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.

Comments

DOS

[bondsbw]

Was DOS ready for the desktop? By many definitions, people would say no, but that's exactly what started Microsoft's dominance of the OS market.

Re:DOS

[aurispector]

This is a key issue and I think it's been glossed over for too long. Although I agree that most desktop features are crap, linux just cant be mainstream until someone puts out a distro that DOES cater to the illiterates. We already have dozens of distros specifically designed for programmers and super users. Let's face it, most computer users are essentially computer illiterates - they're users, not programmers and they have no interest or reason to learn more than a few basic tasks.

Before anyone says "but ubuntu already does this", the problem is that currently you have no choice but to learn the CLI in order to accomplish anything but basic user tasks. This forces every office (or family) to have at least one go-to person that understands the OS thoroughly (or at least better than everyone else). Think about the huge investment in time and money that has already been spent understanding windows. Switching to a new OS means retraining costs for tech support. Hence linux needs a distro that's both idiot-proof for the basic user AND easy to learn/configure for admins without requiring CLI. This isn't the 1980's. Sure the CLI gives you extreme flexibility, etc., but most people just don't need this.

The other major issue is that switching to linux also means giving up the guaranteed compatibility with commercially available software. My guess is that this is more of an obstacle than any other reason.

Re:DOS

[JamesTRexx]

That's not just Ubuntu or any other *nix OS, anything but the basic task, including troubleshooting has to be done in the CLI on Windows too.
Blaming use of the CLI is just a moot point.

Re:DOS

[martin-boundary]

The CLI is more important than the GUI. Think about it: if you've ever dreamed of just talking to the computer like in the movies, the natural approach is to figure out improvements in CLI so that we can "chat" to the OS with high levels of abstraction.

The GUI is just a stopgap, and a dead end in the long run.

Re:DOS

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think you've touched on the real issue there. Popular Linux builds have themselves been ready for the desktop for years. What is still missing from Linux that Vista has is applications that are ready for typical end users. As long as Linux geeks continue to believe that OpenOffice is as good as Microsoft Office, the GIMP is as good as Photoshop, etc., and as long as Linux doesn't have things like games and business admin software of the same level as those available on Windows, it doesn't matter how funky your window manager effects are. Real people don't use an OS because of its window manager, they use it because it hosts applications they want.

Re:DOS

[JonathanBoyd]

Speaking to a computer is a horrendously inefficient means of doing a lot of tasks, some of them quite common, Anything involving the creation or editing of graphics, selecting of text, choosing a link to follow, etc. is almost always quicker and easier to do with a GUI than speech. Speech also gets in the way when there are other people about who don't want disturbed i.e. a lot of work places and is draining on the throat after a while. Don't assume computer evolution is going to follow the movies. Though even in Star Trek they're still using a GUI quite a bit.

Re:DOS

[clang_jangle]

I second that. If I need to get any serious work done in Windows, cmd.exe is indespensible. Just like BSD, Linux, and OS X you can use it without ever seeing a command prompt, but that will limit you severely. I guess the reason this gets overlooked so much is because most Windows users really don't know how to use Windows anymore than they know how to use Linux -- What they do know is how to use certain GUI frontends to certain apps. I know some MS users can be very defensive about this, and will even insist that what makes their choice "superior" is that no CLI knowledge is required, but that is just not true. Without knowledge of the CLI one can be just as "stranded" in Windows (or even on OS X on rare occasion) as in Linux.

Also it says a lot that reinstalling rather than fixing Windows is generally regarded as an acceptable practice. Because reinstalling Windows doesn't (usually) require a CLI :).

Re:DOS

[NotBornYesterday]

' ... as good as ... ' is one thing. 'Good enough' is something else. GIMP has more tools and abilities than I ever would use, and I use it on Linux frequently. Do I really need Photoshop? No. I'm not sure what problems you see with OpenOffice, but I use it all the time, and it does everything I need.

Plus, as more apps become web-deployed, desktop apps become less and less important.

