Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux Is Not Yet Ready For the Desktop
An anonymous reader writes "Every now and then a new- or old-media journalist tries to explain to everyone why Linux is not yet ready for the desktop. However all those men who graduated from their engineering universities years ago have only superficial knowledge about operating systems and their inner works. An unknown author from Russia has decided to draw up a list of technical reasons and limitations hampering Linux domination on the desktop." Some of the gripes listed here really resonate with me, having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10 on my main testing-stuff laptop; it's frustrating especially that while many seemingly more esoteric things work perfectly, sound now works only in part, and even that partial success took some fiddling.
Without the big labels like Valve developing their titles on Linux, you aren't going to see Linux widely used in desktop soon.
New Economic Perspectives
I always enjoy these /. stories about Linux acceptance. We are guarenteed a full vetting of why this article is wrong by the Linux-heads and why it is so right by the M$-heads.
It's even numbered for easy reference to the sprcific points
1999 called, they want their article back
Any guesses to the amount of comments this thread will get once the cabal gets enough juice in their systems to read?
---
I don't care to hash over the OS wars...
The future is web based. Endless bloat, inefficient javascript and the latency of accessing remote systems. Why will people accept such a system? because a lot of people never learned to use a desktop, they learned how to use a web browser. Anything outside the web browser looks complicated to them.
There is also the fact that web-based is the new way of making money from software. No piracy since its mostly server-side, lace it with ads and nobody complains about adware. Give it a few years and ads will no longer be served up by dedicated domains you can easily block.
If client side desktop computing is to survive the interface has to become more iPhony. Ordinary folk love the touchy feeley colourful, childish looking animated interface of the iPhone so the future is in projects like Hildon. I personally hate the iPhone's interface but thats alright, if its Linux or BSD I'll just install a minimalist window manager which there should always be plenty of.
Zero games? Tell that to World of Warcraft, which seems to work fine for me on Ubuntu, straight out of the box, through wine. Also, the idea that Linux has no virus purely because it isn't popular ignores the fact it is very popular for servers which are bigger targets for crackers.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The first alpha of 9.10 was released a couple days ago with new kernel, new gcc, lots of new libraries... you should not be surprised things don't work well yet. Jaunty seems pretty stable to me. Minor issues with my intel video card, but works fine for all my daily work.
They are indoctrinated to a world of malware, reboots and crashes. They are convinced that's just the way PC's are, so they stick with the devil they know rather than attempt to learn anything new. They refuse to open their minds to anything else. These people will cling onto Windows well after Microsoft go bankrupt and no longer provide updates. These people will sit securely in their own bubble and assume they are safe and secure. If it wasn't for the fact that EVERY user gets the fallout from Microsoft botnets regardless of their OS, I'd say leave them be.
T-SPICE works under WINE ... always has. No install or function issues. That's '1".
It took almost 3 months to get the sound working on Ubuntu (TOS-link). Even to this day I'm scared that if I lose the system I'll lose the configuration- it required editing different accounts, adding new packages, modifying them in a non-standard fashion, adding options that weren't documented...
Windows XP? Put it in and the sound comes out.
I'll say the same thing about hard drives too- while the support is built in I still had to do some 20 commands to add, mount, locate, format, automount, edit the UUID manualy, fdisk....
Nothing better to kill 2 hours of your precious life.
between GNOME and KDE, and the mainstream distributions (Novel ubuntu) promote GNOME/Mono.
So when somebody writes a new app, there are instantly forks of the same thing in: GTK, QT, Mono, PyGTK, Java, and one in C for FVWM.
So people just write libraries and the major distroes cherry pick the crappest frontends.
It's simple. If you make $40bn per year you can invest $100M to eleminate the competition and that can be used to promote crapware FOSS...
If you're not using it now, you probably never will. As a long time (and current) Linux user, I have come across all these issues first-hand, as has every other Linux user, developer and advocate out there. That they are still problems even though they've been known for years - sometimes decades shows that they will never be addressed, or fixed.
Linux is a hobby systyem. The code is donated mostly by amateurs (or people working for rewards other than money - for example the recognition of their peers) and is therefore not within the normal disciplines of IT developemt. If you tell a Linux developer their code is crap - or the application they have written is junk, they'll just walk. As they will if you ask them to do things they don't want to: such as write a manual, fix bugs, add (or remove) features.
Basically guys, this is as good as it gets. Live with it or go elsewhere.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The TFA is a worthless troll, even more so than usual in these "Linux is not ready for the desktop" Slashdot articles.
It has the usual list of ignorant complaints (oh no, there is a choice of distributions, boo hoo! oh no, there is a choice of GUI toolkits, boo hoo!), but some points stand out in their sheer stupidity.
"Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.)"
Really?
Who admits these articles to the front page anyway?
we discovered a new way to think.
and I run it ubuntu 9.4 exclusively on my home machine. It is an excellent OS with some bugs and does occasionally does something completely random. It has its faults but that isn't the reason why it isn't ready for the normal user. The reason is that the average computer user is an idiot. I"m talking about those people who freak out when there isn't a gui and mainly uses their machine to write word documents, email and play games. These users want something that works and when it doesn't someone to call up and complain to/swear at.
Add in M$ market dominance and you have two blockades that are not going to be cracked anytime soon. However this is a good thing! As long as the idiots run windows, there will be orders of magnitude less viruses for Linux.
Zero games? Tell that to World of Warcraft, which seems to work fine for me on Ubuntu, straight out of the box, through wine.
The article states that Wine does not run every popular video game designed for Windows. You just got lucky in your choice of games; families with children clamoring for a specific incompatible title don't have that luxury.
One of the reasons Linux isn't ready for the desktop is the attitude of developers. An example is the current Kubuntu.
Many people who did take the plungs with desktop Linux settled, reasonably, on the mature, functional KDE-3.5. But if those people upgrade to current Kubuntu Jaunty Jackelope (one wonders if 9.10 will just be called "Silly Gay Name"), they'll find their familiar desktop -- nowhere. Instead, they'll find KDE-4.2, which isn't the atrocity that 4.0 and 4.1 were, but which still ain't ready for real work.
It would be a simple thing to support both and to allow people to migrate gradually to the new KDE, as it and its applications become more usable. But that's not being done and the developers and packagers are actually kind of snotty about it.
One *can* get KDE-3.5 for the current Kubuntu and Ubuntu, but it involves unofficial and semi-official (whatever that means) repositories and substantially more work.
Users, especially those who want to use Linux for real work, might end up thinking that Linux developers in general are kind of jerks. That impression can be hard to refute.
I don't know why I bother upgrading. They say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and in the case of Ubuntu that has proven to be the case every single time because something always breaks upon upgrade. This most recent upgrade to Jaunty completely disabled my ability to put my laptop to sleep because the screen now goes dark and I can't see what is happening and what is stopping it from sleeping. No matter what I do I can't get the screen to come back on, so the only recovery is a forced shutdown via the power button. Now I can only shut it down and reboot it - so much for uptime statistics!
Anyway, something always breaks. This is, however, not so different than any other operating system upgrade. Unless you have well tested hardware, that is nothing too bleeding edge new and nothing too old (e.g. my IBM T-30 laptop) then it is likely you will have some problems each time you upgrade. I know I have had my share of problems when going from Win98 to XP that a few internet searches easily resolved. I guess it also helps when you don't upgrade that often - it has been years since I have touched my Windows installation and yet every 6 months I am upgrading my Linux and bitching every time when something breaks. I should just leave the freakin' thing alone!!!
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
It doesn't run the 100000000000 Windows applications that people want to use.
I know that 99% of all people could do most of anything they want in Linux, but that is not a selling point. "99% as good as the real thing!" is not a strong enough reason to make people leave their comfort zone.
Joe Average would need a compelling reason for using Linux and there is practically none except "I hate Microsoft".
The Real Reason Why Linux Is Not Yet Ready For the Desktop? Microsoft is fighting it.
...but insists that reproduction of any kind is prohibited without permission. So I won't quote from the article. I will just refer to it.
In the last paragraph the author talks about implementations of SMB and AD (active directory?) not being available, then excludes samba. I with he would say why. Samba seems pretty good in that area.
In addition I would like to say that my wife's corolla is crap because it can't carry 1000 kilos of stuff the way my van does. Also the Boeing 747 is crap because it has a bigger radar cross section than a B2 stealth bomber.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I've been using Ubuntu since Drake and it seems to me that each ensuing distro has fixed at least one problem I've had on my desktop but then seems to be broke in a couple of other places that were fine before. Seems the first thing I do after installing a new distro is search for what's busted now. But, I continue with Linux. Masochistic streak?
... because this type of "Linux for the desktop" articles gets posted almost every month. If I could, I would mark all of these articles dupes even across month boundaries.
Let the flames begin, though. I may* come back to read the comments in the coming days.
_________
* The word MAY, as used in this comment, has the same meaning as in RFC 2119.
The future is not web-based because no large corporation will put/send/store their sensitive stuff (as in trade secrets) on any other corporation's web servers.
For that, there is this wild thing called intranet.
If the industry-standard web application software for your line of business uses ActiveX or relies on quirks of Windows Internet Explorer, then Linux isn't ready for the desktop. And if it runs on IIS or Apache for Windows and not on Apache for Linux, then Linux isn't ready for the server either.
...if the OSS community was as honest (and constructive) as this guy it might have a chance on the general-purpose desktop against Windows.
Karma be damned; I thought that despite the provocative headline, it was a really refreshing criticism of Linux on the desktop.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
Preface:
In this document we only discuss Linux deficiencies while everyone should keep in mind that there are areas where Linux has excelled other OSes.
A primary target of this comparison is Windows OS.
Linux major shortcomings and problems:
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.
1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output.
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default many distros do not set volume levels properly (no audio output/no sound recording).
2. X system:
2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
2.2 Very slow GUI (except when being run with composite window managers on top of OpenGL).
2.3 Many GUI operations are not accelerated. No analogue of GDI or GDI+. Text antialiasing and other GUI operations are software rendered by GUI libraries (GTK->Cairo/QT->Xft).
2.4 Font rendering is implemented via high level GUI libraries, thus:
2.4.1 fontconfig fonts antialiasing settings cannot be applied on-the-fly.
2.4.2 Fonts antialiasing only works for certain GUI toolkits (see 2.1).
2.4.3 Default fonts (often) look ugly.
2.4.3.1 (Being resolved) By default most distros disable advanced fonts antialiasing.
2.4.3.2 By default most distros come without good or even compatible with Windows fonts.
2.5 No double buffering.
3. Problems stemming from the vast number of Linux distributives:
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM, deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for software development.
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./configure && make && make installer. It should be possible to install any software by downloading a package and double clicking it (yes, like in Windows, but probably prompting for user/administrator password).
3.4 Applications development is a major PITA. Different distros can use a) different libraries versions b) different compiler flags c) different compilers. This leads to a number of problems raised to the third power.
4. It should be possible to configure everything via GUI which is still not a case for too many situations and operations.
5. Problems stemming from low linux popularity and open source nature:
5.1 Few software titles, inability to run familiar Windows software. (Some applications (which don't work in Wine) have zero Linux equivalents).
5.1.1 No equivalent of some hardcore Windows software like AutoCAD/3D Studio/Adobe Premier/Corel Painter/etc. Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real.
5.2 No games. Full stop. Cedega and Wine offer very incomplete support.
5.3 Incomplete or unstable drivers for some hardware. Problems setting up some hardware (like sound cards or TV tuners/Web Cameras).
5.3.1 A lot of WinPrinters do n
The driver problem is a variation of the chicken and the egg.
Linux is not a large part of the desktop market thus many manufacturers do not bother writing drivers for them. As a result every time a new piece of hardware comes out someone has to have that hardware (so they care) and then cobble a driver together for it. As a result some hardware is not supported (or poorly supported). Then people say Linux isn't desktop ready because the drivers aren't up to snuff. Repeat.
I'm not saying the complaint isn't valid but sadly there is little Linux can do about it (short of creating a new project to keep up with every piece of hardware known to man). Windows on the other hand doesn't have this problem as every manufacturer on the planet makes sure to include a driver for windows. Mac escapes this problem since it's a hardware company and says we only support Mac products. It's a very unfair setup and I'm not sure if there is a way to break the cycle.
Seems like we've had this exact argument a thousand times. This list at least makes mostly good points. But it still misses the mark many times. Particularly annoying is the absolutism in so many statements, like:
This is obviously false. There are games on Linux. Many are open sourced, and some commercials games are available on Linux (e.g. World of Goo). Now I wouldn't have argued if he had said "Very few games." But instead he tried to make his point punchier by being absolute... and this weakens his whole argument by introducing lies.
And as usual the author prefaces by mentioning that this is some sort of relative comparison with Windows, yet points out problems that exist with all operating systems, like "A galore of software bugs across all applications", or "huge shutdown time" (I've timed it on dual-boot systems and for me Kubuntu was faster than Windows XP. YMMV.) and "poor documentation" (does Windows come with an awesome manual I wasn't made aware of? No. For both Win and Linux you end up searching online. Both have tons of 3rd-party documentation.)...
And then there are kind nonsensical complaints like "don't allow you to easily set up a server with e.g. such a configuration: Samba, SMTP/POP3, Apache HTTP Auth and FTP where all users are virtual" Does Windows let you do this easily? The heading said that this was an analysis of whether Linux is ready for the Desktop and instead the author injects one of his pet-peeves about configuring Linux as a server?
And then there are spurious assumptions used to justify complaints, like "Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity". We've had this argument many times... undoubtedly the low market-share of Linux helps keep viruses off the platform. But there is also plenty of evidence that it is robust security-wise (e.g. infection rates for servers). At a minimum it's not the settled question the author implies.
I could go on and on. No doubt this thread will tear-apart other statements from TFA. It's too bad, because many of the points made are very much correct, and deserve attention. But it seems that whenever someone tries to compile lists such as this, they end up not only making good points about what needs work, but throwing in their own anecdotal annoyances and personal viewpoints, which muddies the whole argument...
For most users, Linux IS ready for the desktop. There's more people that use their computers casually then for installing the latest games or other such applications.
I've had Linux installed on and off for 7 years, but about 2 years ago I saw that the OS was good enough for everyday use (I don't use Ubuntu). It has now got to the point where before I had 100% use of Windows XP and 0% Linux, I have 2% Windows and 98% Linux usage.
A majority of applications that I had to buy software for in Windows I now have in Linux versions, maybe not as 100% polished, but they are usable, like Kdenlive for editing HD video or Avidemux. It's not a question of being free for me, but they are more stable than in Windows equivalents.
The only thing that people should be p1ssed off at is the lack of updates for applications like Skype, who after well over 2 years have given no updates to users of Linux, and no 64 bit version. Would be nice for Google to get their finger out and have a 64 bit version of GoogleEarth.
The other annoying thing is that still manufacturers refuse to get their stuff to work on Linux.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
One of the authors point is "Huge shutdown time". I guess he has never tried to turn off a Windows machine with lots of services running....
Some of the big problems are wifi, bluetooth, sound and video related. Most of these problems are a result of proprietary drivers/hardware. I have problems with bluetooth that my keyboard won't connect after a reboot. Configuring the spdif raw output is a pain(eventually got it running properly with a custom .asound configuration). Cheaper sound cards only support one channel, thus causing one application to block another (there are workarounds, but even for the tech-savvy this is a pain). Video support, you are at the mercy of the hardware.
For me, Linux is ready for the desktop, it's just that some hardware's not ready for Linux.
We are the people our parents warned us about.
Linux should not be compared to Windows or MacOS X. There are many Linux distros just like there many car makes and models. There is no backward compatibility or part swapping in cars, yet people buy and drive them them. Despite its pitfalls, the Linux desktop can be packaged and sold around a specific, targeted solution. Check out the Linux Appliance Construction Kit (http://susestudio.com). And don't forget that Qt is LGPL as of release 4.5.
Notice the ".ru" at the end of the domain of the "article". Russia, eh?
I'll tell you what's going on:
The Slashdot gang, desperate for traffic and the subsequent advertising revenue from said traffic, teamed up with the Russian mafia and they're writing these Troll articles. Now, nothing increases viewership like controversy and the biggest controversy among computers nerds is Linux vs. Microsoft and how Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
There you go.
Not this shit again.
Not from me. I have to go to work.
just another dumb ass that thinks he knows what he is talking about. Blaming Linux because Autocad does not want to port their app to Linux is loaded with flawed thinking. Hey moron, how about point that finger where it belongs... AT AUTOCAD!
The vast majority of desktop computer users is happy with Minesweeper, Solitaire and Tetris.
The Tetris Company has never put out a product for Linux, except possibly the browser-based Tetris Friends. And it alleges that workalikes such as Lockjaw and Gnometris violate its copyright, though this US Copyright Office document makes Tetris's claims look flimsy.
The parent poster is not talking about corporate use, or geeks like us, he's talking about the folks at home. You know the other NINETY percent of the market.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I did my research and found a TV tuner that would work under Linux so that I could run MythTV. How many tuner cards work with OSX? Linux is not Windows, but it doesn't mean it's not ready for the desktop.
Apple puts together hardware that works with their OS and now Dell and other OEM's are doing the same with Linux. If you want to run either Linux or OSX on older hardware you have lying around be prepared to hack (although much less with Linux). If you want to build a system from scratch, do your homework first and buy compatible parts.
I stopped reading halfway through. Its a troll. I could say Windows isn't ready for the desktop because there are no CLI utilities or scripting languages built in.
If you want to do something in batch like resize and auto-rotate a bunch of digital camera pictures you need to search for and download a program that does exactly what you want and hopefully not get a virus.
With linux, you whip up a little script that runs jhead -autorot and convert -resize.
A lot of times you need to do something specialized each time. Having a full blown GUI for each occasion doesn't make sense and neither does having something that is so extremely configurable because it would ultimately be complicated and confusing and still wouldn't handle the 5% of the corner cases.
I just didn't know all that even as I use Linux daily as my personnal desktop OS, thanks for the infos !!!
Everyone has its own experience with each OS available out there.
Just to tell everyone the first thing that stops me from using Windows : read the EULA carefully !!!
desktop isn't ready for the linux!!
in the corporate system there are companies that have only just moved from 16bit windows apps, they are stuck at whatever os they are with now, and would probably not take the plunge with linux especially if they cannot port old 16 bit applcations to 32/64bit.
bit corporation are so afraid of change that it can be their downfall, the new kid on the block with a dynamic team of programmers can make for a smoother system, obviously a larger company can benefit from their preexisting market share and managerial experience.
but why should I ?
"having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10"
Why on earth would you have gripes ? You are lucky to have anything but a command line
WoW is hardly an obscure game - it is the most popular MMORPG in the world.
