Slashdot Mirror
Getting Past "Ready For the Desktop"
Jeremy LaCroix suggests in an editorial at Linux.com that the phrase "ready for the desktop" is ready for retirement. As anyone who's been using Linux for several years (or even a few) for everyday tasks knows, "ready for the desktop" is in the eye of the beholder.
Been running Linux for 3 years. My main machine uses Debian most of the time with Xfce and my mother has no problems using it (well, after teaching her of course). Yeah, she might not be able to handle any problems, but my dad can't handle most Windows problems on his computers and gets me in to fix those too. Guess which machines have less problems.
I don't think that's true at all. I have installed Ubuntu on a number of computers belonging to friends and family, and everybody (they're all pretty much computer-illiterates) agrees that it's easier to use and more intuitive than Windows. Take the "start" menu: you have an "Applications" menu and the last entry therein is "install/remove". Could it be any simpler?
IMHO the beauty of Linux and all the software for it is that you can pick what you need and ignore the rest. If you want to do stuff the hard way, you can. If you just want to use a computer, use something like Ubuntu. Linux has the potential to serve all needs, and by now the modern Linux distros are doing a fine job at it.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Using "Common Sense" is being either to arrogant or to ignorant to ask people who know more about something than you.
...one can already notice that the article has a point. Each one has a different definition of what "ready for the desktop" means and none of them is completely right or completely wrong.
For more evidence, check the Ubuntu forums: there's no real consistency in comments about the readniess of Ubuntu for the mainstream: some computer illiterates say it's ready, some don't. Some geeks say it's ready, some don't.
If ready for the desktop means GUI everything and consistant style (read intigrated everything) you can count me out. The fastest to use programs use keyboard shortcuts for all common tasks, this is initialy slower than a gui but eventualy multiple times faster. I prefer a fast CLI, with the gui only used for software that benifits from it.
I am so sick and tired of the when will "Linux be Ready" crap. Linux is far more than ready.
The real issue is the Microsoft monopoly. If Microsoft's monopoly did not distort the computer industry, ISVs and big applications would already be supporting Linux in a big way. Boards and shareholders are cowards, if there is no financial incentive to do it, it won't happen. As long as Windows is preinstalled on over 80% of new desktops, no one would be able compete no matter how good their OS is.
Speaking as a long term Linux user, I laugh at Windows. It is almost useless at its core. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't work well at all. It is a confusing mess of incompatible technologies. The "control panel" is a joke. Its networking ability basic at best.
A kununtu/Ubunto/RHEL desktop is easier to navigate and use. A basic Linux install has so many more features and capabilities. I am *always* saying to Windows users, "let me do it, its easy on Linux."
Supporting Linux is easier too. Ask any "non-moron" internal support person. In my company remote Windows support is a mess of 3rd party utilities. The guys prefer Linux because they can use ssh and don't even have to rely on the user.
The *only* advantage Windows has in the market place is its monopoly position that is being illegally maintained by Microsoft. Basically making it a financially losing proposition for ISVs to support Linux.
For anyone who doubts that Linux is "ready for the desktop." I dare you to install Kubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, and all. And honestly try it for a month.
So I installed Slackware on it. Their custom app runs just perfectly under WINE. They use it to surf, email, etc.
My mother is 67 years old. Maybe your mom's just to stupid to learn something new.
Microsoft's dominance of the market happened for one reason, and one reason only. Apple was STUPID.
They were first to market, and had, what at the time was probably the clearly better product.
However, They also wanted to be greedy, and would not license out in order to keep the price high.
Does anyone remember the introduction of video tape recording to the U.S. market in the 70's? Sony (Betamax) vs JVC (VHS).
Sony had the technically superior tape format. Better picture, better sound. But, they also wanted to be greedy, and would not license out in order to keep the price high. JVC, with the inferior product, did license out, so there was price competition on that side. Guess who won that war? This is actually a no-brainer. The US market will kill you for greed, every time.
Many years later, Apple made the same mistake. They wanted to be greedy, and their greed cost them their chance to become the dominant player. I actually like their OS, as it's based on BSD unix. But at this point in the game, they aren't going to ever be more than a niche market player. Interestingly enough, you still see Beta tapes in use too, in video production houses where quality matters more than price. Again, a niche market.
Using "Common Sense" is being either to arrogant or to ignorant to ask people who know more about something than you.
By that defenition, Windows isn't ready either :-|
In today's world that end user (even Mom) might need to change something, install something new, access something differentMy parents have found changing settings and installing programs easier on linux (Ubuntu) than Windows :-P
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
I think that the common trait among the posts you cite, however, is that most of the users mentioned have a computer literate Slashdotter standing by in the off chance that support is needed.
In this sense of the word, I probably am closer to illiterate than literate when it comes to computers. Obviously, they require more savvy to operate than pretty much any other device in my home. At the end of the day, though, my computer is an appliance to me. There are a variety of functions that I expect from it and, if it breaks catastrophically, my options are usually limited to reinstalling the offending program or replacing the offending hardware. (I am smart enough, by the way, to identify which component is acting up, so no, I don't just go out and buy a new computer.)