Re:DOS

[Darkness404]

Honestly, does the average person really need photoshop? I mean many Windows users struggle using Paint, and most people who use Photoshop are at least technology literate enough to understand how to adapt to a different GUI and therefore don't fit the definition of the dumb Windows users who don't understand the difference between an icon and a program. OpenOffice is nearly as good as MS Office for most tasks, while Office will usually be as familiar to long time Office users, OpenOffice is just as good so long as you are willing to actually learn and even Office 2007's UI is so radically different that OpenOffice will feel even more familiar to Office users then 2007. As for games, many, many, Windows games either have a decent Linux counterpart or will run via WINE, and with Direct-X 10 being Vista-only if the WINE team can get Direct-X 10 implemented, Linux will become an almost better gaming system then XP. And most of the more popular games are already able to run very well in WINE such as WoW and others. The only problem would be is if some Linux person went out and bought some random game and tried to make it run, now chances are with a bit of hacking it would run, but as for the "pop in the CD and play" that won't work quite yet. But when they realize that they can get just about the same level of quality for free, they will just pop open Add/Remove Programs and find a game they think might be good. As for business admin software, again, most can be emulated via WINE and because most of it doesn't need immediate response you could always use VirtualBox and virtualize XP and use that. Granted, right now there are tons of Linux applications the problem is, most people think they have to buy software or go to some unknown freeware site to download who-knows-what, whereas with Linux it is just as simple as point, click, apply (or for you CLI folks, sudo apt-get install whatever)

Re:DOS

[Cjstone]

Okay, this is one of the things that bugs me. OpenOffice and the GIMP do everything that the average user needs them to. I know of a lot of people that use the 'Microsoft Works' bundle that came with their computer and the so-called 'photo editor' that came with their digital camera or scanner. I'd say that most of the 'average users' I know use such products. OO.o and the GIMP are far better than the kind of low-budget software that usually comes with hardware.

Re:DOS

[edmicman]

most Windows users really don't know how to use Windows anymore than they know how to use Linux -- What they do know is how to use certain GUI frontends to certain apps

So where's the push to get more of these GUI frontends to certain apps on Linux? There seems to be some work in that end, and Ubuntu seems like it's pushing towards making things easier to use for the layperson.

I use both OS's, and in my experience while I've used cmd in Windows a lot, it's usually for diagnosis purposes, where I can spit out a bunch of information that isn't available in a built in GUI. I rarely think I've ever had to use cmd to *configure* something. Whereas on Linux, there are some frontends to some commands, but I still end up having to manually go in, and add a line here or comment something out there in a text file just to change some setting.

I think the real point is, yes, a CLI no matter what the OS can be very powerful. It should definitely be available. But to *really* use it, you need to *know* what commands to use. Arguing to use man or search the Internet doesn't help. man can be unbearably confusing sometimes, or sometimes it just lists options but doesn't really explain what they do. Of course, man doesn't help if you don't know what the command is to do what you want to do in the first place! And searching for what the command is you want to use if you don't know what it is can be tedious, too.

But anyone can reasonably look for a System or Preferences menu, hopefully drill down to the area of what they're looking for, and toggle options or whatnot. Why is there such pushback to making things easier?

Re:DOS

[weicco]

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

Re:DOS

[rathaven]

For my own part I do not disagree, however, and this is reality - I've met a number of sysadmins of small educational networks and probably others too who do not use the CLI in 99% of day to day use! This is not including the illiterates who do not even know what the "computer" is.

The sysadmins I mention didn't fail to understand the concepts - I quizzed them deeply and was shocked to see them not using a CLI with the depth of understanding they had. Looking further into the methods of work showed that they knew them well but they had to deal with so many issues they were stretched in their time and ability to pick up all the tools required to support multiple platforms - sometimes even the one they were working on. Most of the time that meant they stuck to Windoze and mostly used point and click interfaces. That's not to say they wouldn't use the CLI for emergencies or look up commands but their scripting skills were weak so CLI was mostly avoided. If admins like these need a script they download one or download a tool that does it for them or purchase one and, surprise, most of the time it does eleviate the requirement.