Not everybody likes paying $15 per game per month for MMORPGs, and not everybody likes paying $60 per month for the mobile broadband access needed to play them away from hotspots. Can one buy a copy of a single-player game for Windows developed in the past twelve months and expect it to install seamlessly into Wine?
Like the lexmarkprinter. I bought one, ignorant as I was since my printers always worked on Debian (long time debian-fanboy here)... Now this was an el cheapo lexmark, but I needed to print and really I don't care who writes the drivers just as long when I plug the printer in, it starts printing... Also: ALSA one day I reboot, it works. Another day I reboot and for some weird reason I have to force-reload ALSA. Personally I put up with it cause of the other advantages Debian offers me, but is really putting up with.. Not a good thing. I can't sell that my parents. They want it to work. Out of the box. This is also a reason I am considering the switch to BSD, but there I would mis my precious Flash 10 to much.
If regedit.exe counts as a GUI, so does your favourite text editor. Navigating to a path (in the registry or in the filesystem) and changing a cryptic string for another cryptic string is necessary on Windows to do interesting things, same as Linux. It is not generally necessary on either platform if you just want to listen to music and write emails.
Also, to add an unscientific anecdote about hardware support, I now find it easier to make hardware work on Linux. Having bought a Vista laptop, I installed Windows XP and Linux on it, and have every piece of hardware working perfectly on Linux, but many missing/unreliable drivers (and, bizarrely, no support for USB keyboards) on XP.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
To me, Linux won't be ready on the desktop until I can be sure what will happen when I highlight some text. It won't be ready until there are sane semantics for the clip/pasteboard that are obvious and consistent across 100% of the applications I run. It won't be ready until I can copy a URL and paste it in Mozilla's address bar without having to carefully click and hold backspace/delete to remove the current URL before pasting.
From a simple usability stand-point, Linux is utterly wrong and brain-dead. I use copy+paste all the time and in Linux it's just too painful.
Secondly, and more importantly; despite these tens of problems that are listed, Linux is still gaining market share against windows. More subjectively; Linux runs "better" on all the PCs I have tried it on. Sure, niche cases like setting up X-Fi cards are annoying, but then they aren't a walk in the park in Windows either.
Finally, this made me laugh the most:
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software.
(Emphasis mine). So? It would be impossible to contain all open source software ever in a repo. But at least a sizeable quantity is available there, compared to microscopic amounts of "packages" in Microsofts repo (i.e., Windows Update) which is mostly composed of patches anyway.
Maybe next year will be the year for Linux on the desktop. All jokes aside, until you can just drag and drop to install apps on Linux (like OS X), Linux will not be accepted on the desktop. 99.99% of users don't want to (and shouldn't need to) bring up a terminal window. If you ever have to bring up a term to do anything, you can forget about wide acceptance. Most Windows users don't even know the command prompt is available.
The whole idea of having an OS is that it's supposed to give me a platform on which I can run programs with no extra fuss required. Windows does that. MacOS X does that. Linux does too, but it takes a lot more effort. I'm not at a computer to tinker with the OS, I'm here to get something done.
In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles keeping Linux our of the domestic desktop market is the developers apparently can't put themselves in the shoes of the average user. In my personal experience they tend to hold the end user in contempt, but I realize that this is a fairly small sample of the community...
Like it or not, Windows and OSX have set standards for interface and functional transparency. It may not sit well with developers that they can't micromanage what the OS is doing, but the average user just doesn't give a shit and is unwilling if not incapable of tweaking the OS to accomplish otherwise simple tasks.
It needs to "just work." If you need to use the command line, it's broken for desktop use. If you need to manually edit a file, it's broken for desktop use. If an essential component for some software is not included and must be installed and configured separately, it's broken for desktop use. (That last one is a big, big problem for Linux!)
For all the faults Microsoft has with their software, at least they did the research and learned how Joe Shmoe uses a computer and designed to the lowest common denominator. That's how they ended up on top.
=Smidge=
I found the unknown Russian author's name: Steveski Ballmerski.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Very little. Not just because TINC, but because those who wold speak up for Linux know better than to equate Linux with Ubuntu.
Then with what distribution of Linux-for-the-desktop should the promoters of Linux-for-the-desktop equate Linux-for-the-desktop? If not Ubuntu, then what?
Given the titular statement, why does Linux not win?
One of the main reasons that Windows remains popular is because it's well known and people are used to it.
In this case, I'm misstating the phrase. The realistic version would be "It's hard to compete with stolen". Many home users that I know assume Windows is a right. If a person in IT hasn't been asked by someone for a license key for Windows, I would consider that unusual.
Which makes Linux a poor third choice, which a majority of people wouldn't even consider if they knew it was available.
Is that why Linux Desktop is such a blazing success right now ?
The future is small devices that do a specific job - PDAs, smart phones, etc.... no general use boxes. The biggest machine my daughter and her friends use is a notebook computer to update their Facebook page. everything else they use their PDAs or phones
The desktop is going to be relegated to the corporate cubicle drone.
I've been using it for 6 years now. Whether it's ready for YOUR desktop or not depends on you. Is Windows ready for the desktop? I would say "no" because it has a list of flaws that stop me using it. Being closed source is a pretty serious one for starters. There's no central software repository, you need driver disks for hardware, scripting is poor, it's got that registry thing, is suffers from bit-rot, viruses, spyware, adware... I could go on but as I'm about to say, it's pointless.
Lists of faults, blanket statements and generalising about which OS is ready or not is utterly pointless. They all have their faults and strong points. They are all desktop-ready for some people and they are all not desktop-ready for others.
Want to see if Linux is ready for your desktop? Try it out. You only have the cost of a blank CD to lose.
Here's my latest frustration. I prefer KDE, but have been using Gnome for a year or so while waiting for a distribution to ship w/ 4.2. Recently, my wish came true, and I installed the latest Kubuntu.
I spend most of my time in a console window, and have come to like Konsole very much. Will someone tell me why, why, why the 'Manage Profiles' dialog is so broken? I cannot get Konsole to remember to show my profiles in the menu no matter what. Additionally, when I go through the setup - each and every time I boot my laptop - my profiles are enumerated multiple times, completely unsorted, in the selection dialog. Apparently this is not a new problem; I can find bug reports that are over a year old.
As long as simple basic applications like this suffer such regressions, there's no hope whatsoever that a Linux desktop will ever go mainstream. A mainstream desktop must be completely predictable and reliable.
I don't suffer the same problems with most other free software applications; so I don't believe it's the development model that's at fault. I think the problem lies with the failure of the desktop development community to enforce accountability on its contributers. There's no evolutionary pressure to improve quality, only a creeping accretion of "features".
Don't even get me started on sound...
Linux is a hobby system
So wait, what does this mean, exactly? It's a hobby system that's cute to fiddle with then turn it off when I want to do "real" work? Like working with a database system that holds hundreds of millions of rows, used every day? That's in an Oracle database, running on a Linux machine.
Is my Tivo a "hobby" system? Does TomTom only make "hobby" devices ("you didn't get where you're going? Oh well, you know it's just a hobby system, right?"). I guess I shouldn't expect much from the routers, phones, and other devices that have put Linux at the core of their stack. I mean, it's just a hobby, right?
So what is a "professional" system to you? Windows? Sure, it's used a lot of professional capacities, sure there's a lot of software available for it, but are you saying it's somehow more "professional" than Linux? Why is that? Because it's written by Microsoft? Is Microsoft somehow more professional than Oracle or IBM?
Your post is breathtaking in its ignorance, and I know I'm doing myself no favors by feeding the trolls, but *come* *on*...at least a descent job of flame baiting would latch on to some obvious, specific weakness and exploit it, rightly or wrongly. This is post is just raving.
Not wanting to start a war on anything:
I fully agree with the argument that professional development applications such as 3DMax still have not cut it into the UX realm, except from the usual suspects like Gimp and Renderman. Developing games for other platforms could easily be supported on Linux - ps development - if only the tools were up to par. Meaning: saving time rather than costing it.
That sort of givens automatically drive your decision making process as to what platform you'll be using when developing games. There are alternatives. Like there are alternatives in choosing your workforce, or spending lots of training to convert to Maya or Houdini, but that is not the cheaper solution, and it kind of voids the whole argument.
That said, I really think most of the arguments are really quite minor, except for maybe 1: a regression suite that can detect hardware incompatibility problems.
Another one that would be easy to come up with is a test-suite that streamlines the development of application configuration through both command-line and GUI. Helpful, but not crucial.
Reading the other items, I had an idea: What if distro's refer to a sort of xml configuration file with a shared / common format that specifies how exactly each distro has to set up it's files and dependencies, such that such configuration grief and the fact that 'each distro organises things differently' could be overcome in true linux style: maintaining uniqueness of the software (kernel) AND being flexible about the details (data).
All yours for the bashing..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Just like consoles, its the exclusives and killer apps that sell a platform. Macs have their iTunes, iWorks, Office 2008, and heavy graphical editing. Windows has Office 2007, nearly every game ever made.
Linux on the other hand is missing anything that screams that you HAVE to get it. Openoffice is still an office 2003 clone. Gimp is still a photoshop clone. I stand by the idea that Linux offers nothing that isn't done better/smoother elsewhere. Developer tools and resources affects only about 1% of the population. Which coincidently is also close to Linux's marketshare.
Until Linux gets a set of killer apps that put them over the top then most people will see it as just a platform to run clone software that kinda works similar to the better stuff elsewhere.
I always thought it was because the subliminal mind control code isn't up and fully running yet, compared to M$ and their OSs current hold on the mind control dept.
Don't worry though, for being open source mind control software, once it is finished, it will be much stronger than that turned out of Redmond.
Soon will be the time my friends.
Soon.
Just you wait and see.
Any year now.
I found myself nodding with agreement to most of these points as well. Linux developers will do much, much better in all markets if they address these complaints. However, some of the the points are false or exaggerated for effect.
For example:
Completely untrue.GTK and Qt are two rare libraries with strict backwards-compatibility rules. It's most of the other libraries on the Linux desktop which break backwards compatibility. The latest versions of GTK+2 and Qt4 will run applications written against GTK+2.0 and Qt4.0 perfectly.
I also wouldn't call the Win32 API "good". Standardized, yes. Good, no. Anyone who's ever tried to write raw Win32 GUI apps knows what I'm talking about. And if you don't use Win32 directly, then you don't have a standard. Which would you prefer? MFC? ATL? Windows.Forms? Avalon?
Completely untrue. Yes, fewer commercial games appear for Linux, but fewer commercial games appear for the Mac, too, and no one says the Mac is not ready for the desktop. For commercial games, there's all of the Unreal Tournament games, all of the Quake games, all of the Doom games, all of the Descent games, as well as community ports of Duke Nukem 3D, the Serious Sam games, and countless others.
Aside from the commercial titles, the games that ship with either KDE or Gnome are as good or better than the games that ship with Windows, and 90% of the PC population only plays those games. (KNetWalk is a great game that would sap millions of hours of productivity from the world if it shipped with Windows.)
You can have a ridiculous amount of fun on Linux with console emulators. There are great clones of other games too, such as FreeCiv and LinCity.
Finally, it's not fair to discount the games that you can play with Wine. I purchased and played Half-Life 2 from start to finish on Linux, and it worked perfectly. I didn't miss Windows one bit.
And what security model would the complainer prefer? Yes, sudo can be circumvented by social engineering, and Mac OS X basically uses sudo to do admin tasks. On Windows, you don't need to do any social engineering to circumvent the "run-as-admin-by-default" policy.
Redhat-based distros have lots of protection against keyloggers, viruses, and break-ins because SELinux is turned on by default.
4. You can't configure everything with the GUI in Windows, even. Ever hear of a reg hack, or Microsoft command-line tools like netsh, ktpass, and VB Scripts for system administration... It's absurd to suggest everything should be in the GUI; OSes have complexities most users don't need GUI widgets for.
5.5 Go get VLC.
14.1 SELinux, Redhat Policy Kit.
14.2 .TAR.GZ, .DEB, or .RPM, take your pick.
2.1 Don't think QT/GTK are that unstable.
2.2 GUI is not slow.
2.4* Who cares about font antialiasing? That's really a side issue.
2.4.3 Fonts don't look ugly, they look cool.
3.1 Linux is not Windows, don't expect a Windows registry. Different distros are different OSes, pick one!
3.3 Well duh, noone bothers to package all software existence for every OS in the world. Only the important apps. The great benefit of OSS is you can adapt it to other OSes/distros yourself.
3.4 Like I said, different distros are different OSes. Pick one and stick with it.
5.1 Different OSes have different software, thankfully you can run a XP VM on Linux (just like you can run a XP VM on Vista to run your old incompatible apps)
5.2 There are not NO games. Very few games. Most distros have some very simple games available. Wine/Cedega are for playing windows games, they're not Linux games played under it.
5.3.1 Don't complain Linux doesn't support WinPrinters. That should change when HW manufacturers fix matters.
Mind you, I've used linux here and there since the 1.3 kernel (slackware then), and I've tried out just about every version of Ubuntu. This is the first time it stays in use.
Some things in TFA make me wonder though, like "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution". How hard is it to set up a local repository(-ies), from where workstations get updates?
Finally, the next time someone posts and article about Linux and the desktop, please be clear which desktop we're talking about. This article seems to talk about all of them at once.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
I have flirted with Linux for years.. Downloading it, installing it and hoping to use it. But alas, it NEVER worked (of course, I was too lazy/busy to RTFM). Compiling the kernel to get wifi was insane.
After my XP box groaned to a crawl, it was time to buy a new box (wife was always complaining about slow, dropped wifi, etc). Since I was struggling to find an XP box, I decided to make the jump to Ubuntu-- and I'll never look back.
Wifi card JUST INSTALLED. Printer popped up after plugging in and said it was "ready". Ubuntu is fast, works mostly flawlessly (people pine like XP is awesome-- its not without its problems). For programs that won't work in linux (Fujitsu snapscan) I open a virtual box and run Vista (a daily confirmation of my decision).
Lastly, besides learning curve for "where things are" my wife (a walking EMF pulse) barely notices the "computer" anymore-- it just works and she can do what she has too----
Same can be said for...
... and in some situations even audio output.
Why Windows is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
Preface:
In this document we only discuss Windows deficiencies while everyone should keep in mind that there are areas where Windows has excelled other OSes.
A primary target of this comparison is Linux OS.
Windows major shortcomings and problems:
1. No reliable sound system, inability to correctly mix multi soundcards and choose one per application bases.
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default the default soundcard is the onboard one, even if an extra one is connected.
2. Windows UI system:
2.1 No good simple standardized API for developing GUI applications. DOTNET libraries are over 100MB and there are 3 different versions of them which break backwards compatibility.
2.2 No multitheaded IO is used in many default UI application, causing hangs on DNS lookups and file access.
2.3 Default video drivers are not accelated and don't support the resolutions that the graphics card does. Searching for other onces is always needed.
2.4 Fonts on windows are simply better then Linux. Sorry.
2.5 No double buffering. (If they can claim this for Linux, then I can do the same for Windows)
3. Problems stemming from the stiff configuration in windows:
3.1 No advanced network configuration, no possiblities to set DHCP and a static IP on the same interface.
3.2 No depencency manager, cannot find blablaXX.dll makes you search it yourself. At the wrong locations in the wrong versions, with viruses.
3.3 Default windows software is limited, and windows provides no other install sources. If you want to have a decent text editor you need to pay even more money.
3.4 Applications development is a major headache because of nontransparent patches. Windows APIs break with unrelated patches. An office patch can break the serial control in visual basic.
4. It should be possible to configure everything via GUI which is still not a case for too many situations and operations. RegEdit is a much used tool.
5. Problems stemming from closed source nature of windows and the commercial aspect of it:
5.1 Older software simply stops working without any apparent reason. No solution is provided.
5.1.1 No equivalent of some hardcore Linux software like Valgrind/etc. Programmers just won't bother installing Windows until they can work for real.
5.2 Incomplete or unstable drivers for some hardware. Problems setting up some hardware (like sound cards or TV tuners/Web Cameras). No way to fix the drivers, ever.
5.5 Questionable patents and legality status. US Windows users cannot play many popular audio and video formats until they purchase appropriate codecs.
6. Poor or almost missing regression testing in Windows kernel (and 3th party drivers) leading to a situation when new kernels may become totally unusable for some hardware configurations (software suspend doesn't work, crashes, unable to boot, networking problems, video tearing, etc.)
7. A galore of software bugs across all applications. After 10 years still the desktop icons screw up, and explorer hangs when a network drive is not reachable.
8. Poor interoperability between applications. And different windows versions. SMB works from XP to Vista but not from Vista to XP.
9. General slowness: just compare startup times between WindowsXP and Linux Ubuntu 9.10.
9.2 No at startup detection of hardware, if I change my motherboard I have to reinstall Windows.
10. No errors for user applications All GUI applications should have a visible errors presentation.
11. Poor documentation.
12. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicio
We already have troll posts in every story about why linux sucks, do we really need to make a fucking article out of it?
Troll, there are many open source games, this list is fucking lame and Timothy is lame for posting this flamebait shit.
I found difficult to configure my NIcs in Ubuntu/Linux to connect to internet using pppoe ADSL router. When I want internet connection I have to use 'sudo pppoeconf' as that config donot store permanently. Whereas see in Windows XP, its too simple for a layman to configure the IP of NICs and DSL connections.
It's a pain to peel bananas with it.
Its should have guessed I wanna a banana just as I stare at him.
I have even to teach him what is a banana when I install it.
Yes it does not tear down bananas in pieces or throws them at you, like Windows. But it is not ready, truly, not ready...
Ugh-Ugh... Where is my banana??!! Dumb Penguin...
Gee with all these problems how linux even boot and work. Never mind I have been using it on my main desktop for over a year now.
Lets look at the reasons
Faster than windows esp after windows gets
bogged down by anti-virus and anti-spyware
software.
Crashes much less.
Plays all video formats I have found
Plays all audio formats I have found
Runs with less hardware, RAM, HD, etc
Granted due to lack of third party software support I do still use windows but for most or nearly all Internet stuff linux works great.
But why are Linux enthusiasts hoping for a future of Linux on the Desktop (TM)?
I mean, I am the one of the mystic, claimed-by-some-to-be-nonexistent "Linux-exclusive" users you've heard of, and I like it with a passion. However I don't understand why people like me are busy trying to push Linux to the Joe Q. Users. Is it because that a Linux future must be better than something else? But how do we know for sure? Even if we were, then why should we be pushing it for some global acceptance?