That said, I am above average at NOT breaking my computer, when it is running Windows and when I do, the damage is usually pretty shallow. In return, Windows provides me with reliable operation. On the other hand, I manage to make a major mistake in Linux about once a month. Sometimes I am able to fix the problem and sometimes I am not. Either way, I find crawling the web, hoping that I can find some reference to my exact error message to be very frustrating.
And sometimes, I just can't get Linux to do what I want it to do at all. I recently wanted to install Xubuntu on my laptop. I had enjoyed working with Kubuntu, but I wanted something just a little less demanding on my hardware. I never did get it recognize my PCMCIA wireless card, though. I knew, conceptually, that the underlying OS was identical between the two, so that the problem should be trivial to correct. Ultimately, though, I had no idea how.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
I used linux on the desktop around 2000 - 2001. It was usable for the basic applications I needed back then, other than my sound card never did work and the only modem I had that would work was an old 33.6k that had jumpers. But it worked for my main task of developing LAMP projects back when it could take a while to upload a large site with a lot files. It did teach me the basics of how *iux works. But I still had to keep a drive with windows 2000 loaded so I could use Photoshop and a few other applciations that just didn't exist for Linux.
In 2002 I was getting ready to leave the country. My Viao laptop was 3 years old and frankly I was getting tired of fiddling with Linux and not have things like video cards and soundcards work and I was tired it crashing and viruses, etc..
Apple came out with OSX, then OS 10.1 which I took a look at and said, "Hmmm, a Unix based operating system with photoshop...." So I bought an iBook as did a lot of people who were trying linux at the time. Over 80% of the people I knew who were "switchers" came from Linux to OSX, not windows. Why? We weren't zeloats for Opensource. It was pragmatic. We developed for and deployed on Linux servers, later FBSD actually, but when it came to our desktops, Apple gave us cake and we ate it.
When Apple switched to intel chips, just about everyone I know that does anytype of developement are running on MacBook Pro's. They use OSX and also boot up XP pro in VMware or Parralells all on one machine.
It's always been about applications. I just spent the past 6 months using FreeBSD on an older dell laptop I have for a project. I was impressed as hell at the fact that it reconized my generic Atheros card, had no problems connecting to the internet, KDE et. al had matured a lot over the years, all the basics were there for me to use, and there were things I really liked. I also recently used SuSE 10.x for a couple weeks, as a general OS for just surfing, it's not too bad and there are a lot of people who just check email and surf the net and need a basic office suite. Linux can work for that.
But at the end of the day, Apple has the apps and on the new MacBook*'s I can boot into windows if I need it.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
... that people don't care what OS they use, they care about OS like they care about screw drivers. Does it get the job done for what I want it to do?
Most people are too time strapped to diddle around on the computer, considering the modern person works most of his adult life, why anyone would expect the majority of people to want to switch OS's is pretty naive.
Linux has a niche but the truth is piracy has a lot to do with why linux will never be totally mainstream, installing another OS has to have some benefit over the one you are using. I've used windows 99% of my life and linux for the average user is quite transparent, most users don't care about technical stuff, they only care about the apps they themselves use. There has to be such a major switch in efficiency / speed or usability for me to switch an OS and linux is just not it, even though from a technical standpoint I am down with the linux concept from a user perspective who doesn't want to have to dick around with stuff, windows 'just works'.
There's a reason why console game machines have an advantage over PC's with OS's - platform stability. The average user doesn't have to worry about spending time maintaining his system, since if you get seriously into tech it's like having a 2nd full time job.
When I was younger I used to fix other peoples PC's, now that I'm older I just don't want to spend the time fixing others problems.
The next killer app is automating management, delivery and maintenance of applications without user intervention and that can intelligently roll back if something is borked (by accident).
I have used both for years, (Windows & Linux)and yes the CLI is needed in both, but not every day. When there is a registry bug in Windows, there are registry cleaners, but a lot of times you just have no other option but go in there and clean it out line by line. And with all with the different species of Windows malware out there, normal operation and maintenance requires messing with the registry from time to time, or using Windows would be a very frustrating experience.
Care to elaborate what those tasks are that require command prompt in Windows? I've been writing software for Win NT/98/2K/XP/Vista, plus some apps and scripts for Linux and BSD, for years now and never have I had to go to command prompt but in some rare cases I prefer it (like quickly check my IP). Allthough I must admit that I haven't done anything like administrating huge networks and stuff but what I've heard you don't actually need command prompt in those cases either.
Yes, it is stupid thing that people reinstall their Windowses and loose all their apps in the process. Someone should show them the wonders of repair install.
/end-defensive-mode
You don't know what you don't know.