To move to other OS's means that those sysadmins are looking for a system that makes the concepts intuitive to implement - without having to learn commands that aren't intuitive. The illiterates also need this to the small extent that they need the tools at all.

Before anyone jumps on this as an argument of CLI/point and click - I use the examples only to highlight a point. The argument is one of transferable skills related to the concepts behind system administration. CLIs do allow this if the CLI is standardised across OS and people are prepared to learn, but it usually isn't. GUI interfaces are rarely standardised but they are intuitive and well designed and can help boost platforms by making day to day skills easy to pick up on a platform.

Re:DOS

[fbjon]

I don't think it's up to you to decide what people need or should have. The world doesn't bend that way, but the other way: People need/want to run an application, and if it only works on Windows, then so be it.

Re:DOS

[marsu_k]

As for GIMP, the last time I used it, it still didn't have any easy way to draw Ovals/Circles and Rectangles/Squares, something that even the most basic of image editors (MS Paint) has. Making an oval/rectangular selection and stroking it (hmm, that sounds rather perverse...) isn't that hard. But I think people should stop recommending Gimp to novices, while it is powerful the interface can be confusing at first. Krita is a wonderful alternative for simple painting / editing of digital photos.

Re:DOS

[duh P3rf3ss3r]

I'm sorry but this is just so much puffery. My grandma doesn't know how to "set up" Windows "on an old HP laptop for a mate" either. Does that mean Windows is not ready for prime time? Your efforts to suck and blow at the same time add up to a troll -- a well disguised troll, perhaps, maybe a troll in a dress -- but an AC troll nonetheless.

Re:DOS

[cecil_turtle]

There are GUI tools for everything you say you were "required" to use the terminal for. Go to System | Administration | Synaptic | search for and install ubuntu-restricted-extras and ndisgtk, and you'd have been done. Setting up NDIS wrapper via ndisgtk takes all of 70 seconds. The media playback codecs will prompt to be installed as needed. Try playing a .mov or .ra file on a default Windows install and let me know how well it walks you through installing the supporting applications.

Oh yeah and my mom (who is a grandmother) has been running Ubuntu for a few years now.

I just noticed you're an AC and I just wasted my time posting, but since I already typed it I'm posting anyway.

Re:DOS

[Haeleth]

As far as Compiz goes, I had to apt-get the compiz config panel so I could tweak the hell out of my setup.

No, you had to install it. However, you didn't have to use apt-get in a CLI to do that; you could simply have gone to your Applications menu, clicked on "Add/Remove...", selected "All Open Source applications", searched for "compiz", and clicked on the first option in the list. 100% GUI.

Re:DOS

[man_of_mr_e]

Part of the problem with Linux is that you have to "know" which one of the 20,000 programs in your package manager does what you need done.

So how, precisely, does one know about ndisgtk? What's more, don't you have to even manually configure it to use the restricted extras?

Sure, Windows has a lot of stuff that doesn't work right either, but it has just as much stuff that installs seamlessly, with complete directions a moron could follow. And, if that fails, they can call Linksys or DLINK and they'll walk them through it over the phone (granted, by some guy in india following a script that the user could have followed, but still.. that works most of the time, unless you're an expert and have a problem not covered by that.. which would be the only reason the expert would call).

Millions of people buy computers, set them up, and use them, including installing software and devices, with very little technical knowledge and without asking an "expert". You only see the people that are too stupid (or too scared) to do it themselves, so it gives you a skewed view of reality.

One of Linux's big problems is that it has insufficient end-user technical support and it has limited use-case testing scenarios, so when things go wrong they go spectacularly wrong. The kernel and most kinds of server apps are typically rock-solid, but the GUI end user apps tend to be buggy as hell, poorly designed, and exceedingly complex and cryptic. We like that, end-users don't.