And yes, I know the technical advantages of Linux that could be beneficial to average users. I know the ideals for which Linux claims to stand and I think they are fine, but on the other hand something being fine doesn't necessarily imply that we should be pushing it everywhere. You may want to share your joyful experience with your new shiny $DISTRO desktop but everyone has his/her own definition of joyfulness.
In other words, I value a future of Everyone Happy with His/Her Own Fucking Favorate Operating System far greater than one of "Linux on the Desktop". It's all about choice, huh? We are supposed to be the more technical-savvy group so we should have understood our own needs (which means I need what I need but I don't necessarily need what $BIG_GREED_CORPORATION tells me to need), AND that ours are not necessarily shared by others, right?
Thanks for listening to my rant. I apology for the time I made you wasted in reading this post.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
On the desktop,in the last couple of years especially, Ubuntu has driven it a long way forwards, and I enjoy trying each new release. But several fundamental things still don't work well enough and the help when things go wrong is still fairly awful.
Printing - still too hard to get up and running.
Wifi connectivity - my laptop 'just works' for any required length of time with a solid Wifi connection in Windows at home, but in several distros of Linux it has to re-establish a connection every couple of minutes.
Battery life on laptops still sucks relative to both XP and Windows 7.
Suspend/resume, and Hibernation/resume. In Windows I just fold the laptop and *know* it will close down cleanly, and come back when I open it. USB, sound, video - all will still be working when it comes back. Not so in Linux.
Yes, I as a computer user and engineer of over 20 years experience can get Ubuntu to work for me. But it's just too hard to be worthwhile. And it's a shame, but I certainly can't recommend the technophobe people I support (family, friends) switch to Linux as things are.
Why are Ubuntu and other Linux desktop distributions trying to work on *every* PC? It's a mess! (It is for Windows, too. It's just somewhat hidden because of the death grip between arbitrary PC vendors and the preloaded Microsoft software.) I think Ubuntu needs to take a step back here. How about if Ubuntu simply follows Apple's lead, designing and selling their own PCs? Sell Ubuntu primarily as a vertically integrated, preloaded machine stack, along with a selection of optional certified compatible peripherals available for purchase. If people also want Windows, then let them use VMware, VirtualBox, etc. (Just like Apple again.) Yes, provide the Ubuntu software for download, too -- that's basically a GPL requirement anyway -- but concentrate on at least getting Ubuntu 100% correct on Ubuntu-branded hardware. Or, in a slight variation, Ubuntu could sell Ubuntu-branded PCs based on a periodically revised "Ubuntu Reference Platform." That way other manufacturers could build URP machines if they wish, or perhaps in different physical form factors. Most likely every URP component would be dual sourced, to prevent any monopolistic tendencies among component suppliers.
it sucks.
Some of the gripes listed here really resonate with me, having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10
Of course an early alpha build isn't going to be ready for your mom to use on a daily basis! Try this again with teh released 9.04, or another Distro, and get back to me.
Anybody want my mod points?
Just a few reasons why Windows isn't really ready for the desktop either:
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output.
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default the volume levels are not set properly (no audio output/no sound recording).
2. Kernel Level GUI making security a nightmare.
4. It should be possible to configure everything via simple GUI which is still not a case for too many situations and operations require registry edits or hacks with 3rd party software.
5. Problems stemming from high windows popularity and closed source nature:
5.1 Too many duplicate software titles, crapware which duplicates the features of existing software getting bundled with PCs. Massive lack of reuseable code. Many programmers reinvent the wheel badly due to lack of suitable libraries/backends.
5.2 Incomplete or unstable drivers for some hardware. Problems setting up some hardware.
5.2.1 A lot of web cameras still do not work without badly written proprietary drivers, often unavailable for Vista or even XP. Many devices with the same chipset ship with their own drivers and more annoyingly there own poorly written proprietary software.
5.2.2 There's no standard webcam/TV card viewing software.
5.4 It's impossible to watch Divx movies without downloading extra Codecs which Windows won't find for you.
5.5 Questionable patents and legality status. Bad record of abuse of monopolies and unfair practice against competitors.
6. Poor or almost missing regression testing in Window kernel (and, alas, in other closed Source software too) leading to a situation when new versions of windows may become totally unusable for some hardware configurations (software suspend doesn't work, crashes, unable to boot, networking problems, video tearing, etc.)
7. A galore of software bugs across all applications. Just look into some of the CERT advisories which have been issued for Windows.
8. Poor interoperability between applications and their components. E.g. many kernel features get a decent userspace support years after introduction.
9. General slowness: just compare bootup/login times between a Windows PC installed 2 years ago and a Linux one.
9.1 Huge shutdown/suspend/hibernate/restore time.
10. Poor documentation.
11. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software. UAC is very very easy to circumvent (social engineering). Such a vast amount of the OS running in kernel space makes it far easier to exploit.
12. A very bad backwards and forward compatibility.
12.1 Old applications often fail to work in new Windows versions. Compatibility modes not always reliable and quite daunting for novice users.
"2.5 No double buffering."
Eh? The dbe extension has been shipped with X windows for bloody years!
However most of his rant just seems to be a case of it doesn't do it the way Windows does so it must be bad. What a clueless gimp.
Gee Whiz! I didn't realize my desktop isn't working. Month after month and year after year it felt like it worked just fine.
The future is web based. Endless bloat, inefficient javascript and the latency of accessing remote systems. Why will people accept such a system? because a lot of people never learned to use a desktop, they learned how to use a web browser. Anything outside the web browser looks complicated to them.
There is also the fact that web-based is the new way of making money from software. No piracy since its mostly server-side, lace it with ads and nobody complains about adware. Give it a few years and ads will no longer be served up by dedicated domains you can easily block.
If client side desktop computing is to survive the interface has to become more iPhony. Ordinary folk love the touchy feeley colourful, childish looking animated interface of the iPhone so the future is in projects like Hildon. I personally hate the iPhone's interface but thats alright, if its Linux or BSD I'll just install a minimalist window manager which there should always be plenty of.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard that buzz phrase. It has been flying around for well over a decade now and this fabled web-based future of desktop computing still hasn't arrived. It's interesting to see that people can still get good milage out of preaching the death of client side desktop computing and the imminent arrival of it's web based replacement. Apparently there is an audience that can't get enough of it. Personally I won't be throwing my books on OS X/Linux client side application programming into a paper recycling container any time soon. Web applications have their uses but client side desktop computing is not going anywhere in the foreseeable future, at least not in my house. There is no way that I am entrusting a guy on the other end of a network connection with any more of my private data than absolutely necessary and that's just the first item on a long list of reasons why my enthusiasm for web-based future is limited.
At that point it doesn't matter if Linux is beer-free or speech-free, how it can run forever without needing a reboot, how secure it is, etc. Until it can pass the day in, day out tests I mentioned above, and do it without the user having to unlearn and then relearn how to do things, it's going nowhere on the mainstream desktop.
In short: Why would it have to be "ready" for the "desktop"? Why would I want a stupid colorful clickable for every function on my system? Maybe there is a point to not making Linux for the average noob. Maybe this would make it useless to real users. Those that actually automate things with their computers, instead of treating them like black box gadgets.
Very often, when I hear someone complain that something is too complicated, he is just too damn stupid an lazy. Wanna do a complex action on your computer, that nobody else thought of? Then better get off your buttons and write a two-liner script.
Of course there are programs that really are needlessly complicated.
The point is *efficiency*. More easy does *not* equal more efficient.
One thing I always wondered, is that none of the GUI applications for Linux follows the Unix philosopy, of making small modules that you can put together. Not a single one.
They are all monolithic "do it all, including the kitchen sink" apps. OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, K3B, Amarok, and so on, and so forth, down to basic things like Kate (the text editor).
If I were to design the UI for linux, I would split all apps into libraries with a fixed interface, that would allow them to be used like tools in photoshop that modify the object at one place, or wizards that process/transform whole objects. You could put them together how you like. Attach this to that, pipe this output there...
All graphical. But still somehow reminding of working on a console. But without having to memorize every parameter. With the interface compatible to at least C, C++, Java, Python, Perl, JavaScript, PHP, Haskell, OCaml, and perhaps Erlang and LUA And all keyboard-controllable. :(
I'm thinking of building such a basic framework right now.
Unfortunately I'm in some large game project right now, and for the next years.
But if you start such a thing, drop me a note, and I will contribute where I can.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
FTA -> "12. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.). "
ummmkay, the security model on unix/linux lends itself to higher system security (not necessarily user). How can you compare the Unix/Linux security model to Windows and say it is bad. zero protection against keyloggers...? I guess we could get Norton Antivirus to run on Linux or something to make this guy happy.
From TFA : >11. (Being slowly resolved) Poor documentation. well it must have been a long time since I have used windows since I don't remember where was the good docs.
etc., etc., etc., then there's the usual FUD BS about quality of the software, the kernel, the architecture, etc., etc., etc.
The reason, Timothy, why some of his stuff resonates with you (the audio part for example), is because spewing MASSIVE FUD is like a shotgun fired at a target from a close range -- something is likely to hit the target for you and you only pay attention to the part that "resonates" with you, instead of looking at the overall picture and realize that this is unmitigated BS.
How do I know? Replace every instance of Linux with Apple OS X and see how it reads for you.
Now we get to see if Microsoft really has cut back on the number of people they pay to troll on Slashdot.
It is a strange list. Some of the items are sort of correct but being addressed and some of them are a complete non-issue. Not sure what AD support has to do with the success of Linux on the desktop. I don't think Grandma gives a shit about Active Directory. I certainly don't.
FUD
Now before all of you start killing the messenger you should maybe consider this the start of a plan
Maybe if the roadmap for linux could be mapped out. the developers could focus their time and resources where its needed rather than where they think its needed.
iphones/ipods sell not because they do it well but also the average punter can make it work as advertised. Linux does not achieve this yet
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
I only managed to get halfway down before I just couldn't be bothered. He lost me straight away really when he said Linux and free software would never be used for complicated software like databases. WHERE THE HELL HAS HE BEEN?!
This is yet another semi-tech person who tried to use Linux as a drop in replacement to Windows, couldn't, read Unix hater or something and wrote a article.
GNU/Linux is here now, it's on your router, it's on your set-top box, it's on the web server you browsing, controls countless DBs you access, and no doubt the software you are using has at least some lib ported from the GNU/Linux platform. It's heading for your car, your phone, your camera and endless devices and servers. It's coming up from the embedded market and down from the server market, and it terrifies MS. Distros like Ubuntu are beginning to do a good job of making GNU/Linux into a easy desktop. Like any OS, get hardware where the manufacturer supports the OS and if the hardware doesn't work with the OS, blame the hardware manufacturer.
If you can't use it on your desktop, maybe it's you who is not ready. If that's not the case already, it really isn't long before it is. Sorry, but deal with it.
MANDRIVA 2009.
stable, solid, easy.
Here in Europe, we have these technologies called 'GPRS' and '3G' which mean you're network connected over 95% of the land area.
We have that in the United States, but in this recession, not everybody who owns a laptop has 720 USD per year to blow on a 3G plan in addition to what they're paying for Internet access at home.
Linux is ready for the desktop.
For my desktop, to be specific. Has been ready for years.
Any other desktops are irrelevant.
j.
Jeeze, dude! Get a life, get a clue. You just installed software that BY DEFINITION isn't supposed to work. That's why it's called "Alpha". If after all these years, you're going to gripe about a pre-pre-pre-pre-releases stability, it might be time to consider alternate forms of employ.
Sheesh.
I strongly recommend you try Wine Doors if you haven't already.
It's probably not included in the default installation because I think you have to have a Windows license to install some of the DLLs and such (then again, who doesn't have a couple of those sitting around?)
I think this guy was using a joke distro.
Personally, I use Linux on the desktop, and it provides everything I need.
OK, so let's deconstruct this point by point. I've left one or two points out where I have no specific comments.
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally,
but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design),
etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced.
Software patents are about to stay forever.
Bold predictions indeed. True, I think proprietary software will remain, particularly in the vertical market; however a certain segment of software will become commoditised (arguably some of it already has been) and therefore users will expect it to be free or priced lower than cost.
1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output.
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default many distros do not set volume levels properly (no audio output/no sound recording).
Couldn't agree more here. ALSA has improved audio in a few areas but in all other aspects, from a user perspective it has only made things more difficult. Someone else commented recently on Slashdot regarding the BSD approach to this problem, it sounds like they have done a lot better by staying with/improving OSS. I really wish someone would stand up and take charge of improving Linux's core audio infrastructure instead of putting band-aids like PulseAudio on top.
2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure this is really as bad as is made out. In between major releases, Qt and Gtk both take backwards compatibility very seriously. Qt at least is a commercial product, they have a commitment to maintain compatibility.
2.2 Very slow GUI (except when being run with composite window managers on top of OpenGL).
Too general to respond to - can hardly be true for all machines.
2.3 Many GUI operations are not accelerated. No analogue of GDI or GDI+. Text antialiasing and other GUI operations are software rendered by GUI libraries (GTK->Cairo/QT->Xft).
I thought that was the point of Cairo... ? Not my area of expertise though.
2.5 No double buffering.
No explanation of how this is relevant to an end user.
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
Honestly I don't think the average user is really going to care where a configuration tool stores its settings as long as it works; only a power user or developer would. Of course it would be nice if people would use the same tools. However, although it's taken quite some time to work in all situations, NetworkManager has vastly improved network configuration ease of use and has been adopted by many distributions.
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM, deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for software development.
True, but arguably as far as the packaging alone is concerned, if you target RPM and deb you're going to cover most of the distributions that actually matter to end users.
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./config
I've never seen a bigger piece of flamebait than this article. Stopped reading it half-way through cuz it's just LOADED with misinformation.
Greetings =)
I remember struggling with Linux in the late '90s. I got so mad at myself for not being able to do stuff that I felt *EVERYBODY* else could do with *their* Linux/BSD. Didn't touch it for another two years, then got back into it. Still had headaches, kept using various linux distros on and off but never as my main/sole OS. Then about two years ago, annoyed with Ubuntu I started looking around. Remembered the nightmare that Debian testing was a few years ago and felt that Mandrake/Mandriva was not for me, I wanted something new. I was still mutilated from my experience with BSD. And I didn't want to use Backtrack as my main OS (although....hhhhmm !!!). (These choices are not set in stone, this is just the thought process I had, so don't start on how Debian is perfect....). I eventually found PARDUS LINUX. http://www.pardus.org.tr/eng/projects/comar/PythonInPardus.html And it's my ONLY INSTALLED OS. Do you *hear* me? *Everything* else is vmwared... And I'm *not* a *nix/Linux nerd... Oh yeah, I code mainly in Python for biz apps, and Pardus and Python are in bed together. If you like Python and have looked at window managers with bindings for Python but wanted more, go try Pardus. It's already been translated in a gazillions languages. Guess where it was made, TURKEY !!!!! nuff said... I fucking love this World, no matter how hard they try to crush certain things, they just keep on popping up, *all* over the place. So today i run 7-10 OS, on my little laptop, and I *never* was an amazing coder, sysadmin, geek or whatver the fuck you had to be to be able to do stuff I saw people do back then but could not for the life of me achieve..... So saying it ain't ready for the Desktop doesn't say shit... If you mean people that use their computer like some people use their car(as long as it works I'm fine, should it break done let's go see the mechanic) well then fuck no, Linux ain't for them, unless it's all locked down and then they won't use it, they want to install the fucking Emoticons. Really... Let's stop acting like there are so many people ready for Linux. This is what I use:
1. Pardus where I code in Python, Asm, Forth but 65% Python, spend most of my time INSIDE A SHELL even though KDE is my default WM. You hear that? Me who could not format my HDDs in the ways I wanted 10 years ago coz I was 2 fucking dumb, am getting bored of GUIs and starting to code my tools so they ALL run from a shell...
2. Backtrack4 for well that you know, backtracking stuff, *lol*
3. XP in vmware for certain malware/virus analysis stuff or specific shit, like MS-Office
4. a few other small live Cds, for all kind of different stuff, mostly collections of utilities --> vmware
5. A couple of sec/forensics related distros --> vmware
6. A few other Linux --> OpenBSD, Debian, Centos, and Ubuntu, sometimes even Fedora ---> vmware
I'm now thinking of building my own distro, what the fuck !!!!!!!! Not ready for the Desktop???? We're taking over the fucking world, more like it. AND I AM among the late ones.... I'm not smart, I'm no genius, I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind. (laughing so hard)
OH yeah, on the Source Control side of things, same story, back then ALL I was doing was fucking up, really, felt so dumb. And now ? git/svn/bzr/mercurial mainly svn for lots of google.code stuff (mainly django projects in my case), hg and bzr coz a couple of things that I follow us that and git coz God is a coder, and he loves us. Oh the joy.... I love you all for contributing to what we have today... Thank you.
Some dumb coder / with an eye on net-sec/vulnerabilities/exploits (you know backtracking).
Peace.
As someone that uses Desktop Linux and has done so 100% of the time since 2002 there is a slow and visible progress of Linux on the desktop. However many of the points that the author raises are valid. However many of these points are also valid for Windows and OS X (There are many bugs that have been open in office since office 95 or longer the same with apple software). I personally have had work purchased Dell Latitude laptop's running everything perfectly since 2003 without any adjustments for sound etc. The saying "it just worked" is 100% right. Unfortunately on my HP 2133 mini-note system its not been so easy with loads of problems and dodgy wireless (b43) however things have improved. Things that need to improve first and foremost in Linux is for it to better integrate into enterprise environments. Despite what most people believe enterprises will more often pay for support which pays for developers to work on enhancements. If Linux had better exchange support and more robust integration with AD more money would start to flow into the many projects. Like it or not its a big hole that needs to be fixed (and for the most part it is, however its a slow process).
Mandriva 2009!
simple, stable, mature, easy.
no install problems, no problems AT ALL.
even my senile father uses it!
Ubuntu is buggy and failed me miserably.
Mandriva just.works.
Your post has a score of only 1 because you used a space before the question mark.
It took 18 days to write? No wonder he didn't have time for research.
In Soviet Russia, computer articles attack you!
E
Ya, with 9.10 I have sound issues that I'm still unable to resolve. In a bout of tinkering I attempted to run dpkgreconfigure just for kicks. On reboot I lost my keyboard and mouse! No sound is a mild annoyance to not being able to access homework who's due date is in a few days. So, after a few more hours of fiddling and forum digging, I figured out that the udev (thing that loads hardware like the mouse and keyboard) could no longer locate a key configuration file. Ya, apparently a newer version of dpkgreconfigure decided to delete said file and not recreate it. I have no sound but I can do work. So, I really do sympathize with your paranoia that some update or fiddling might torch your system.
