much better in quality terms than their co

Linux Foundation response

[amcpherson]

Howdy, I may be a little late, but I wrote a post about this discussion on my blog at the Linux Foundation site. It may clarify this: http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/amanda/2008/04/15/on-embracing-the-linux-desktop-at-the-lf-collaboration-summit/