Re:DOS

[sjames]

It's a good thing Windows is so friendly and intuitive to use. Why would anyone want to edit text file configs in Linux when they can just locate the key "jknb31r289cjk1289" and change it (obviously) to "9889cfjk12q9fcvfd"

Re:DOS

[mhall119]

For you and I yes... but for many people, they'd rather have the "layers of dialogs and wizards" (as long as they're well designed of course). They're used to dialogs and wizards, that doesn't necessarily mean they would prefer them. The command line and text files are less ambiguous than GUIs, and they change much less frequently. I can give exact CLI instructions for someone that they could run with a simple copy+paste operation, or I can give a couple pages of GUI instructions, screen shots, alternative instructions and screen shots if you're using XP instead of 2000, etc, and they'd still be lost on Vista.

The main problem for these people is that the very IDEA of opening one program (a text editor) to change the settings of another program is completely alien and makes no sense to them. Most user applications provide their options in dialogs, it's the OS services that you usually end up changing config files for. And Windows users are accustomed to opening a "Control Panel" or some other dialog to modify OS settings. Try telling a Windows user how to stop or start a system service using the Windows GUI.

In my more cynical moments, I'm quite happy to simply call these people idiots and say that they need to learn because it's REALLY not that hard, but realistically, they won't. Yes they will, they always do. Nobody wanted to re-learn the MS Office menus, or Vista, but they will anyway. Linux devs should focus on making them learn something better, not just something different, but the idea that we should make it so they don't have to re-learn anything is nonsense.

So, if we want them as users (which is another question entirely!), then we need to cater for their needs, no matter how stupid we think those needs are. I think it's equally important that we separate their needs from their wants. We should always try to cater to their needs, but should only cater to their wants when it makes sense.

"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[Manip]

I'd like to coin the term "Ready for my mom's desktop." Meaning after a few hours training she can use the platform without too much hassle.

That's where Linux really drops the ball still and OS X/Windows still dominate.

The UIs are extremely poorly designed on Linux and worse still they're often inconsistent with half a dozen ways to do the same operation.

And don't even get me started on the continued use of the terminal for /any/ normal user operations.

Linux isn't a consumer desktop, in fact it isn't even making very much ground in that area. That being said it is still an awesome server and geek toy.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[soccerisgod]

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.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[damburger]

Seeing as my mum and stepmum already use Ubuntu quite happily (and aren't phoning up every 10 minutes complaining that something is broken/they've got a virus) it seems Linux is already at that stage.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[The New Andy]

The UIs are extremely poorly designed on Linux and worse still they're often inconsistent with half a dozen ways to do the same operation.

I seem to remember one of the hints in the Microsoft Accessibility Guidelines was that the more ways to do a single operation, the more accessible it is. I don't use windows, so I can't check now, but I'm pretty sure I can think of 4 ways to move a file, 5 ways to change screen resolution and 4 ways to shut down the computer. I don't think this is a bad thing.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[Joe Jay Bee]

It isn't required for any normal operation.

It is sometimes required for some operations, usually fixing things or setting a couple things up.

In general though, the command line is very rarely used on Ubuntu, which is a good thing; if you tell a normal Windows user they'd have to use the DOS prompt to accomplish something, their eyes would glaze over.

(In fairness, Apple are no better for hiding options in the command line and requiring the use of the defaults command to set them, but at least these aren't very very basic things...)

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[Keyper7]

I completely agree!

Furthermore, if Britney Spears' music sucks, how come she hit the top of the charts so many times, huh, HUH? [1]

Take THAT, you geek smartasses!

[1] I'm talking about the beggining of her career, obviously.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[antirelic]

I agree that Linux is, and has been ready for the desktop for quiet some time now. Not trying to be too much of a fanboy (because I'm not, I prefer the Fedora distro line) of Ubuntu, but man, Ubuntu is what people have always dreamed a computer being like. For example: If I need a peace of software, I go to that Ubuntu software management application, find the category of different applications, browse through, click, and its installed (all the downloading and installation happens behind the scenes).

The only downfall is still the fact that most commercial software (read as: games, MS Office, and Itunes) do not run on Linux natively. So the question about Linux being ready for the desktop is a misnomer. Linux is and has been desktop ready, it is just a question of when will application developers develop popular applications for Linux.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[Fred_A]

The UIs are extremely poorly designed on Linux and worse still they're often inconsistent with half a dozen ways to do the same operation.