Its funny to think about some of the points in the article. My favorite is that sound doesn't work and you need to use the cli for many tasks. My recent experience in upgrading my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04 resulted in an inability to capture from my laptops microphone array. I tried to fix it from the cli and failed. I then, as a last resort, attempted to fix it using the advanced pulseaudio config panel and to my tremendous suprise, was successful. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that happening.
Solitaire doesn't count :)
Your argument for the fact that "there ARE games for Linux" is that there ARE games for linux. Are there cool games for Linux? I doubt it. Look at the most pirated games... how many of them run on Linux? Why the hell would I install Linux if I can't play my favorite games? The coolest things about PCs is that you can use them to play games!
I like your shiny bullet list. Here's mine (I hope you haven't patented it already):
Here's my "article" on why Windows is not ready for the desktop.
And here's the tl;dr version.
These days I'd be okay giving my mother an Ubuntu CD and knowing she could install it and use it with very minimal assistance from me. There is no way in Hell she could set up Windows on her own, and if she somehow managed, it'd be nearly unusable a week later with all the extraneous crap she'd have to install to get her day-to-day stuff done. And securing that puppy is a task unto itself.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Linux is most definitely ready for the Desktop, I've been using it
as such at work for over 10 years. I run KDE and have 8 virtual desktops for various work situations. I typically have approximately 20 shell windows open, with 4-5 in my main work desktop. I subscribe to about 35 mainstream mailing lists, about 20 of which are "active" - including linux-kernel. I keep 90 days worth of email for each, so that I can go back and see if others have encountered problems that I come across. I certainly don't read all this email, nor do I manually filter it. I'd guess that I get about a thousand emails a day, about 20-30 of which actually end up in my inbox. I do my own spam filtering on my desktop machine as well.
If I try to think of a windows machine handling my work load, I laugh. Occasionally, I've tried some things. Email. Outlook exchange or whatever it is called - it simply cannot open an email
folder with 13000 emails in it, let alone search it. Virtual desktops? I've never noticed that windows could do something like that...
20-30 shell windows? Forget it. Windows is a toy system.
Games. When I want to play a game - I use a gaming system, I have several at home - my kids really like them. A couple of them are windows systems. That is about the only use I have for windows - to play games on. It is incapable of handling the way that I work.
Other people work differently, and there are many people in our office here that depend solely on windows systems. They are effective and get their work done. I could not work that way though. And they do complain a lot about 15 minute boot times...
it's now the task of the manufactor. Because they only test the hardware with windows and not with linux. And most manufactors only put drivers for windows onto their driver CDs. If you've got a friend with a Computer (and low skills on that), who is installing windows and has lost the drivers for the hardware, the Computer will be less usefull than with a normal Linux install, because most people don't know how to get the drivers (remember the low skill).
Yes we know that and the parent is still wrong. People always talk about web applications in the open source world being the future because they know they cannot make their rich desktop good enough. Red Hat is adding some convoluted online thing because their Gnome desktop is just not up to scratch to deliver. People are not going to be using online AutoCAD. Probably ever.
I love Linux, and FOSS, in principle. As a sysadmin, I've introduced ubuntu into the server rooms at the last three Windows shops I've worked in. I've subscribed to the newsletter and tasted the Kool-Aid.
However, I've been trying to switch to Ubuntu for desktop use since Breezy and always end up back at my Macs. I'm a (very) amateur photographer and while I don't think my needs are that specific or unusual, several pieces of proprietary software are quite important to me.
In my case it's Adobe CS, Lightroom, and some others. It'll be different apps for different people, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that situation. I need those to work seamlessly before Linux on the desktop is viable for me.
Sure, there's Wine, but it's too ugly. Sure, I could dual-boot or virtualize, but I don't want multiple desktops, and what's the point of abiding by some F/OSS principle only half the time?
Some of the problem, as I see it, is that a lot of the community prefers to bark, for example, that GIMP is a perfectly viable PS replacement when most power users understand that it clearly isn't.
I don't care how we get there - Linux binaries from the manufacturer would be fine with me - but I need my handful of apps working natively and properly before I can switch for keeps.
Crap. The people who "can't use Linux", cannot use Windows either. I eat better because of it. They break their pre-installed version (usually within a few months). Then they pay someone like myself to re-install Windows, and all the drivers and software they need.
If you give them a linux system pre-installed and configured (a thing you can buy from Dell and others now), they are able to use it with the same level of functionality. They can surf teh interwebs, play music, and watch videos.
How many more times are we going to beat this dead horse?
I haven't read the whole article, but the issue that the poster mentioned - sound hardware problems - are simply not a valid complaint when it comes to mass market Linux.
Mac & Windows generally come pre-installed on compatible hardware. If you try something like the Dell Ubuntu models things work great. It is a miracle that Ubuntu runs so well on the range of hardware that it supports - I would like to see Mac do that.
lol that guy has completely NO idea what is he writing! I could agree on 2 of his points, but the rest are completely virtual.
If it's not ready for the desktop, it's at least ready for the netbook. My wife is a Behavioral Science major and self-proclaimed non-geek. I put ubuntu on her new laptop, a eeepc we got off newegg, and she's in love. With a full suite of open source software she can do more than she ever could with WindowsXP. Linux itself is an extremely viable OS and many of the distributions are already mature enough to make a viable alternative to Windows or MacOS. Whether it should be is a different matter entirely.
May be he is some 13yr old and he wont use wireless :P
I hear the unification issue come up a lot when people talk about the Linux Desktop.
"Standardize on GTK+ or Qt but don't have both."
"There should be one vendor, so many distributions add confusion."
"Everything should be open to the GUI."
And so on...
My two cents and everyone is free to take it with whatever size of gain of mineral you find.
A) Unification would indeed ease confusion. In turn it would make the Linux desktop a very easy target for competition. Imaging if we all went with GNOME, dropped Qt/KDE et al, and then MS kills GNOME because of ___ (insert random patent that some distro violates.)
BOOM, no Linux desktop. Same is true if everyone went KDE. I thought we were learning from Microsoft not to put all our eggs in one basket?
B) The whole one vendor for Linux argument is silly. Should we have one vendor for Laptops? One vendor for email software? One vendor for web browsers (*cough* IE *cough*)? There again it comes to that whole egg/basket interaction thingy.
C) Create a standard API for the Linux Desktop. Sure, that sounds lovely. Let EA, Valve, Blizzard, etc. know that 3D Realms is going to create a standard 3D engine that they'll use in all of their games.
The whole issue is that different people find different APIs easier. It's not like there is a GTK+, GTK+Super, GTK+Exxxtream. There are different bindings but they all work with the same standard GTK+ API. Likewise with Qt. It's no different from the .NET and Java and the other dozen vendors who make different APIs for Windows.
D) Default fonts look ugly? Is this really a desktop killer? I know I'm from the 80's and all but I really haven't been paying that much attention in this area.
I would continue but I'm getting tired of enumerating points here.
Summary, this guy is like most Microsoft people I know. Point and click knowledge. If making everything unified so that it's easier to attack, more GUI so it's less able to be configured and more bloated, and more focused on fewer tools and less choice so that everyone knows what's under the hood of a Linux box; makes Linux ready for the Desktop, then I'd love if Linux never made it to the Desktop.
To me it sounds like the Desktop is the ninth circle of hell for computers.
Also don't even get me started with the fact that DOS was the home computing OS for quite some time. CLI arguments be damned.
PS: I love how AD and DFS is tossed in with a Desktop ready report. Because I know how my Grandma loves configuring the GPO for her OUs.
I don't even have time to respond to the original poster. Most of his complains are just completely ridiculous - and many (such as differences between distros) are a strength rather than a weakness!
The only valid complaint about Linux is that maybe it takes some time to learn a new OS (same as if you jumped from Windows to Mac) and the lack of native app support (Wine/Crossover/Cedega covers 99% of this problem).
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
They should differ in these areas anyway as different Distro's cater for different uses. Furthermore having non-uniformity in these areas is a result of rapid change and innovation, as for relatively constant interfaces; Even if there are differences in location of config files its usually very well documented as to why/where/what is involved. If I see a big change in interface to one of these areas it usually signals new functionality and a new model to access this.
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./configure && make && make installer. It should be possible to install any software by downloading a package and double clicking it (yes, like in Windows, but probably prompting for user/administrator password).
Repo's cant possibly contain all the OS Software out there, this isn't an issue for user acceptance as large distro's and their choice of software are large enough. I would go so far as to say the repository is a massive strength in distribution of software and it is the windows model which has bad ways of getting the software to users.
Yes, the double click to install method should work for most cases however sometimes it is sometimes an unnecessary subset restriction over the functionality that is actually necessary to install software irrespective of platform. For instance './configure' and 'make' may be technical convoluted words to a user just trying to install software however they do elude to powerful and relevant options during the installation if used properly.
4. It should be possible to configure everything via GUI which is still not a case for too many situations and operations.
That would be terrible for users even on the windows system this does not happen. Just stick to GUI for the main situations and operations.
5.2 No games. Full stop. Cedega and Wine offer very incomplete support.
So its the second best OS for games. Wine is doing great given the boundaries placed on it.
9. General slowness: just compare load times between e.g. OpenOffice and Microsoft Office. If you don't like this example, try running OpenOffice in Windows and in Linux. In the latter case it will be much slower.
This goes both ways, OpenOffice needs work here yes however 'General Slowness' in windows is often more irritating like removing USB storage devices, slowness loading due to AV software background activity, Start menu slowness, Icon rendering on the desktop slowness, Applications making the HDD thrash frequently after no user interaction. At least with open office the issue is easily defined. Where as the other things I explained are more vague and pervasive.
14.2 No standard way of software distribution.
Windows never had this, nothing it has comes close to Repo's. Old windows apps with installers which are proprietary, closed and broken is a big problem for installing old software on newer versions of the OS like Vista. Just try installing a w95/98 game on a vista machine.
So it works for you. Great.
Thing is, if it in fact would work so great for everyone, then why is Linux-on-the-desktop marketshare almost neglectible?
and btw., to pick just one thing out of many: "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution".
I think the notion is here more like centralized software/lifecylcle management, i.e. something in the direction of Novell Zenworks. There is some work in that direction, mostly from Novell and RedHat which is no wonder as their man focus is business customers. Still though, compared to Windows...
You know that most companies for example won't switch from IE to Firefox for exact such reasons?
5/10 of the games on that list work in Wine, a couple more are getting there. I don't know if Cedega handles them better, though.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Looks like a good ToDo list for any distro which desires to be a Linux Desktop champion.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
In the case of some of those applications it's somewhat difficult to make a batch of small sharp tools to do things like a Web Browser and make it work usably. The item in question isn't something you can readily lego block together out of pieces like sed, etc. There's a threshold at which it's no longer an easy thing to duct-tape the stuff together with things like Perl, Python, or Tcl. There's a nice range of stuff, mind, but there've been attempts in the past at that and things like Web Browsers that typically ended up fading away because you can't provide the functionality of the app fully that way.
If you're bemoaning the fact that you think it's all "wrong" in that, it is in keeping with the FOSS philosophy to "fix" that problem by making things like that happen. Knock yourself out. If you're unwilling, you're little different than the armchair quarterback making remarks about Linux "not being ready for the desktop" that TFA goes on about.
Want to start hald and dbus to get your usb hardware working? Assuming it's already installed, (which it will be if you use the X-User prefab distribution in sysinstall) do the following.
1. Open /etc/rc.conf. /usr/local/etc/rc.d/hald start, or if that fails, sudo /usr/local/sbin/hald, or if you want, reboot.
2. Enter the two lines, hald_enable="YES", and dbus_enable="YES."
3. Run sudo
Done.
Want to load the kernel module for your sound card?
1. pciconf -lv (To find out what it is; similar to lspci, but remember the args) /boot/loader.conf to load it automatically next time.
2. Once you know what it is, go to look up which module to load. In my case, snd_cmi, for a CMedia card.
3. Type sudo kldload snd_cmi at a prompt to load the module into the kernel.
4. Add snd_cmi_load="YES" to
Done. The sound module loaded directly into the kernel Just Works. ;) There's no need to screw around with third party userland abominations like ALSA or OSS, and so no risk of either of said abominations dying randomly. (As ALSA did for me over the space of a month with Ubuntu)
I know I'd be frowned on by the FreeBSD devs for saying something nasty about Linux while pimping FreeBSD, but the truth is that FreeBSD's design is light years ahead of Linux. The added, totally unnecessary complexity added in Debian distributions in particular is absolutely appalling by comparison.
Lack of added complexity means lack of additional things which can potentially cause crashes or reliability, and FreeBSD's devs fairly obviously understand that. It's equally obvious to see that Debian's developers (and Canonical) don't.
The only two things holding FreeBSD back on the desktop are sysinstall being ncurses based, and the partitioner possibly being a little more intimidating than GParted. Apart from those two minor things, it has enormous advantages.
1. Infinitely more robust and reliable package management than anything available for Linux, in my experience.
2. A greatly simplified (and well documented) method of custom kernel configuration, in comparison with Linux, and a kernel module mechanism which is enormously simpler, as well.
3. Vastly simplified system startup. No init, no Upstart rubbish. Just YES lines in /etc/rc.conf.
4. Hald and dbus are not run by default, but only when they need to be, for USB/hotpluggable hardware. The rest of the time you can turn them off and take them out, and most people don't use them at all.
In summary, FreeBSD isn't just more user-friendly by virtue of its' much higher level of simplicity; it's an infinitely superior system to Linux overall. The single main reason for this is the fact that FreeBSD's developers aren't trying to twist UNIX into a clone of Microsoft Windows, because they know that they already have something much better.
If you're tired of Ubuntu or various other Linux distributions causing you endless headaches, I strongly invite you to visit the site , and download the cure for your frustrations.
Solves this, but it needs to become a cheaper service (legally cheaper that is, cracking makes it free with a data plan).
How do I ship a binary? So many distros, versions, CPUs, etc.
Am I supposed to have every single distro/version in house and compile on all of them?
Do I limit myself to the major distros? I'm sure I'll get lots of hatemail for doing that.
PS: I'm pretty sure item 2.5 is wrong.
No sig today...
Linux is already 10% of the desktop.
All those things about it being not ready for the desktop are bullshit.
It's a hobby desktop, for sure. If you need a stable box with an ethernet plug to run server software on, you can't ask for anything better than Linux. If you want a stable desktop for anything beyond basic e-mail and web surfing, Linux is unfortunately the worst choice out of the three major options. It's far far better than it was even two or three years ago, but a lack of professional native GUI applications and Xorg are still the achilles heel of desktop Linux.
I was fiddling with Ubuntu this weekend, and decided I wanted to sit back and watch a DVD that I'd ripped. So, I sat back in my chair, fullscreened VLC, and then Xorg quit, the display went dead, and when I rebooted, I had a choice: boot into Windows 7 and go about my business, or possibly lose the rest of the entire day on a wild goose chase through forums, config files, and god knows what else.
On one of my only afternoons off, guess what option I chose?
Now, I see that I may just have to disable xv in gstreamer - fair enough, and I'll probably give it another shot. But imagine an average user having to do that over and over again.
You know the other NINETY percent of the market.
Source, please?
And seriously, considering software that actually makes money, what proportion of a software development business's income comes from home users?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I hear 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
I ran Ubuntu Jaunty/Ibex on over 20 different kinds of PC's/Laptops and had the basic Desktop with sound running in less than 5 minutes using a USB-flash disk.
All the scanners and printers connected to the computers were detected and useable without issues. Canon, Benq, Epson and HP all worked.
For your information, the USB-flash disk has built-in support for any language you can imagine.
With regards to fonts, not only does Linux X/Server support any font that windows has, but also all the MAC fonts.
Is this critic even aware there is a Linux fonteditor capable of editing any of these kinds of fonts? It's called fonteditor.
The critic has gripes with sound. He should buy another sound card that supports Linux.
I'm not a gamer, but the kids I know love Ceferino, Ri-Li, Lbreakout, pyracerz, pydance and tuxpuck.
They all have sound. There's a Linux guitar hero out there, but the machines I test this on are all older and have no 3D cards. That said the glut 3d emulation api did allow me to check it out but it was dead slow. The sound was working though.
With regards to openoffice being slow, he's talking about the startup time. Once it's up, the openoffice gui is responsive. Please disregard any criticism he may have with this.
With regards to networking, this guy is off-base. Linux networking capability is second-to-none. That's why it's in most of the world's phones and routers.
Hard-core Linux advocates don't want "Proprietary Windows Applications" running on Linux. They want "Open-Source Applications" running on Windows and Linux. Wine is a niche market for hard-core Windows Users. SMB/Samba is for hard-core Windows Users. I am not a hard-core Windows user/Microserf like this critic. Why use SAMBA, when you can use scp/mount/nfs? I'm a Linux Advocate. If it isn't open-source, I'm not using it. That includes FLASH.
Nothing constructive from this guy. Move on.
One other mention. This guy places more emphasis on what Linux doesn't do. He should rather have mentioned the potential of what Linux will give all of its users: Real "Digital Freedom" to do whatever you want with the hardware that you buy. This essentially is part of the "Do-it(whatever-you-can-imagine-"it"-to-be)-yourself" trend. For better descriptions, please see http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/
Slashdot has been running "Is Linux Ready For The Desktop?" stories pretty much forever. We could go back several years and find threads saying pretty muh the same things.
The question is wrong. It isn't so much "Is Linux Ready for the Big Dance?" as it is "Is Anyone Gonna Ask Linux to the Big Dance?" For instance, while it may or may not be the fault of Linux that most hardware vendors do not provide linux drivers, the fact is that they don't. If someone can't use their hardware with Linux, pointing the finger of blame isn't going to make that hardware work.
Linux lacks many (most?) of the commercial products used by other platforms. Why? Because the perception exists that Linux users won't buy commerical products. Whether that perception is accurate is irrelevant.
My own take: The more tightly an OS is associated with a specific hardware platform, the eaier it is for that vendor to control the quality and reliability of the users' experience. Due to the nature of its development culture, Linux stands farther away from hardware platforms than do Windows and, obviously, OS X. The Unix-y ability to Linux to run on many hardware flavors is a double-edged sword.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Er, which desktop? I took it to mean a non-technical, non-server instance of Linux, certainly not KDE or Gnome specifically. If we're talking about Linux for the non-technical user, then it really doesn't matter which "desktop" is on the system.
Unfortunately, I do still see issues with major distributions installing easily, and being used easily on systems. Last fall, fedora 10 refused to reliably recognise my network card. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't. I solved it by installing another network card I had laying around. Ubuntu seemed to install on an older (not too old) system, but then crashed very reliably whenever I tried to use it.