Try Zenwalk. The only time I've had to go into CLI since installing it was to install the NVidia proprietary drivers. And that was personal preference... there's actually a package in the repository for it.
Just about all of the important configuration options are available through the ZenPanel, and UI tweaks through XFCE's panel. And it supports XFCE's desktop compositor, of shiny video effects/transparency/etc. Unlike Compiz/Fusion (at least, the last time I used it), XFCE's compositor will use OpenGL (and the transparency effect on Terminal is a perfect example of how an accelerated desktop/transparency *should* work), but will allow you to run OpenGL programs/games without slowing down, too. I've tested it with TuxRacer, as well as with SecondLife, the latter being notorious for not working properly....
http://www.zenwalk.org/
You still have the problem with guaranteeing compatibility with commercially available software. There's Wine, or if you're more comfortable paying for something that comes with tech. support, there's Crossover and Cedega. Crossover comes with a reasonable guarantee that most of the important office software will work, though it's not compatible with Office 2007 yet.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
The day I can install Ubuntu (or any flavor of Linux), without having to worry about spending half a week configuring it, or the day I can send a client a presentation, spreadsheet or document without sacrificing features (and without having to explain) will be the day I think it is ready for desktop.
Completely true. My last ubuntu installation took about a week to get working right, and I've been using Linux for 12 years. Running multiple X.org configuration scripts then editing xorg.conf by hand, working with the ridiculous number of overlapping sound drivers, and having to symbolically link devices in order to get certain programs to run.
GNU/Linux is ready for preinstall by vendors and it would be better for most users. Your case, thankfully, represents a tiny intersection of niche interests. Your girlfriend represents better than 99% of all computer users. We would all be better off if those users were given a platform that does not have the security problems Microsoft has. They will be better off when they discover all of the good free tools available without cost. Who knows, they might learn to do more with their computers than consume that way. Dell, Asus and other vendors have realized this and are now shipping and making good money doing it. Everyone but Microsoft is going to be better off.
I think we're past the "ready for the desktop" question and well into "ready for your pocket" territory.
Linux owns HPC. It rules the server room. Phone makers are going to put it in 100 million cell phones. Sure, it's on millions of desktops too, but who cares really? It's time we unchained the PC from the desk and let our teams get out to where the action is.
WiMax is taking off, and its competitor too. The network is now everywhere. The Atom is going to amplify the mobile productivity space a dozen times or more. Via and AMD are not dead yet either. Flash drives get cheaper every week.
I think in three years we're going to look down on that quad-core 4GB 500W monster we just bought the office typist so he could continue to draft the same form letters he's been writing since 1987 and shake our heads. What were we thinking?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
it should be as easy as running a .exe file on windows.
right now its a mess. download a tar/deb/rpm etc or bin, change permissions, run installer in terminal etc etc.
and thats the easy way. normal users don't really enjoy editing text config files in root mode in case u developers haven't noticed.
standardise on a package format for drivers and apps and include ALL the required files in it.
this will eliminate the need for repositories and the whole mess of unupdated apps in the repositories.
and finally add a remove menu to consolidate and allow removal of these apps/drivers.
Hrm ... what sucks is when repair install mysteriously doesn't work ...
But you can still boot to the Recovery Console (gee, a CLI) in order to manually change services, edit the registry, repair disks, or other tasks. Failing using that, you will more often needlessly reinstall Windows, unless you use additional (non-MS) repair tools. The CLI is therefore indispensable.
Extra props to anyone who points out where to find the system file checker (sfc) in any Windows GUI. I have no idea - I just use the command line.
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Ah the irony. The first post was pretty much what I'd expected to see. Even here at /. it seemed likely that there'd be an AC posting drivel. It makes me wonder how they manage to get the first posts. But you fed the troll, but I digress... ;)
I'd add that I actively avoid using Linux on the desktop unless I must and then it is only normally Ubuntu. I use CentOS daily but not on the desktop.
I'd say that *I* feel Linux is long since ready for the desktop and that it is an excellent choice for those who want it. Even as someone who's yet to find a desktop (the last KDE was kind of nice) that suits my learned styles, found a package manager that was simple enough for drunken binges, inability/undesiring tinkering with the plethora of issues I've always had when attempting to use the various flavors on laptops, and my own lack of expertise with Linux -- it is still, and has been, ready for the desktop.
I'd like to think that the average "user" could pick up a PC with Linux on it and function with it in a short time. They may not be experts. They may not like it. But I'd like to think that they could pick it up and use it to accomplish their day-to-day needs.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In my recent foray back into linux territory from osx.. I noted something STILL curiously missing which is ESSENTIAL for average end users: a "sudo" dialogue in nautilus.
it should be part of the standard requirements for a file manager in gnome, but I tried a dozen and none of them have one. This means anything even mildly advanced MUST still be done through a command line.
For the modern naive user, the command line may as well be a tablet written in one of many dead languages. And even as an advanced user I dislike the idea of having to type out basic file management operations.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!