I seem to remember one of the hints in the Microsoft Accessibility Guidelines was that the more ways to do a single operation, the more accessible it is. I don't use windows, so I can't check now, but I'm pretty sure I can think of 4 ways to move a file, 5 ways to change screen resolution and 4 ways to shut down the computer. I don't think this is a bad thing. Not to mention the systems that have only one way to perform a task, which is so cleverly hidden that it takes 10 minutes to figure it out... (happenned to me a lot on Mac OS, I'm probably not intuitive enough for it, and on Windows because it's just weird)

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[notamisfit]

I do this in just about every article like this, and I gotta do it here; if those users declare that the GUI is in fact "unready", what the fuck difference does it make? Are they throwing money into the pool? More than likely, no. Are they going to throw in a code patch, or even a bug report that goes beyond "Application X crashed and I don't know why" or "I want feature Z"? No. Best just to let 'em be on their way with a Vista or OSX box; when they're ready, they'll find us on their own.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[slashflood]

That's where Linux really drops the ball still and OS X/Windows still dominate. The UIs are extremely poorly designed on Linux and worse still they're often inconsistent with half a dozen ways to do the same operation.

Not too long ago, somebody here linked to these two images.

Re:"Ready for my mom's desktop."

[pablomme]

I finally installed Ubuntu. The package manager is nice... but browsing through the 100s of packages there named:
[...]
and most of the descriptions might as well have been written in Wookie for as much as my mom would understand. Even search rarely returns a single, or even small number of results. Try "Add/Remove Applications" rather than Synaptic. That comes with pretty icons, meaningful names and descriptions, reasonable multi-package bundles, and even popularity ratings. It's a mistake to tell newbies to use Synaptic.

Oh dear...

[FoolsGold]

If this story doesn't garner at LEAST 1000 comments, then Slashdot isn't ready for the Internet.

From TFA

[Undead NDR]

The fact is, there are just as many people out there who have difficulty using Windows as there are who have trouble using Linux.

Well, I really hope that isn't the case, given the respective market share.

From the first half-dozen comments I see here...

[Keyper7]

...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.

Re:Ready for the desktop?

[Horatio_Hellpop]

//And what's your definition of "any application"?// Probably an application. Like, any of them.

Windows' ease of use vastly overstated

[cptnapalm]

If Windows is so easy to use for the computer illiterate, why have I spent untold hours fixing other peoples Windows machines, teaching people how to double click on icons, teaching people not to double click on anything which is not an icon, teaching people how to connect to a wireless hotspot, etc etc etc?

Who do you think the "No, I will not fix your computer." t-shirts were inspired by? Mac users? Linux users?

!ready for the desktop

[Toreo asesino]

The way I see it, it's ready for YOUR desktop when it can run all YOUR apps seamlessly and without a problem.

My girlfriend for instance, just browses the net, plays mp3's, checks her emails and occasionally writes documents, prints them, and occasionally uses Skype. Linux is ready for HER desktop.

Me on the other hand, I'm a .Net dev, play lot's of PC games, work with doc & docx files every day, and actually like iTunes (for the iPod). Linux is not ready for my desktop, nor is it likely to be any time soon.

To say "Linux is ready for THE desktop" is quite frankly very short-sighted.

The Question Should Be:

[FurtiveGlancer]

Is Linux ready for the average windows user?

When will Windows be ready for the desktop?

[mlwmohawk]

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.

The real question.