The computer I'm using -- the Fedora 10 system where I had to install the extra network card -- still won't play mp3s. I did *finally* get flash to work on it, but since this is my work system, playing mp3s is way down my list of importance.
Maybe it's true that most people don't need a lot of games, and that solitaire and the like are okay for them. However, for the person that wants something more complex, Wine really isn't a solution. It's just too slow.
My point is that as much as I dislike the Windows OS as an OS, it provides a couple of things that Linux can't. It provides an easy to use system that for the vast majority of people will just work for everything they need, and it provides the gaming platform for computer based games.
As a server OS, I *really* hate Windows. Linux is a far superior OS in many, many, ways. But then we're not talking about servers, are we?
Sean.
"The critic has gripes with sound. He should buy another sound card that supports Linux."
I have a Creative SoundBlaster Live! (Value) in my current desktop.
It's an emu10k1 chipset--lauded by the FSF as one of the most supported pieces of sound hardware you can get, last time I checked. So yeah...another sound card that supports Linux? NTYTYVM.
I'm endlessly frustrated by the volume settings--I want to only turn on microphone volume when I'm recording or using Ekiga or Mumble or something else like that, and I *still* haven't found the correct settings that allow me to turn on and off the audio in one click.
"Mute input" doesn't seem to work when you have four or five possible "devices" in volume control to fiddle with; and it also seems to reset the volume to 0...
gNewSense deltah (think Ubuntu 8.04).
Joe Biden most likely has alzheimers, but he's been saying stupid things for years, so it's "old news". Turth be told, Barack Obama is like a tanned John Edwards or Dan Quayle, but without the experience. Being connected to the teleprompter 24-7 keeps him from saying too many stupid things, though.
3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software.
Obviously never heard of Debian.
5.3 Incomplete or unstable drivers for some hardware.
Applies to every operating system ever written. Next thing you know, in hushed tones he's going to claim he has secret knowledge that there exists at least one bug somewhere in the software.
7. A galore of software bugs across all applications.
See above, I was right.
databases ... which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced
Authentication against MySQL/any other DB is also a PITA.
Yes, they used to say the same thing about operating systems. and text editors. and compilers. Yes, certainly no one will EVER write an open source database (laughs) And then he mentions MySQL, which I guess he thinks is a closed source DB? (laugh harder) And Mysql (via Sun) cost Oracle $7.4 billion, not mere "millions of dollars".
No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing
I use Debian, everything works out of the box for me since like 1996. Classic example of I as an individual had a problem with one piece of hardware in one box, therefore the whole system "sucks and doesn't work" so everyone else in the world had better change until it works for me, or else ... or else I'll write complaints on blogs ... so you better get to work, you!
Choose a card that works, then, shockingly, it works. I don't complain because my TRS-80 orch-80 color computer sound cartridge didn't work on a C64 or my lawnmower uses a different type of oil than my car. As a corollary to the example, people whom don't know how to use google will always suffer horribly compared to people whom do know how to use google. in all and every area of life, unless they're very lucky, and that's just a fact of modern life that people need to get over.
Life's hard, but it's harder when you're ... not researching your purchase first. And that applies to absolutely everything in life, not just sound cards.
9.1 Slow (libraries) linker. Braindead slow linker. Intolerably slow linker.
Yeah man, and no GUI for the linker either. Just last week grandma really wanted to use the linker to check my wife's facebook, but no gui for the linker and it's slow anyway, not to mention the linker puts its error messages into a text window instead of putting each individual error into a separate popup gui box, so she was stuck using that "firefox" program instead of reimplementing wget in Fortran to use the linker like she really wanted to do. Yeah, totally not ready for grandma's desktop. Why a desktop without a linker is like a fish without a ...
9.3 (Being resolved) Huge shutdown time.
Obviously no windows experience...
(Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity)
Good thing no one uses it for webservers or DNS servers or firewalls. Thanks for the warning dude, I'll be sure to let everyone know.
14.1 No software policies.
What is this peculiar and individualized definition of a software policy, and given that very peculiar and individualized answer, why in the world would you think that is the case?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
In Stockholm I pay $3-$9 per month for 3G, even with max data usage you wouldn't pay more than $360/year. Are you sure you're not using prices from 99?
TFA is ridiculous! obviously this guy has never programmed for windows and linux and his understanding of both systems must be very limited... (it looks like he mostly counted bugzilla entries and listed the areas with the most entries... and since he didn't find complains about windows in bugs.kde.org, windows must be perfect and noone has ever had problems with it...)
what really pisses me off is the fact that he often complains about stuff that is no different or even worse in windows - "no double buffering" for example - do you think windows double-buffers the windows? no, every program has to do that on its own! or "no unified installer" WTF!? since when does windows have that? every freakin program has ITS OWN freakin installer! and windows doesn't even update its installed software automatically... instead you get 20 processes checking for updates to some product into your autostart, lagging your boot-time to infinity... "No unified configuration system for computer settings" windows has a unified configuration for core stuff (btw: how many people do you know that edit these settings manually and how many ask you for help?), but for anything above that you have to start some program and go to its options... just like in linux... "Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software" windows doesn't even have a repository - you have to manage the whole f*ckin software (including updates) yourself!
or take his complains about starting time of OOo against MSO: well MSO puts some core libs into windows autostart, so its no wonder why its faster - because its partly running all the time, even if you don't use it - wasting your ressources to create the illusion of a fast start...
What really enrages me are his complains about Qt. I have worked with enough RAD IDEs for Windows to know that Qt is FAR superior to them, because Qt has a simple intuitive interface to all aspects of modern software development - multimedia, layout management (objects changing size/position when you resize the parent window), splitters, SQL, multi-language support, multithreadding, openGL, interprocess-communication (dcop), xml, hotkey redefinition, editable and movable toolbars,... whereas in C++ Builder, Delphi, Visual Studio you can create windows, put some labels, buttons, editboxes etc in there and when it goes hardcore (the stuff from above) you can go to msdn and spend weeks of copy/pasting thousands of lines of WinAPI code that hardly work. This is exactly why linux apps are much more feature-rich although they only have (on average) a tenth of the size of their windows counterparts... because it's so damn hard to code all this stuff in windows - and thats also the main reason why windows apps often are very expensive...
and he even gives the most stupid argument of all: linux is so insecure, there are only no virii (in fact he calls them virusses) because noone uses it... well, you clueless smartass - linux holds 14% of the server market - it IS an attractive target for malware authors, but unlike you stated, linux' security model is far superior to that of Microsoft "swiss cheese" Windows...
oh and he also mentions that you might get sued because of the patents (does he work at Microsoft or what?) and that you have to pay for proprietary video codecs (which of course you get free together with your free copy of windows...)
All in all I have to say that - despite some valid complains, this is mostly BS!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Agreed. In my dual-booting Ubuntu/XP box, I have an integrated sound card and a PCI recording card.
In XP, the two play nicely together. If they didn't, I could use a GUI (Device Manager) to disable one temporarily.
In Ubuntu, no GUI setting could get all my output to come through the same card. To disable one, I had to open bash, figure out the name of the driver, blacklist that driver, and reboot.
Sure, this particular situation might affect a small number of users. But add up all the edge cases like these, and they affect many users.
Yes, bash is great - for programmers. Non-programmers should never need it. Everything should be configurable by the GUI.
I suspect what you are really saying is that it is hard to get the cut price "designed for Windows" printers to work. Well, surprise! You can't blame a non-Windows OS for not supporting a printer when part of the firmware is embedded in a Windows driver and it is crippled by design. Buy a mainstream office printer from a mainstream manufacturer and you should have no problems.
I don't disagree with your other comments, btw, and I run Windows on my netbook to allow several legacy programs without Wine to run. But GDI printers are an abortion.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Some things in TFA make me wonder though, like "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution". How hard is it to set up a local repository(-ies), from where workstations get updates?
In an enterprise desktop environment, you don't want to have a repository where users can pull software updates, you want a system where you can push them onto user desktops. I think there are some now but they've only come to market recently. IBM could have helped out by coming out with Linux support for Tivoli provisioning manager much sooner.
For a majority of enterprise users, just having a good office suite, web browser and groupware would be sufficient but only 2 out of the 3 were available in a working state until recently.
The big boys in groupware were Outlook/Exchange and Notes/Domino. Exchange quickly ate into Domino's market and by the time IBM started supporting Linux with Notes clients it was too late. If Linux does get more adoption in corporate desktops the groupware they'll be using will likely be Zimbra or something other than Domino or Novell's products.
Sun's Java Enterprise System could have worked since it was web based, but they didn't have the resources to come into the market compete with two already large players. Plus there's a general anti-sun sentiment in the Linux community.
That's just for regular office workers. When you mix in others that might need other special software, you can run into problems.
Most people don't care about the OS, they only care about the applications they interact with. If the applications aren't there it doesn't matter if you have the most perfect OS that has ever or will ever be written.
Linux became popular on edge servers because it could provide services through applications (Apache server and other ASF stuff, MySQL, sendmail, Samba, ftp, etc.) that run on it
Those applications brought open source into the business world and Linux came along for the ride. Then once Linux was in the corporate data center, other ISVs started releasing version of their enterprise server software for it.
There hasn't been enough ISV support for desktop Linux. It's also more difficult because desktops tend to run a variety of software, unlike servers that are commonly deployed with a limited software stack for one application.
I'd like to see it happen, but it's not quite there yet. It's good to see that open source desktop software is making it, but Linux hasn't been invited to this party yet.
Dual Opteron < $600
The problem here is the Desktop windows is totally different a UNIX implementation, if you think linux should be a copy of windows, you should use windows, is true linux have problems like windows OS but the advantages are very much, I use Linux for many years and the stability and
advantages are a lot not a thousand.
And here's me thinking the "©2009 Artem S. Tashkinov" at the end of the article was a bit of a giveaway.
I can't believe this crap ended up here, on /.
Uh.. if companies won't switch to Firefox for that reason, isn't that because of a deficiency in Windows, in that case?
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Really, those are the two main core problems. On numerous machines (I have about 4 and I like Ubuntu quite a bit, by the way), Linux won't recognize one or another hardware device (usually my USB ports). Could I spend time fixing it? Yes. Do I want to waste a few precious hours of my weekend doing so. HELL NO. Ditto with installers. It has to just work. Period. I don't have time to jack with it. And that, in a nutshell, is where Linux always falls down. It has to install and go. Windows is lousy, but I never have to jack with making my printer work, or my camera, or my SOUND CARD!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I got about as far as point 3. The guy or lady has about a fifty fity accuracy rate with the gripes. Most slashdot posts by anonymous cowards are more accurate.
-josh
Any of us old engineering university types (with significant knowledge of OS and their inner workings) can point out the same failures in some situations for all OS.
The reason LINUX continues to fail in the eyes of those with a "plug it in and it works" level of expertise is that they want it to plug it in and have it work like the other OS they like. They all have their benefits. They all have their pitfalls. If you try to treat them as interchangeable items, disappointment will abound.
When pulling down even an easy to install distro like Ubuntu, it will have trouble if you're trying to add it to a "designed for Windows" computer. Some little piece, or a whole bunch of them, will have been chosen because of an available, sometimes proprietary driver, which suddenly makes it frustrating when trying to use something else.
Instead, try it on a computer with "standard" components and you'll probably have more success. Then it becomes an issue of interface preference (read, desktop), desired software availability (as in, pick your word processor), and external compatibility (e.g., document sharing). A little comfort, perhaps some training, and they all start to look the same, and work the same, and have perks and quirks.
I liken it to cars when talking to some of those engineering university types, or even dumber people; while they all function "the same," and all use "the same" technology, you accept that your make (and even model) of automobile has less than generic parts; why is that so hard to grasp for computers? Heck, this may even be a case of someone discounting an entire line of automobiles because one time they were in one that ran out of gas, therefore, that kind of auto must be teh sux0rz.
End the FUD
CAD applications: Blender (www.blender.org) rivals Maya and 3ds Max in some features. Also we have Softimage, Houdini, and Maya for Linux.
Video editing: Cinelerra (cinelerra.org) is a great video editor for Linux.
Compositing: Apple Shake, The Foundry's nuke, eyeon Fusion
3D Painting: ifx Amazon Paint
Who do you think will take over if Windows dies? It won't be Linux. It will be the Mac! They already are easier to use than Windows (which is easier to use than Linux in many cases). It's more stable than Windows in most cases. Has great market share and is more poised to move into the empty space should Windows lose market share. Also, the iPhone is the perfect gateway device. People get familiar with it, the UI, they like it...so, the Mac feels more natural. Linux will not make it to the desktop because of the Mac OS. Just my prediction.
Moral of the story: to get your post on slashdot, make sure your title fans the fanboy flamewars.
0. Wrong. Full Stop. See: Eclipse, Blender, and any other of thousands of high quality open source applications that are professional quality, developed by paid professionals, but given away for free so that there is a more vibrant software ecosystem.
1.... Alsa and ESD work just fine. Ubuntu screwed the pooch implementing Pulseaudio, but Alsa and ESD are working just fine on my gaming rig and my htpc to do any audio crap I want. Also, I do remastering work on a base ubuntu install and audacity. So, I call BS on this. It takes effort to get right, but show me a windoze box that does this correctly out of the box without fucking around. Sorry but BS.
2..... Its called an nVidia card and compiz-fusion. IMHO better than the Aero bs, lower resource usage than it, and it solves every one of the issues he's griping about. Show me a system these days that DOESN'T come new with a 3d chipset that can't handle compiz.
3..... This is a) not a bad thing and b) FAR bettter than windoze. I have a whole group of people that are nice enough to package up my software so it installs in two or three clicks or one cli command. Beyond that, if they haven't gotten to it, I can get it packaged from the vendor, or if its EVEN newer, I have a free complete dev system and can compile the damned thing myself using the same dependencies the devs are using to work on it. Grow a clue.
4..... No, no it shouldn't. I don't want joe user to be able to configure some things, because I have to ssh in and fix it for him when he goes playing.
5.... bullshit: http://architectafrica.com/bin0/news200411111_wine.html
6. I haven't run across this, so I guess i'll hafta take his word. This is why you use a distro who test well :)
7. And the windoze API is so clean and bug free? IE is such a stable application?
8. Then you're not doing it right. Sorry but this isn't a desktop issue so please drive through.
9. Yes, but how about run time behavior. Unix-alikes encourage an app to load EVERYTHING at startup of the app so we don't have to put up with bullshit delays when dynamically loading the wizard for doing task A. Its a difference in philosophy of putting all the wait up front, not "slowness". He obviously doesn't get it.
10. Maybe, so use a stable released version. I agree that for stable stuff this should be better (get cracking devs)
11. So write some documentation. Not every project has infinite resources so you get tradeoffs.
12. Bullshit. gksudo, etc. Learn what you're talking about. ps -A is all the protection against "keyloggers" that I need.
13. I'd rather have broken backwards compatibility than infinite security holes to keep a dead api from a single user system alive.
14. Just plain wrong.
My Babylon
/. links to narod.ru. What's next? Is the world going to its end?
You shouldn't expect anything reliable from there. // Yeah, I'm Russian.
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
Slow shutdown time? Actually I think the Linux shutdown much quicker even compare to XP. (I didn't even want to mention Vista...it takes longer to shutdown than boot)
Linux response way faster when I kill an app. Windows? It likes trying to dig out all the pages from the swap, kill the app and...whatever. I dunno what it's doing!
Many of the complaints also apply to Mac OS X.
This guy's complaint is largely that "Linux ain't Windows." And while Linux is more Windows than Mac OS X, there are still many successful deployments of Mac OS X in business. Why?
Mainly, it is drive and stubbornness. People accept that "Mac OS X ain't Windows" and in fact, celebrate it. Microsoft Office for Mac doesn't work quite the same or even quite right. Entourage doesn't quite work with Exchange servers even though it damn well should since it was DESIGNED to by the same company that makes Exchange server. User management, Directory services and all that... all the same story.
Sound? Games? There has always been a shortage of games with Mac OS X... and when Mac finally has "something" Microsoft came along and took Halo away! I don't know what to say about the sound thing though. I know sound tweaking on the Mac can be confusing when using multiple sound devices though.
"A lot of devices are Windows only!" Once again, the same problem exists for Mac OS X. Can he say that Mac OS X is not yet ready for the desktop?
Now the complaints he issues about multiple libraries and competing desktop interfaces and all that? Since I only work with RedHat distros (CentOS and Fedora primarily) and look for RPMs before I will install a tarball, I don't know much of what he is talking about. But, I have seen similar problems with Windows software not wanting to work with Windows98 before! Does Windows98 count as a different distro of Windows? Okay, that's stretching things quite a bit I'll admit. But when it comes to software distribution and packaging, the Windows way isn't all that much better. There is no unified package management in Windows at all. Some programs bring in their own libraries and often over-write newer ones with older ones. And when that is prevented or doesn't happen, often the software doesn't work right because it expects the older libraries but finds only newer ones. Worse, when the old libraries get installed, it breaks newer software!
If there was "one Linux distro" many of the problems cited wouldn't exist. But there being multiple Linux distros is a strength that is simply not yet understood by most.
I rather like this guy's "slow load time" argument. To that I suggest that he disable the "quick load" crap that bogs down his system's boot time and THEN see how fast MS Office loads. There CAN be quickload functionality added and installed on Linux desktops too. WE DON'T WANT IT. We know what it really is -- loading the program at startup and not showing the program's window until it is called on. Such practices also means the whole frikken OS needs to be rebooted when something is changed in the application like a software update or the like.
But I'll grant that his arguments have some validity. "Linux ain't Windows" just as "Mac OS X ain't Windows." There are tremendous barriers of entry to overcome in order to invade that space. This will never happen. Instead, Linux needs to be more like Mac OS X in the sense that people will use it regardless of "Linux ain't Windows" or that people will use it BECAUSE "Linux ain't Windows."
Linux really DOES need an answer for the Enterprise though. LDAP is a royal pain. There needs to be a service and a set of clients that can run on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X for the enterprise. That would be a project that truly one-ups what Windows does... oh wait... doesn't Novell offer something like this already? Never used it so much with Linux or Mac though...
"Nothing constructive from this guy. Move on."
I think that about sums up the parent post. *grin*
While more Free Software is a great thing, if you depend every day on software like SolidWorks, AutoCad, or the myriad other applications for which there currently aren't any (or aren't any *decent*) Free software alternatives, then you're pretty much stuck, and all the wishing in the world isn't going to help you.
Some of us appreciate the freedom of Free software, but also recognize that other people have the freedom to make the software they write NOT be Free software, and that they aren't evil for deciding to exercise the freedom to choose the license they feel makes sense for the products they have spent years and millions of dollars producing.
That is, I love Free software, but I don't hate companies like Adobe, AutoDesk, or the many, many other proprietary software companies who employ hundreds of thousands of people in good jobs, or the many, many companies and people who choose to use that software in their commerce and personal use.
That said, I do think that the author of the original article does miss something - Linux developers can't make hardware vendors or software vendors support Linux, so ultimately, any analysis of what deficiencies Linux has can't really include things that are *outside the control* of Free software developers. Most of the points on his list are, really, very valid - issues of backwards compatibility, lack of standardized configuration, lack of standardized installer framework, issues of Sound API problems. Note - the author wasn't complaining that his sound card doesn't work under Linux - his complaint is issues of software compatibility - like, take for instance, the game Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (which is, I think, Free software at this point - I'm not positive but I think the source for Wolf:ET was released under a free license, but I may be wrong). The game was based upon the Open Sound System (OSS). Current distros tend to use ALSA (which isn't a bad thing - ALSA is a step forward from OSS), but the problem is, the sound for W:ET doesn't work 'out of the box' with alsa - you have to modify system startup scripts to cause a text string to be echo'ed into a file under the /proc filesystem; why couldn't ALSA provide OSS sound compatibility automatically? Also, when W:ET is using the sound card, I have seen problems where other sound apps could not access the sound card (like TeamSpeak - which is a small VoIP program which is popular for use with W:ET).
The point is, the sound API's/software layers in Linux do cause users headaches from time to time, even though they do work, mostly.
"Hard-core Linux advocates don't want "Proprietary Windows Applications" running on Linux. They want "Open-Source Applications" running on Windows and Linux."
Ok, what about people and companies who would like to move to Linux and experience more of the freedom that you advocate, but they are stuck with that one legacy application that their business depends upon? They are neither hard-core Linux advocates, nor hard-core Windows users. You split the world into a false dichotomy which simply does not exist in reality. Wine is great because it often lets people make the switch to Linux, but keep using software until such time that they are able to replace it with something else.
As for Samba - most of us have to get Linux/*BSD systems to play nice with Windows systems, because people do still use Windows. Samba is Free software, and is simply the easiest way (that I know of, anyhow) to allow file sharing back and forth between Linux and Windows. Is there something wrong with that?
Personally, for the cause of Free software, I think it would be better for people to run proprietary applications on Linux (if they must), than to run Free software apps on Windows (which Free software advocates don't generally have a problem with, because they feel it acts as a bridge to introduce users to free software, which I agree with, but lik
I registered after having lurked here for half of my life. I'll share my thoughts, and it would be interesting to see what response I might get.
I've been thinking about that maybe it's time to let Linux be what it is, and start fresh with the goal to make an open source desktop OS that doesn't get in the way. The world is different now and when Linux was started in 1991. It might actually be a good idea to rewrite the OS every fifteen year or so.
I've got some ideas for a new OS.
It consists of a kernel, an UI, a browser and some basic applications. This part of the OS is open source. Then there's an app store or something similar where the user can buy applications, games, professionally designed typefaces, proprietary codecs etc.
It will be the first OS that is resolution independent. We wouldn't even need anti-aliased fonts on the screen if monitor vendors started to increase the DPI. So that means that there will be vector graphics from the first pixel drawn after the boot loader. The default settings should favor what's intuitive and non-intrusive for the average Joe.
I can imagine an UI with blues and grays, light gradients, mostly a flat look and some light shadows. Caching, timing and redrawing will get a lot attention, to keep the feel of the UI rock solid. Hot spots should be made the most of.
I think history has shown that there's nothing wrong with the start-like menu, task list, clock and a desktop in the background. OS X and Linux have got the tray right for the most part. It's for wireless networks, volume changes and similar. The user can install a program by clicking a link on a website or by using the app store-like program. The app store (or whatever it might be called) should keep track of the updates. Distribution of packages could get done by BitTorrent or similar technology. The death of mirrors and package maintainers.
I think the most important part is that you shouldn't think about that you're using an OS. Microsoft have experienced with browser integrated into the desktop. Most people didn't like it. KDE 4 placed the desktop icons in a box. Most people didn't like it. Let's draw from operating system experience since the beginning, and use what worked. Throw away what didn't.
And then, let's talk about how it should be organized. One centralized website with an unified look. It should be easy for people to suggest ideas and comment on them. The ones who are making decisions will have to favor the public opinion rather their own. The feedback from the user should be taken very seriously. A release schedule will be set up that in the best way benefits the whole system. The Scrum process might be used as a model for the development in general.
The challenge is to convince people that this is a good idea. I will donate my time for free and lead the project, if there's any interest. I've waited for an usable Linux desktop for over a decade, and I'm done waiting. That's not to say that I don't respect the work that has been done in Linux-land. A new OS would benefit from a lot of the Linux kernel source that has been written, and all that the world has learned about Linux. And Linux won't die. This will be just another experiment, but with different organization and goals.
I was ubuntu user from 7.10 or so. A few days ago I was ranting over Linux here on Slashdot about linux and what I don't like about it.
As it happened, out of curiosity I downloaded Windows 7. Well, id did one thing: it deleted my Ubuntu partition!!??
Well, no real harm done since I have my /home on a separate partition and I could switch betwen ubuntu versions or even different gnome distributions with no problem. /home to an external usb disk. No way, with 7.10 LiveCd it was about an hour. That should tell you something. Oh, and nvidia driver was not installed on 9.04. I never figured why.
The thing is, I was just going through different distros, trying to find something better (I was using 8.10, btw. It was slow, DVD burning completely stalled the system, and so on and on).
Centos: not really ready for desktops
Debian: probably very stable, but it looks somehow 1990. Old packages (openoffice 2 something, nautilus without tabs).
Ubuntu: slower and slower. I think 7.10 was their best release. After that it started to be slower, with more bugs etc. As I later found out, it would take 9.4 liveCD DAYS to copy my data from
Ok, after I lost my active ubuntu system, I first tried 9.4. Common guys. You bitch over Vista, but clearly, Ubuntu 7.10 is a performance upgrade to 9.4. Really. If you just added nautilus with tabs to 7.10 it would be great. All other neafty features you keep adding? I really couldn't care less if my system boots 5 seconds faster (btw, windows 7 blows Ubuntu 9.4 at boot speed) or about some shiny notifications (which were really quite ok in 7.10 - why are you trying to Kdeisize Gnome??). I care about stability, performance and usability.
So, ubuntu was out of the list. Next I asked myself "why not try Kde. It's supposed to be stable now, and it looks nice". From the internetz I learned that opensuse is one of the best distros. So I download, burn and isntall 11.1. Fonts are ugly by default (why, why, WHY is this still a problem in 2009? Ok, first thing on 7 I disabled ClearType and switched system fonts to Tahoma, but linux fonts are still ugly.) Network. I use WPA personal with TKIP or something like that. No go. Suse's network manager won't connect. I was supposed to check if I was runing wpa_something etc. Nvidia driver not installe dy default. I have to add additional repos, and then somehow choose the right driver from the list (I learned all that connected to neighbour's open WiFi, btw).
At that moment I just said to my self: WTF. Is this really productive? Whyt do I gain by using linux? I LIKE Windows 7 interface. What I really like about gnu/linux/gnome is:
- virtual desktops (I've been evaluating Virtual Dimension now, it seems fine)
- ssh integration in nautilus (can use cygwin for command line ssh and winscp for file transfers)
- windows roll-up (I found something that adds this to windows, but it somehow doens't feel right and it seems buggy)
Is all this really worth the trouble I have with linux?
Guess not. So I'm writing this from Windows 7. Yeah, I got a few BSODs, but it's nice, fast and it does the job. Yes, sadly it's acctually faster than Ubuntu. More sadly, I jhust realized the application I've been developing for a year or so works much much faster in IE8 than it does in Ubuntu/firefox.
A few days ago some slashdoters said "I was trying to use linux as if it was Windows". I don't really understand what you werw trying to say. Now, if you think I was trying to use my os without much hassle, yes, you are right. If that means I was supposed to go through different forums, mailings, scripts and config files just to make my system work, well, you can have it, it's not worth my time. Other than that, there should really be no difference in how you use an operating system. It just manages files and schedules processor for crying out loud. Other than than, I'm more trying to use Windows as X/Gnome.
Last, but not least, I also have performance problems with Ubuntu server. Md raid is ver
Seems like he's using an exception that proves the rule.
This question MUST be answered to the satisfaction of MILLIONS of end users before Linux will become popular on the desktop:
What can I do with Linux that I can not do with Mac OS or Windows?
Living in "software freedom" is not an acceptable answer.
GM, for the first time in years is producing cars of decent quality, yet they are staring death in the face. Why?
The average car buyer asked a similar question: "Why should I buy a GM over a Toyota or Honda?"
The lesson here is that users will continue to rely on the devil they know versus they devil they do not know.
Linux needs to have capabilities not found on proprietary systems; that will give end users reasons to switch. Nothing else matters.
-ted
Yes, but corporate use drives home use. That's the reason I own a Windows PC today instead of a Mac or a Linux box. I'm a UNIX Systems Administrator who mostly works on Linux boxes and I actually have to use Windows to do all the parts of my job that do not involve me directly typing commands on the command line.
Office (Outlook, Visio, Word, Excel) is #1, but there are a lot of other tools that are either Windows only, or they are so much easier to use on Windows that they might as well drop their Linux versions.
Yeah, I could get OpenOffice, but then, I can run that on my Windows box too. I might as well just use MS Office, as my workplace pays for that.
On the Desktop, everything that Linux distros have, Windows also has. And many things that Linux desktops don't have, Windows boxes do.
I'm entirely capable of creating a Linux desktop that I could get by with, but why would I? Windows has business and games which are the top two reasons for me to have a computer at home.
For non-administrator types, creating a usable home Linux desktop is much less compelling as they probably need to use Excel or Word and have never used or even heard of OpenOffice. Needless to say, they will be annoyed and frustrated when their Linux distro pulls out one of its patented "only half-works" issues on something that should be taken for granted like sound or graphics.
Home desktop use is maybe 90% of the market, but what do you think put the PC in the home in the first place?
I have a copy of Vista, it took three tries to install it, and it took me about an hour to get it looking like XP again and to turn off UAC. It sucks up RAM like no tomorrow. But it doesn't matter. I wanted DirectX 10 and my box has 6GB of RAM, upgradeable to 12, so I really don't care. I could have a Linux box that is built on a better platform that will make far better use of my system resources, but how would it be anything more than a toy?
Yesterday I was working on my Linux server getting an HP printer to work(moreso the printer's fault, not my server's). Well, lo and behold, all network access randomly decided to stop on my system. I had some update installed(some updates to 9.04 not an upgrade TO 9.04), and then I couldn't get anywhere. How the heck did the buggy as all hell NetworkManager get included? I can't even get it to work right, saying basically my ethernet card doesn't exist, even though it was working just great before?
Some things in TFA make me wonder though, like "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution". How hard is it to set up a local repository(-ies), from where workstations get updates?
It's not hard. But IT support in most corporations is filled with dyslexic drooling retards. If it doesn't come with a training program, an 800 support number, and a GUI, it's "too difficult" or "takes too much time" for their annoying Cheeto-stained overpaid asses to handle.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Seeing as 9.10 is an extremely early alpha release, you're basically saying Ubuntu is bad because it's being developed in the open.
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.
And how this has to do with Linux?
1. No reliable sound system,
Alsa?
no reliable unified software audio mixing,
PulseAudio?
many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
Probably refering to the old proprietary flash plugin? The new one doesn't have that problem, and if you care about hackers not entering your computer, you shouldn't use the old one anyway. By the way, we also have gnash now.
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output.
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default many distros do not set volume levels properly (no audio output/no sound recording).
Still ignoring the efforts PulseAudio. Now some people are upset because the volume mixer is TOO simple (btw I agree with them).
2. X system: 2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
Pure BS. Qt is extremely stable, much better than MFC and sure A LOT much better than USER.EXE. In fact, even many commercial applications for Windows are starting to use it.
2.2 Very slow GUI (except when being run with composite window managers on top of OpenGL).
Perhaps repainting can be a bit slower, but try watching TV on Windows using any commercially available software of your choice, then do the same on Linux, and after that let's talk about slowness again. Btw any graphics card produced after 2005 is able to do compositing.
2.3 Many GUI operations are not accelerated. No analogue of GDI or GDI+. Text antialiasing and other GUI operations are software rendered by GUI libraries (GTK->Cairo/QT->Xft).
No analogue of GDI? You mean we cannot draw lines and circles in Linux? Sounds new to me. No acceleration? See EXA and XRender. Xft renders fonts via XRender. No GDI+? See Arthur, Cairo.
2.4 Font rendering is implemented via high level GUI libraries, thus: 2.4.1 fontconfig fonts antialiasing settings cannot be applied on-the-fly.
Thus: each application can use the font rendering engine to do whatever it wants with fonts, other than drawing strings on the screen.
2.4.2 Fonts antialiasing only works for certain GUI toolkits (see 2.1).
False. Xft is part of X11 and can be used by every application. Even old-timers like xterm uses it. There's absolutely no reason to use server-side fonts anymore. What applications are you talking about, xbill?
2.4.3 Default fonts (often) look ugly.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
2.4.3.1 (Being resolved) By default most distros disable advanced fonts antialiasing.
That's because Microsoft owns a patent over sub-pixel rendering. Send your complaints to them.
2.4.3.2 By default most distros come without good or even compatible with Windows fonts.
Install msttcorefonts.
2.5 No double buffering.
We have composite these days. Before that, we had the X Double Buffering extension.
3. Problems stemming from the vast number of Linux distributives: 3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A
In an enterprise desktop environment, you don't want to have a repository where users can pull software updates, you want a system where you can push them onto user desktops.
That's what you get with a repository! Just set workstations to update automatically from it. The users don't need to bother with it, nor do they need permissions to pull stuff on their own. It's not exactly a "push" of course, more like an orchestrated pull, but I don't see why it wouldn't work even if it seems a bit hackish. In fact, you could remove all other repos, and only use a local mirror that you update with new package versions at your discretion.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
I know of at least one application that uses Qt, and its only for Windows. It didn't use Qt before, they switched - those masochists!
For games, people usually use console now, and I guess that soon even those games that now would be hard to play on console will change (MMORPG, RTS etc.). So no games for desktop OS shouldn't be that big problem in the future, especially when chunk of people tend to shift to portables with their games.
That said - I still have Windows to play those.
People that use apps like AutoCAD, StudioMAX and stuff like that aren't majority of PC users, so it always amazed me as people whine about it. Linux is free, you don't lose money if you install it. It is AutoCAD issue that it requires you to buy expensive Windows, if you don't have it yet (and didn't need to, until AutoCAD came!).
As for hardware issues - it was always their producers issue, not Linux. Even if Linux has drivers that accidentally work with given hardware, but configuration files aren't set properly - its still manufacturer issue - he didn't provide CD with utility to do this for user, or his (I doubt its his!) driver isn't configured as it should (ie. don't need any configuration at all with defaults) - still, he's issue, not Linux. Of course you could say that it is Linux fault, that manufacturers aren't interested, perhaps documentation is crappy as TFA mentions, but is for windows really that better? They had a lot of issues with Vista, and I guess that they spent a lot of money do get those done. Hell, my printer still doesn't wont with drivers provided with it on CD (for XP, using XP), but on Linux I just plug it in and thats it - works.
Unified installer? Not so long time ago, I installed a game - it had its own installer in a very Windows-style, "create shortcut, input installation path, next, install etc."
Make your own, I bet its simple, and if you like - give it away.
Then setup for the installation your own safe c-flags, how hard can it be Mr. Developer? .rpm usually used. All other ones are non-mainstream and their users are expected to be geeks, if they use non-mainstream distros. As for apt - you can easily check and install what you need in your own unified installer - for rest - display what they lack and tell them to DIY. I use Gentoo at home and don't really expect ebuilds or integrated portage interface from ever1.
There are 2 major repository managers - apt and whatever there is for
And those are free for Windows, right?
Well, when they'll ALL work on Wine, we'll have a great article for the Slashdot front page! And hopefully, others will pick it up... just imagine "The most popular and recent games work on Linux better than they do on Windows!" When that day will come, many DRM-butchered systems will switch to Linux. Half of the games on that list isn't good enough and I hope the Linux community will be able to keep up with the accelerating gaming industry. Otherwise, it will die a slow and painful death and we'll see articles on /. about how cool it is because you can play those decades-old games from the 2000's. Good luck, guys!
Linux mentality: give the users whatever they need, for free.
Windows mentality: give the users whatever they want, for a price.
I don't see Mac displacing a more open platform, really. Yes, I'm calling Windows a more open platform, or rather, the PC market in general. Here's the thing, compared to Mac, Windows *is* more open.
Don't get me wrong, Apple products, from a technical and user interface perspective, generally are superb. But, I can only run Mac OX on Apple hardware. Which means if I want to use hardware from any other vendor, I don't use Mac OS. Which is why Mac can never 'rule the world' - because they force every other hardware vendor to choose other O/S platforms. Whereas Windows will hapilly run on *almost* any box with an Intel or AMD chip inside (or even Via).
Put another way, Apple is 'greedy'. They want to control both the software market, and the hardware market (which does make it so that users get a consistently good experience with regards to stuff 'just working', but from an economic standpoint, guarantees that they will always have every other PC hardware company in the world competing against them, instead of cooperating with them).
Linux has the possibility to be something Mac NEVER can - an open O/S platform which any vendor can embrace. Windows cannot die until there is an open O/S platform that non-Apple hardware can run, which people can use as a suitable replacement for Windows. Mac simply cannot ever fill that role, because of that whole 'non-Apple' thing. Well, it could if Cupertino took their head out of their hind-quarters and started licensing Mac OS X to other vendors, like Dell, HP, IBM, et. al., but they won't, so Mac won't ever supplant Windows. Ever.
Unknown author? Bottom of the page says: Artem S. Tashkinov.
it doesn't matter if linux is or isn't ready for the desktop
what matters is (a) does someone care about the price difference (if, after taking into accound support, there really is a difference) and (b) does linux do something that wintel or mac doesn't
the 1st is beyond linux control; the second isn't
the day linux has a must have app that is patented, so wintel/mac cna't run it, is the day linux will sweep all before it
users don't buy an OS: they buy a computer to do somethinbg like play movies, chat on facebook or whatever.
this focus on the os is totally detrimental to the success of linux. if all those linux programmers worked on finidng that one app, windows would go, deservedly, to the dustbin of history.
of course, the linux geeks aren't smart enough to figure this out, they think people care about secure file systems, so M$ is safe for the foreseable future
"There ARE games for Linux: Wine works surprisingly well, but there should be an automatic way of getting the needed libraries for any particular app"
Yea, and England has beaches, but who wants to see them?