[jellomizer]

Is Linux ready for a majority position on the desktop. The answer is no and Ill expect it always will be. Because I don't see the desktop being the dominate platform for much longer. As smart phones are getting smarter, replacing many of the most commonly used desktop uses and as the price of powerful hardware is rapidly dropping I am seeing a world where we have more appliances then desktops. The key for Microsoft dominance in the desktop for the past decade has moved from 3rd party software variety to the fact that people need 100% office compatibility. (Even office for the Mac offers 99.999% compatability... not good enough) Open office offers 99% compatibility meaning normally 3 day a year you will need office, to view a document. Now if Microsoft looses it office share or there are complete solutions to share the files Microsoft will go down as well as the desktop. And we will move back towards appliance applications, for personal use. Granted they will be more like under powered desktops but using todays terms for $200.00 you will get a system that is roughly the power of a first generation core solo, a small k unupgradable box with Wi-Fi a keyboard with just office like applications. Games will be relegated to the console. All the appliances will have internet connections so most 3rd party apps will be web based. Yes slashdot will scoff and be overall displeased by this but this direction would seem to make the most sense. As it would be more economical, people will not feel the need to upgrade every 3 years. Closed Source Developers would like it as it can reduce piracy of their software. Desktops will not Die, just as the Mainframe didn't die but the desktops would be more for people like the stereotypical slashdot user who uses more of the PC power then the rest of the population. Nothing says these appliance apps will not run on the desktops.

When developers can make money...

[cyclocommuter]

... writing software for it (Linux Desktop) then it might be ready. Or when when smallish companies which bankroll software figure out a way on how to make money of it. I am not talking Office software here but tax preparation and other small business software for Accounting, Billing, Inventory, etc. It may also help if a small company can hire developers that can develop desktop software on it in true RAD fashion without the need for these developers to know how to do it in C ala Linus.

Also when users of these software (outlined above) are confident that nothing will break after 6 months when it is time for them to upgrade to the latest build of Ubuntu or Simply Mepis, Mandriva, or whatever desktop distro it is they are using, then it is ready for the desktop.

Re:Sorry Guys, It's Definitely NOT Ready

[shish]

For all of you who have "set up a machine" for their parents and it "works just fine", I submit that requiring an expert to set up a system for an end user is the very definition of "not ready".

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 different

My parents have found changing settings and installing programs easier on linux (Ubuntu) than Windows :-P

How can we judge?

[bsDaemon]

I'll be 24 in a month, but have been using some varient of UNIX since I was 12 or 13. For half my life, my computer has either run FreeBSD or Linux (Slackware, RedHat, and lately LinuxMint because the only computer i have with me here right now is a Dell d830 and I'm absolutely reliant on Wifi and too lazy to cut firmware by hand), often in dual-boot, though I have occasionally been forced to use windows machines of opportunity. I also had a G4 iBook for a while, but I gave it to my sister because it pissed me off.

There has been a MARKED improvement in being able to plop my ass down and just do "windows" things on Linux in the past few years, however quite frankly I find it somewhat less usable than I did when I was in jr. high.

I used to have these incredibly elaborate .Xdefaults, .tcshrc, .bashrc, .dircolors and .vimrc files, which are now pretty much useless.

I haven't been able to get ANSI fonts like Nexus to work in Eterm and display colored BASH prompts properly since Red Hat 6.0.

Everything has some GUI interface to it now that rights configuration files in some way that I never would have had I been doing it by hand and then I'm afraid to do a hand edit, because something usually ends up breaking.

Frankly, it seems like the push in the last 5 years especially has been to try and make a free ripoff of Windows that isn't Windows and then try and get "average computer users" to switch, for some reason which isn't even clear to me -- so why it would be to them, I have not clue.

In 8th grade I was captain of my school's BASIC programing team to the Great Computer Challenge at ODU university (sort of like an ACM competition, only stupid), and I also competed in an engineering competition where I tossed a mousetrap car together the night before in about an hour and ended up coming in 2nd place, ahead of about 30 other people.

I took the money I won from the engineering competition and bought a book on C. I had some exposure to FreeBSD through an ISP shell account that I messed with, so my uncle gave me a copy of RH 4.1 or something so that I could get at the free dev tools and learn C. I was then captain of my high school's C team for 3 years.

I started using UNIX because I wanted to use UNIX, NOT because I wanted a "cheap version of Windows that wasn't Windows." Frankly, I think the dev community, and evangelist community, have gotten far, far away from "The UNIX Way," and in the process haven't even really gained what we sought -- which for some reason was the "can any random old person or idiot use this system without me having to be on call 24/7?"