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Ubuntu 9.10 is great for average users as long they
can run the thing from a root CLI.
to configure screen resolution (default 800x600)
first you get an error message that the default
config tool won't work because of proprietary
drivers. do you want to use the proprietary tool?
yes. proprietary tool fills screen and bottom
(with apply/save buttons) overflows and is inaccessible.
figure a way around this by opening more screens.
apply the new setting. save setting, get error
message about backup file privs.
plug in a USB drive. get message that you don't /media.
have privs to mount it. look for DiskManager tool
that was present on 8.10. not there. synaptic
pachage manager: install MountManager. hides button in
in another menu which you need to configure. find it
and click it. nothing happens. so, CLI in
root mode - library object error message in
MountManager. so, edit fstab and remove offending
lines. correct privs for mount dirs in
reboot. screen res wrong again. back to step one.
eventually, you forget why you were trying to
access the USB drive.
Kevin O'Kane http://www.cs.uni.edu/~okane/
Geez..I've been using Ubuntu for 2 years exclusively both at home and at work. I better switch soon! I had no idea it wasn't ready!
Cool games perhaps not. GOOD ones definitely. ... just to name a few.
Armagetron Advanced, Scorched3D, Warzone2100, Wesnoth, Xmoto, BZFlag, FreeCiv, Urban Terror
Most of them are of course available for windows, and the ~cool and shiny~ new games don't always run in wine at all, or well enough ... but that's what dual boot is all about : use linux for everything, boot in windows when you want to play something that doesn't run in linux. Same as going to the TV Set and pulling your favourite console, only with better games
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Lua is not an acronym. It's the name of the Moon in Portuguese.
duh
...yawns, recalls mental image of Debian on his PC at home and how it doesn't seem to want to EVER utilize hardware acceleration with his circa 2002 graphics card, thinks of upgrading his home PC from 2k to XP, returns to work on Vista
He's not even consistently comparing desktop and server setups, what version of WinXP comes with a full AD stack?
Windows XP Professional can follow the Group Policy set on a domain controller.
But to suggest that these make Linux "not (yet) ready for the desktop", while Windows and OSX, which share so many of the same faults, are ready is simply trolling.
Then perhaps the conclusion should have been "Windows isn't perfectly ready, but it's a lot closer than Linux."
If you like to work with the innards of computer and test things, than Linux is for you. If not, than get a PC, if you just use a PC than waste your money on a MAC.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"Drop to the terminal", you've already lost most users.
I appreciate the power of the terminal, and many of the folks on this site also do, but users simply don't care about the "power" of it, they care about simplicity, straightforwardness, and software.
Linux isn't yet simple, especially when people are used to doing things in Windows or even Mac (a bit), those two platforms work surprisingly alike for installing software (double click!), for finding software (go to some website, download it), etc. When a user is used to going to Mozilla.org and downloading the latest Firefox, and then tries doing that in Linux only to find that they have to drop to the terminal and do a install, they already are ready to wipe and format and put Windows back on so they can play their games and surf the web.
Windows has taken years to get a cohesive (and still not quite there yet) and unified GUI. Mac took a long time too, and it's pretty darned good. Linux is a compilation of GUI, and while it's pretty good LOOKING, it's not unified across every window, every application, etc. Plus, breaking the habit of people downloading apps from the web and going to repositories is counter intuitive for a lot of people.
If you want to make a dent where Windows is king, you have to adopt some of the peculiarities of the OS in order to adopt. You give them training wheels and the rest they learn on their own. If you fail to provide that, then they just give up and say it sucks -- like the returns OEMs show from getting *nix laptops. Even with distros that work out of the box from OEMs, people are returning them. Sure the distro can be done better, but the odds of that happening are slim, so my thought is that Linux itself needs to change at its core to help the users bridge the gap.
But I've been hearing "Linux on the desktop" for so many years now I just laugh about it now. Given the treatment of non-Linux users by Linux users (berating, combative, defensive, angry, etc), there's good reason why it never catches on, and it's because the userbase for Linux are a bunch of assholes.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Now get off my lawn and leave me with my non-ready Linux desktop.
The question should not be a general is linux ready for the desktop but we should ask the question "Is Linux ready for your desktop". There is an assumption from Both Windows and Mac that it is possible to force a certain way of working on all users. Linux let's you pick and chose. For me, I do not want to be forced to work a certain way. This makes Linux an ideal fit for me.
I've also used Linux for a long time. Reading this list made me clear my mind of prejudice and think about the situation more critically. I believe the author hit upon points that are more serious than just "installation issues".
To me, the great thing about Linux right now is that it's relatively untied to requirements. Microsoft is basically a sophisticated slave to the millions of corporate and home users that it has to satisfy. But with Linux we have a chance to start fresh.
Reading this list shows me a clear path: As a community of users and developers, let's compile a list of meta-requirements and beautiful design principles. Let's take Linux and push it to the next level. More polished than Mac, more compatible than Windows, easier to use than the iPhone. Let's re-architect everything. Develop the last version of the current generations of software and seal the packages and builds and write obituaries on the maintainers' pages. Drop all that and let's come together to build the true next operating system. I humbly offer my services to this ambitious endeavor. But I'm much more hesitant to start piling on hacked code on top of hacked code to just barely squeeze Linux past forgiving, tech-savvy users' standards.
admittedly after a half hour searching once for information.
I still haven't managed to get TOSlink working under XP and it keeps wanting to change my 5.1 speaker setting into Stereo speaker.
No idea why.
... was the point of the article going over your head. The key phrase (from your own post) "hobbyist operating system". The point of TFA was that Linux isn't ready for the masses, not that it isn't ready for geeks. Sure, it "flies in the hands of a master". The point is that very few people are masters, and very few have the time or inclination to become masters.
Right. Which is why it's not ready for the desktop (at least for ordinary mortals).
eah, I could get OpenOffice, but then, I can run that on my Windows box too. I might as well just use MS Office, as my workplace pays for that.
And people wonder why American companies are in trouble.
There are lots of reasons: difficulty to get the software. FUD pieces like this article, marketing pressure to remove options and monopoly practices.
Among other things.
Doesn't the tech newspaper get to the bridge you live under?
And windows only allows more productivity if you
a) are only productive in the way Windows lets you
b) buy and maintain lots of extra software (and that time removes from productivity directly, twice)
My, that IS insightful.
"I don't think they had Wookiees in mind when they built this Chewie" - Han Solo
or
"I don't think they had Linux in mind when they built Surface" - Me.
So by that definition Linux is not ready for the desktop, but it's great on PCs and a lot of other gadgets. It's all about what you mean by "desktop". When I see Debian running on Surface THEN Linux will be ready for the desktop, who knows maybe it'll be beaten to the finish line by the BSDs.
He writes:
Really? Windows must be pretty quick these days. Here I have, with OpenOffice3 on Debian Lenny and a dual core portable:
First run:
delire@devel:~$ time ooffice
real 0m3.816s
user 0m0.028s
sys 0m0.056s
Second run:
delire@devel:~$ time ooffice
real 0m0.564s
user 0m0.024s
sys 0m0.024s
He also wrote:
Different compilers.. does he mean differing versions of GCC/G++? I don't see how this can negatively impact application development - it doesn't even negatively impact distribution. In a collaborative context, development usually targets a single compiler to reduce headaches, just as on Windows or OS X..
Regarding the libraries: if you don't have the people resources to roll a package for a given distribution and don't want to hand over the source such that package maintainers can do it for you, you always have the (rightfully) unpopular but working option of statically linking and shipping in a tarball. Successful examples of this are: World Of Goo, Skype, Opera, Gizmo and seem to run on numerous modern GNU/Linux distributions without problems..
Imho the list is a big comparison failure... here I comment what seems wrong with those points
0. Premise: ultimately wrong. a software that is NOT open sourced might be running on linux, compare mathematica.
1. Well... My laptop runs on Fedora, and I have no problems with audiosettings or changing them in a blink of a second. so wrong.
2.1 might be. i am only proficient with java though. :P and a texteditor is good enough.
2.2 Well, I do not feel any difference between Win XPs speed and Gnomes, but well. It might be.
2.3 cannot comment on that
2.4 Fonts... the point goes to linux for choosing the fonts yourself... the author seems to be a masochist.
2.5 well there is double buffering, I guess. Need your eyes checked.
3.1 hrr hrr hrr, you might run into problems when trying maths, if your variable is not x, but q... lol.
3.2 commonly software that is NOT open source comes with a custom made installer, why caring for such stuff then? :P
but well... when it is open source, than distribute your source. no need for compiling it
3.3 yeah, that is true, and it is good. WHY should EVER anyone trying to use OUTDATED programs? oh yeah I forgot, everyone of us runs Windows 3.1
3.4 whatever, compile open source yourself, not open source might run into a problem here, but well of course, the custom made installer could check for dependencies.
4. it should not be possible to configure everything via gui. cmdline is just fine for things that could turn your computer to ash.
5.1. wasn't there a good CAD, it looked pretty professional. and for video editing, yes there is one. but well for music go MAC and not windows.
5.2 You probably mean that there are no big games being developed for linux, that is right.
5.3 absolutely true.
5.3.1. wtf is lexmark? sounds like something to eat.
5.3.2 you need webcams only for pr0n, so why bothering when you want to "work"
5.4 that will change.
5.5 Purchasing something in the lands of da internet? no way. there is always a way to get some.
6. mh... I think you should still be able to load your old driver modules?
7. look into windows, a whole new bug, and every year or two they produce another one
8. cannot tell about that, I am not a developer
8.1. far more easily than on windows, from my experience that is.
9. so probably you fucked up some configs, OO loads as fast on my 5 years old laptop (fedora) as it does on my half year old PC (windows).
9.1. who knows if Microsoft likes to see their office suite, which you have to pay for run on linux? hell, they'll kill ya
10. many apps do that, because it is easier to debug that way.
11. look at windows... the documentation is even worse.
12. the windows security model is even more worse. I wonder if XP has one, Vista is a joke, well you just hit those accept buttons anyways without thinking and well i heard bad news about 7
13. How can you plan a forward compatibility?
13.1 Yeah, good look with windows 3.1
13.2. who wants to use an old distro? I mean seriously, you do not use windows 3.1 nowdays do you?
13.3 okay, what is the problem with new? New is good, change is good.
14.1 no software policy? okay, WHY would you need such, if a root is needed to do damage to the system... ah of course bad security thingy
IMHO the list is a big comparison failure. It is not well formulated.
Name your genre and I'll game you some games supported either by Wine (out-of-the-box, no extensive modifications unless a very detailed tutorial is available online) or within Crossover.
Try these:
Not that I'm saying Windows succeeds at these genres either. They're just what the kids I babysit play, and I'm trying to get away from a gaming platform that's even more closed than Windows.
I've managed to run all my peripherals without a problem. Let me know what you're using
Microtek ScanMaker 4850 USB flatbed scanner. SANE has listed it as unsupported for years.
As to the article... it indeed mostly works by s/linux/vista/g indeed :)
The writer states in section 0 that proprietary software will stay indefinately. Had he looked at the industrial revolution an even paid much attention to the computer revolution he would have seen that published standards endure and proprietary standards are starved off from the market.
Linux needs open standards and specifications so that end users can retain their data and devices. Microsoft did that with standard device driver models, PlugandPlay protocols, and read access to as many competing data formats as they could buy. I think that until the models changed in Vista, most people could get their hardware to "just work" with Windows from version to version. In fact, I think DOS users had more open and complete device interface documentation than Linux enjoys today. But without agreed upon industry standards to build critical power applications and device drivers, Linux will struggle to provide for the needs of the average desktop user.
I dual boot on a fairly low spec laptop in both Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows XP. I still haven't *quite* convinced my wife to fully migrate because I/we cannot find an acceptable iTunes client (although SongBird is getting there)... ...but thats IT! There is nothing else that ties us to Windows.
From power on to browsing with Firefox:
Windows 300+ seconds, Ubuntu 60 seconds - no contest
I fail to understand why anyone would actually pay for an OS?
Device support is offered, since Januari 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/219791/ but apparently the offer is not being taken up. Write to your music hardware manufacturer sending them this link :-)
captcha: trapped
My desktop works fine and I don't change settings by CLI, but the problem of legacy and niche apps is real, people expect to run their windows programs in linux and linux ports are unrealistic expectations.
But... the future refused to change.
There are some realities geeks are going to have to come to terms with. WE are all fine on Macs, and Linux and we don't even get viruses on the Windows machines we run, so this discussion is not really even about us.
My brother was in a terrible accident two years ago and is recovering from a (now minor) brain injury. He is smart and artistic, but has some challenges. He loves Mac, but on his limited income that wasn't a viable option. He also doesn't have the money for Mac or Widows Apps. He needed a portable computer for the injury rehab school he is attending. Answer: Two weeks ago he bought an Asus EEE1000 and we loaded 9.04 Netbook Remix together. I showed him how to load it, how to load apps, how to update and load stuff from the terminal, he took copious notes.
Last week I got an email that he tried to load an app from the GUI and got an error. He got out his notes, went to the terminal and got it installed.
As a non technical user with a brain injury, he loves Linux on the desktop.
Now, he will screw it up and/or something will not work and I will get a call or have to physically work on the machine. But, as a geek, tell me how that is different than what we have to do for any of our non-tech friends or family on any O.S.? Even windows machines I have pretty well hardened have to be backed up and reloaded now and then due to user actions.
Linux is no more or less difficult for a user than any other O.S. and probably less work for us to friend-admin long term.
Dave
Linux for desktop is not and will not ever be about general users. Linux + desktop is for every geek who thinks Windows was best in the days of DOS + Windows 3.1. Geeks like having access to the configuration files. Geeks like loading the shell and running commands.
Linux will never exceed its inputs. Linux is a geeky OS built for geeks by geeks so we can sit around geeking out on the geektitude of the whole geek-damned thing.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Over the years I've seen a constant back and forth between "server" computing versus "desktop" computing. Remember when "workstations" first appeared. It was the end of the VAX'en. Its almost like fashion. BUT I think when the first cloud breach happens where possibly millions of accounts are breached and corporate secrets spill onto the the internet like oil from the valdez, cloud computing will end.
Now before I'm blasted for being a 'Microsoft fanboi' or such, I will say here, I use Kubuntu 8.04.2 99.99% of the time, for the last 6 months. Now...
--
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM, deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for software development.
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./configure && make && make installer. It should be possible to install any software by downloading a package and double clicking it (yes, like in Windows, but probably prompting for user/administrator password).
3.4 Applications development is a major PITA. Different distros can use a) different libraries versions b) different compiler flags c) different compilers. This leads to a number of problems raised to the third power.
AMEN!!! Repositories is NOT the solution. Many programs arn't on repositories, or within that particular version. OpenOffice 3? Pidgin 2.5.5? Neither are on the 8.04.02 repositories. The only reason I can use them, is by chance I found a way of installing OO3 which worked, as well as working with Pidgin. It's easy, but only if your in the know. Which, I might add is; why the frack isn't the install instructions on the main web site? Why is it someone had to write it up in a blog? I say this. If people want to play with ./configure && make && make installer then that's fine. That's their right. But there should be a 1 (or several click) installer like Windows. Yeah, yeah, I hear 'DLL hell' I've yet to see that, and I've worked with Windows since v3.1. I see more 'dependency hell' even with repositories. I can't even install Gnome to try it out.
5.3.2 A lot of web cameras still do not work at all in Linux.
This is easily solved. Hell with the camera's propriotory junk. A simple card reader from Wal-Mart ($20 or so) allows me to read 3 different cameras (including a 3 year old Sony memory stick) and download the files at USB 2.0HS on linux OR windows.
7. A galore of software bugs across all applications. Just look into KDE or Gnome bugzilla's - some bugs are now ten years old with over several dozens of duplicates and no one is working on them.
Agreed 100%. Not to mention bugs come back in newer versions. 8.04.01 worked like a charm on a IBM T22, with only a minor video problem. 8.04.02, the video isn't working at all, and I've had to go get the correct driver. Bugs should be eliminated, and wiped from the code. Especially from the same company, or distro. Why is it that old bugs are corrected, then comes back?
What's worse; they introduce new things in newer versions that compound the problem. 8.04.01 worked like a charm on 2 computers, because they used a text based installer. However, 8.04.02, uses a GUI ONLY installer, which is slower, and a heck of a lot more of a problem to work with. 9.04.01 won't even WORK on my main system, and again brings back new problems that 8.04.02 eliminated.
Not to mention the upgrader is a major joke. I had to completely wipe and reinstall 8.04.02 on my system after the upgrader totally hosed it.
Linux - even Ubuntu isn't close to being able to be used by Joe 6 harddrive. I won't dare install it on my customer's systems even if requested.
- Kc
-- Kevin C. Redden kcredden@ gmail 392992
You mean the 90% that buys a new computer once every six years? I doubt my mom's P3 with 128 MB RAM will be running Word across the Internet. Considering how far Linux has come in the past two-three years alone, I see no reason why she'll buy a new computer with Windows n and Microsoft Office y Online (TM) and start paying a monthly bill to MS for the privilege of typing up a document for the school marching band board meeting. For that matter, she already uses OpenOffice.
Home users will not be leading the Web 3.0 revolution.
As stated above this article might cause a show down between Linux nerds and Windows users but did any one actually take time to look at the problems of both Windows and Linux on the desktop. It's all perspective really, would you install Windows on a notebook with a 100Mhz processor and less then 100MB HDD, of course not because you couldn't.
Windows has enough of it's own problems from the perspective of a Linux user to make me turn away from it and just laugh, personally I think it's one of the worst OS's ever made and it has so many problems it's really a class in how to make porgramming mistakes 101.
I know there are people who feel the same about Linux and I'm going to admit that if they don't understand Linux and why to some people it's a much better choice on the computer, they might have a reason to there thinking.
Either way you want to show down against these two OS's there it nothing in the end but preferance. There is nothing Linux can't do that Windows can, because you can always reprogram the system, the source code is present. However there are many things that Windows can't and will never do that Linux can.
Another feature these articles never seen to look at is the preformance differance. In many cases a well optimized Linux install from source so Gentoo will make Windows seem like it's 3 wheel bike on the 401 facing up against a Bugatti.
Personally I find Windows to be a good platform to go into and run a few quick games like Zoo tycoon when I'm bored, but I would never use it as a Desktop OS for everyday just because I don't find it suitable. I know many people who feel the other way and thats fine, it's about being able to say there right and I'm right.