Why random people would need a multi-user, multi-tasking operating system when all they want to do is chat on IM and watch DVDs is beyond me.

So, in the long and the short -- we barely know what non-geeks want, and apparently forgot why we wanted *nix in the first place. How can we judge if the system is "ready for the desktop, then?" It seemed just fine before...

Re:Preaching to the choir

[Fred_A]

Meanwhile, a billion users worldwide somehow manage to run Windows without the free technical support of a resident geek. And, speaking on behalf of the spam botnet industry, I'd like to warmly thank them all.

"Good enough"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The "good enough" argument is a fair point, but for these specific examples, I respectfully disagree that they are even "good enough". Sure, if you're literally only writing a trivially formatted letter or resizing an image, they can do it, but of course, so can much simpler programs. The big problems come when you want to do things a little bit more advanced, where using a real word processor, spreadsheet or image editor is actually necessary.

It's not just the functionality, though that has some pretty serious limitations. I'm not sure how on-topic the specifics are in this thread, but if you're interested in OpenOffice in particular, go ahead and Google my user name and terms like "OpenOffice" on site:slashdot.org, and my previous detailed commentary is easy to find. It goes without saying that OpenOffice Writer is quite some way ahead of all the major OSS alternatives in features, at least on paper, so I think it's fair to use it as a benchmark of where the Linux+OSS world stands relative to a traditional Windows-based system.

More seriously, the big problem with a lot of everyday OSS applications is quality control. The unfortunate reality is that OpenOffice has always been horribly bug-ridden, often in quite fundamental ways, and worse, the dev team show no great inclination to fix some of these things even though they have been consistently highly voted in the bug tracker for years. If I have a word processor with a major selling point in PDF export, but PDF export is completely borked with OpenType fonts, that's a downer. Spreadsheets that can't sort data when the cells contain simple calculations are pretty broken, too. And so it goes, and so it has been with many other everyday OSS packages I've tried. Sure, Windows products are hardly immune from bugs, but at least the main features in major applications are normally usable. So, until this sort of thing is fixed in the major OSS applications, I find it hard to believe that any amount of "many eyes making all bugs shallow", "with the source code you can always do it yourself" advocacy will convince the average punter that Linux and the applications that run on it are ready to replace the typical Windows-based set-up in practice.

The article contains the answer

[Rob Y.]

Windows has tons of commercial apps, which forces a huge chicken and egg dilemma on OEM's that might want to support Linux. That, plus they actually make a teeny bit of profit on the Windows OS.

OS/X has the Macintosh hardware behind it, so no OEM problems. Beyond that, they have some great mythology and some pretty good software.

Linux has... linux. It's great software, perfectly usable in many cases, but no compelling reason for OEM's to provide it. So, it's limited to geeks willing to install (often over a paid-for copy of Windows) and some businesses that understand the potential savings.

There was a brief glimmer of hope in the EeePC and it's copycats (all prodded by the OLPC). Pre-installed linux made perfect sense on low-end hardware intended to be sold cheap and for limited uses. Microsoft's caught on to this bit of momentum, and is attempting to squelch it with XP. It remains to be seen whether they'll succeed, though press accounts suggest they might.

It remains for other Open Source stuff (most specifically OOo) to make inroads as a real cross-platform money saver. Once businesses stop using MSOffice/Outlook, they can seriously consider ditching Windows. And they might have the clout to get the OEM's to do it.

Interestingly, OOo, because it's own 'yet another cross-platform toolkit' is not shared by other software, it is nicely poised to be distro-agnostic on Linux. That could be a plus.

Re:How about being honest about it?

[dave87656]

You could just say that "Linux will never be ready for the desktop" and be done with it.
It's a lot more honest than simply giving up because 'it's in the eye of the beholder'.

Wankers. I use it for my desktop. We use it for 40 desktops in our company. Seems to work very well there. And, if I compare it to the support required for the ~10 Windows boxes we have, it seems Windows is not quite yet ready for the desktop.

The honest answer is: it depends on what you want to do with your desktop.