This entire article is just silly and I don't think it can ever truely answer a question that in then end has nothing to do with Tech specs but what a end user wants.
Thanks
LinuxOverWindows
I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 on my firm's office computer right now. I run AutoCAD in a virtual machine, and do all my other work with Opera/Evolution Mail (damn you exchange server!)/Open Office etc etc.
... Then again I am a tinker-er/enthusiast ...
Besides the pleasure I get from obsessively compulsively tweaking a computer (and subsequently breaking it, and learning stuff), I like to relax with a video game. Until I can play Fallout 3 on Linux-- I won't be scrapping my dual-boot.
Wine (not the sig) just isn't good enough, and virtual machines just aren't fast enough (mainly because currently, none of them can directly take advantage of the host-os graphics card).
"--wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." --Benjamin Franklin
I think you didn't understand. And whoever gave you 5 should also be biased towards Linux.
Listen: The author is right: Lack of standardization is the problem, not _one_ distribution. It isn't lack of technology, merely 'standardization' of technology. Even LSB standardization doesn't help the Linux desktop today. He is bitchslapping the linux distribution model, not linux as a technology.
Mandriva, working for me, for years.
What's in a sig?
I also enjoy playing PC games. Most of the games I play were released 7+ years ago. As far as running games under Wine is concerned, I think its a great solution. With Wine, I don't have to worry about the evil capitalist pigs putting hidden device drivers or root-kits on my system that run 24/7 when I install a purchased game.
As far as consoles go, I won't buy any more of them. When you buy console games, you get absolutely nothing more than what you paid for. Compare this to PC games, where there are hundreds of fan-made levels to play, and the developers who actually have souls release the source code years down the line. This means that your old games will actually improve with time.
Console gamers are also on a leash. When company X decides to turn off the online servers for your favorite game, you are SOL. You can't just put in your buddy's IP address and play with him.
At the time, I estimated that we were around the 50% mark toward that goal (lots of missing device drivers, buggy OpenOffice, no high-quality equivalent tools for photo editing, page layout, video editing, and much more). In short, anyone using a Linux desktop would need to have another machine to accomplish these other tasks.
In recent weeks, I have installed SLED 11, openSuse 11.1, Fedora 10, and Ubuntu 9.04 on several netbooks, notebooks, and boxes. My goal (once again) was to make one of these systems my everyday workhorse machine, one that I could recommend to friends and family for all of their computing tasks. While the situation is much improved from three years ago, we are still quite a way from reaching that elusive 100% goal. For myself and my family, I would guess that we are in the 80's, but gamers would give a much lower score.
Installation and setup is vastly improved. The desktop layouts, particularly GNOME, are reasonably familiar to users of other platforms. Individual applications, notably OpenOffice and Firefox, have come a long way. The usability of system update mechanisms ranges from the smooth (Ubuntu) to the challenging (SuSE). (Development tools are outstanding, but that isn't the issue here.)
However, I had to install restricted drivers to make wireless work, had to install commercially licensed Flash to be able to view many websites, and still found myself without programs for video editing, page layout, and photo editing that compared well with their commercial counterparts (e.g., Scribus vs. MS Publisher or Pages). Watching commercial DVDs occasionally required the use of terminal commands to download and install software, not to mention the associated legal issues. Webcams and microphones were unreliable at best, making it impossible to do video chat or broadcasting (e.g. uStream) with web-based applications.
So I renew the challenge to make it possible for average computer users to do 100% of their work using open source software. That means moving development efforts up from the operating system and infrastructure level to concentrate on creating high quality, easily used applications. That also rules out using WINE or VirtualBox to run proprietary apps.
Let's create personas and scenarios for different types of users, identify their needs, and build the needed applications and drivers. Let's also continue to push device makers to supply Linux drivers. Let's find a workable solution for Flash and SWF-based web content. (Gnash isn't quite there.) In that way, we can make some progress toward that magic 100% number that would allow people to do all of their computing on a Linux desktop.
When I first started using Linux, the sound on Linux had some severe drawbacks. Aside from having a compatible card and just getting it working in the first place, the way to output sound was to write to /dev/dsp, and only application could open the sound device at a time. Around that time, somebody created "esd", which was a terrible hack. The idea was that esd would be the one application that could write to the sound device, and everything that wanted to output sound would write to a virtual device created by esd. Of course, this only worked for applications that were esd aware, and all manner of hacks and misdirection had to be done to get ever other app in the world to communicate with esd instead of /dev/dsp.
Some time later, ALSA replaced OSS as the standard sound driver on Linux. Besides having much wider device support and being far easier to actually get to work, ALSA also removed most of the software shortcomings of OSS, making sound daemons like esd no longer necessary. Now, you would think that people would have been overjoyed to no longer have to use as awful hack like esd, but somehow the opposite happened. Now, instead of just esd, we have esd, aRTS, PulseAudio, Jack, and probably several others that I am not aware of. And what's even better, depending on your setup, you may even have the fortune of using multiple of them at the same time. As of 8.10, Ubuntu uses PulseAudio by default, so if you use KDE, your sound goes through four different layers to actually get to your sound card: Application -> aRTS -> PulseAudio -> ALSA. Woo!
Why do we still have to resort to these ridiculous hacks to fix something that's no longer broken?
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
It took almost 3 months to get the sound working on Ubuntu
I'm the first person to admit that alsa is not so much poorly documented, but so flexible that it's tough to wrap your head around setting up asoundrc
Even to this day I'm scared that if I lose the system I'll lose the configuration- it required editing different accounts, adding new packages, modifying them in a non-standard fashion, adding options that weren't documented...
And with Linux, upgrading/backing up all of this hard-won customization is easy. Very easy. You are trapped in Windows XP with no probable upgrade path on your current hardware.
Windows XP? Put it in and the sound comes out.
You may not be the best candidate for Linux then. Many people aren't, but you seem to have had little difficulty customizing your distro to your needs. And yet you still complain bitterly.
It seems to me you are damning Windows with faint praise much more than whining about the effort it took you to learn how to do things differently. Linux is different, no responsible Linux user would tell you otherwise.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The GP made no specific reference to desktop versus server versions of Linux, but instead talked up how it was a hobby OS with people who would stop coding it if their feelings were hurt.
The database is on server hardware, but with my xdmcp session it looks like a desktop to me. This is not something for home use, no.
It's been mentioned elsewhere, but I think that the whole idea of desktops in general is eventually going to morph into something that is platform/OS neutral; some uber-browser will eventually make the whole argument moot as people expect to just connect, wherever they are, and see everything as they left it.
Will this work for everything? No, there will always be people who need to use this machine here now for what they're doing, but for the bulk of the casual (read: home) users, I'd say within 10 years people will be picking up $99 machines from Walmart that they plug in and it logs them into their desktop just as they saw it before their last $99 machine gave up the ghost. What was the OS that booted? They have no idea. In that case, Linux is the better/cheaper option.
Don't whinge here.
When GFX cards didn't work under Vista, people got nVidia to change their driver so it would.
Do it the same way.
You're not much of a developer, are you.
I think he's hit on a lot of areas where Linux needs attention. Each point is well made, but it sounds more like he's talking about LFS or early Slackware than Fedora10 or Ubuntu 9.04.
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.
I must agree. Proprietary software will always exist, but I question the reason. I use free software for CAD, 3D modeling, database, and office suites, but colleagues from other companies have paid tens of thousands for the proprietary counterparts. P. T. Barnum said it best: "There's a sucker born every minute."
1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
Some work needs done on these, but in general they are far from unusable. Much of the issue has to do with Windows has rich vendor participation in driver development while Linux driver development tends to occur in spite of the vendor.
2. X system:
No argument that a standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API) would be a positive step, but I wouldn't characterize GTK as unstable. You can break a Win32 GUI with poor programming just as easily, but the training wheels in the Windows dev environments keep you from shooting yourself in the foot.
Another exception to the very slow GUI is proprietary drivers like nvidia's. Similar issue to sound, and vendors can't seem to make up their mind on whether or not to directly support Linux and variants.
It is true that many GUI operations are not accelerated, and there is a lack of double buffering. Significant development is happening here, and it should be interesting to see what happens.
Many of the font rendering issues are being addressed as we speak. The specific lack of windows fonts is due to copyright troubles, though analogs are available.
3. Problems stemming from the vast number of Linux distributives:
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
Switching between Ubuntu and Fedora highlights this, though it was no worse than the transition between XP and Vista. This is another problem to be solved with communication.
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM, deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for software development.
Agreed, though between yum and installation scripts (ooo) there has been some good headway made. Perhaps we need to be less proprietary in our installers of non-proprietary software?
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software.
Many of these issues are due to proprietary codecs, software, and drivers. The way this is handled depends largely upon the caffeine intake of the distro's legal counsel.
3.4 Applications development is a major PITA. Different distros can use a) different libraries versions b) different compiler flags c) different compilers. This leads to a number of problems raised to the third power.
4. It should be possible to configure everything via GUI which is still not a case for too many situations and operations.
Standardization issue. Easily solved by communication creating an ad-hoc steering committee.
5. Problems stemming from low linux popularity and open source nature:
5.1 Few software titles, inability to run familiar Windows software. (Some applications (which don't work in Wine) have zero Linux equivalents).
Not everything has an equivalent, at least not in o
I mostly write small tools that I use for a variety of purposes. Some of them are scripts, and when a gui is really necessary i either do it webbased on a local server, or...........java.
I don't quite understand why people don't write more tools in java, not only is it compatible across linux distributions, it even works on a crapload of other operating systems. There are a massive amount of libraries, GUI development is dead-easy, backwards compatibility is a non-issue...
From TFA...
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
I got as far as this and stopped reading. Besides the fact that I haven't seen any of the problems he mentioned before this one, He completely misses what 'most users' are going to be doing. Yes, there are a few geeks who will be trying out different distros, and it might drive them mad that there is no unified configuration. But most 'users' are going to use only one distro. Users just want a computer to work. They are not going to care that distro X is different than the one they are using.
Linux has been ready for the main stream for years now. It easily passes the grandma test for usability.
Now if you want to talk about lack of intuitiveness, look at Vista. I still have trouble trying to figure out how to do a search for a file... Lets see, click on edit... no, wait... what now... Ok, lets look for the binoculars... nope... bangs head against wall.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Windows is not ready for the Unix Developer. There, I said it.
Also, Windows is not ready for the server racks.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I can't speak for all of the Linux community, but I can speak for myself. I want to see a future where people have more freedom in how they use their computers, and this freedom is often threatened by big corporations (particularly microsoft) which control both the software itself and the rights to use this software. These are real issues which really affect people's lives, even though it is often not obvious.
I will say right up front I do not take the Richard Stallman line that all software must be 100% free 100% of the time, and if not we should not use it. This is simply not pragmatic, for reasons economic, political, and technical. However, I DO think software freedom is important. How many times have companies tried to claim things such as the right to tell users what they're not allowed to do with their software? Or tell users that they now own the users' data (think facebook)? Or tell other companies they are forced to pay for software they don't actually buy (microsoft to OEMs)? Or give government agencies tools to spy on customers (Windows NSA backdoor)? Or promised to deliver the votes of a county using its voting equipment to the company's favored candidate (Diebold in Ohio, 2004)? I am a law student, and these issues are rarely brought up in law school because most lawyers are not terribly computer-savvy, but these types of issues are huge in all other areas of law. If a power company tried to tell customers they weren't allowed to use the grid for, say, powering video recording equipment (because the same company owned a TV station and feared competition) or recharging vibrators (because it offended the power company's morals) the legal community would be up in arms, the case would go to court, and the company would be barred from imposing such constraints. Yet software companies do equivalent things on a regular basis. Not to mention sending massive lobbies to Washington to influence federal policy. For me the bottom line is, the more we use Linux, the less control Microsoft and its ilk are able to exercise over society.
So yes, I think a future with much greater Linux desktop share is worth working for. Notice that I say much greater; I do not aim for 100%. As you say, everyone having their favorite is important, and it IS all about choice. So nobody should be coerced into using Linux, but I *do* weigh in with my opinion of why it is better when the topic arises. Of course, the community DOES need to address many usability issues, and does need to consider desktop users important; IMHO these technical and documentation tasks are more important than proselytizing to the uninitiated. The community also needs to be brutally honest about what Linux can and cannot do. I will never tell anybody that Linux is easier to use than Windows for all types of tasks on all types of computers. However, in complete honesty, I find it easier to use for about 90% of my tasks. YMMV. I have also been using Linux for 10 years now, and have seen configuration go from a nigh-impossible, monumental undertaking to most things working out of the box. On my first Linux box I had to recompile the kernel just to get sound working; the last 6 times I have installed Ubuntu, on Dell and Gateway notebooks, sound, wifi, printing, webcams and basically all other hardware Just Worked (TM) on the first try. Last year I installed Xubuntu on my Dad's decade-old laptop, because his Windows install was so virus-ridden he could never get any work done (and resisted all my attempts to fix it). Now it's true that when synaptic tells him something is broken and he needs to "sudo dpkg blah-blah" on the command line he has to call me, but this has happened exactly once in the last year, which is less than the times he had to call me with Windows issues he found incomprehensible. So I think Linux truly is a better choice now for many average users, we will (and must) continue to make it work even better and for more users, and a world with more free software is worth fighting for.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I think we'll be seeing a lot more advancements in OSS, as the IT crowd relaxes in unemployment.
"People are not going to be using online AutoCAD. Probably ever."
I absolutly agree or online Photoshop, or online code development tools, or online video editing. There is a definite real need for a desktop among pros, *I'm* not giving up my desktop you'll pry my secure local storage and content creation tools from my cold dead fingers. *You* aren't giving up your desktop. And none of this refutes my point at all that we AREN'T the 90% of home users who mainly use e-mail, chat, the web, and very basic snapshot photo retouching all of which could be done with web apps.
I am not too sure this is even that great a thing, while it is an opening for simple Linux desktops it also an opening for corporate control of our data in the "cloud." I wasn't advocating anything just describing what is likely to happen as net connectivity increases and pressure to drive costs down leads to a dumbed down cheap netbook style "desktop" (notebook) for the masses. As long as they keep making pro desktops for corporate users, content creators, IT geeks, and coders I don't think it's a problem, I do think it's coming however so hold onto your hat (the Red one????).
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Maybe I'm just lucky with Linux and unlucky with windows but.. 1. Over the last year I've done quite a few OS installs, so far Linux, especially Ubuntu has worked better out of the box than Windows XP. I have had to open my computer and look for model numbers to track down drivers for most computers when installing Windows XP. 2. Overall It takes less time and knowledge to get a binary Linux distro up and running then it does for windows (at least in my experience) I definitely agree that Linux still has a nice handful of significant problems, but honestly I think Windows has just as many, most people are just more familiar/ used to Windows problems than linux problems.
I put the libflashplayer.so in the plugins directory which didn't even exist, and Firefox said it couldn't find any plugins, even though it was in ~/.mozilla/firefox/{bunch of hex} or whatever the profile is. I finally find where the system one is, and get it to see the plugin, and all flash content is silent! No, my soundcard ain't burned out, stereo broken or cables not working. mpg123 works fine!!!! But getting Flash, which is missing from Linux Firefox out of the box working is a pain.
Windows just works, at least up until it started crashing and now fails to boot. But things mostly worked, without tons of unnecessary and useless tweaking (some tweaking is good, this was not).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
[quote]Not yet ready for the desktop[/quote]
Yet 2008 was the year of linux on the Desktop!
LinuxMCE 0707 Demo
3D Desktop! TouchScreen and XGL on Linux!
Compiz-Quinn(now Compiz-Fusion)for linux
Windows Vista Aero vs Linux Ubuntu Beryl
Linux Ubuntu vs. MS Vista
All in all, a good, fair minded comment.
With regards to proprietary software, one problem I have with it is that it forces a hardware/OS combo. Wine exists, but nothing is ever going to get Office to work on UltraSparc. If, God help us, some proprietary stuff becomes a de facto standard for some things (say hello, Flash!) then anyone running anything on a non-preapproved hardware/software combo is out of luck.
Since you mentioned W:ET, I think one problem is that is not under active development by the developers anymore. Its like a 10 year old SourceForge project that no one has maintained in 8 years: yeah, can probably get it to work, but it isn't necessarily going to be easy.
With regards to desktop suitability, I think Macs are a good case study. It was a decade ago that Apple started its resurgence, with the iMac. After all that time, all those products, all that praise and all that advertising, Apple is still under 10%. Mac OS X's usability is rarely ever questioned, but even so, it still hasn't come close to majority status.
Question: what percentage of Windows desktops are business PCs? I have no idea, but I'd guess that if you were just counting home market share, Windows is rather less dominant (but still the heavy majority) where people have a choice what to run.
Linux is not meant to be windows or to virtualize it in any way. Wine does it, well, that might be considered as a gadget. The arguments of this guy really suck sometimes : he says linux is slow... windows isn't slow ? please, after a single year using it the hd is clustered like hell and anything goes slow in an hyperbolic way...
He also says that windows GUI is perfectly written and retro/forward compatible with anything... ok so what ? you're gonna go on windows juste because the UI is nicer and your mouse likes it best ??? He says CLI is evil. I say CLI is the only way you can ever understand what the hell you're doing on a computer. and that GTK2+ is bad. well he is simply wrong.
'No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing '
'!PulseAudio is a next generation sound server for Linux, making all sorts of "ear-candy" possible: from dynamically changing the volume of individual applications to hot-plugging support for many different devices'
Time makes more converts than reason
My experience on this laptop (a Toshiba Equium M70-272):
;)
WinXP SP2 vs Ubuntu 7.04
Screen: default driver @ 800x600x16 vs default driver @ native resolution
Keyboard: default driver vs general driver
Sound: not recognised vs general driver
Wifi: not recognised vs Intel general driver
Printer: not recognised vs printer-specific CUPS support
Winmodem: not recognised vs default (non working) winmodem restricted driver
So... what is your point again?
For some reason, driver hunting for Windows is acceptable, but don't dare tell the guy trying Linux that Ubuntu might not pick up the play button on the side of the keyboard automagically!
When ideas fail, words become very handy.
That is more correct question. If some HW vendor is not ready to Linux, do not buy such hardware. If some SW vendor does not provide Linux version, ask them to support Linux. More letters and they do Linux version. There are a lot of examples.
Most arguments of that Russian guy smells naphthalene.
And I know that freedom is worthless for Russians.
Only buy supported hardware. If people are willing to buy OSX hardware then why not linux hardware?
Think about it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I have two Linux systems. Both have open source sound drivers. In fact, I specifically bought one because all the hardware had open source drivers.
Sound worked fine on Ubuntu 8.04, no work required. But 9.04 has been a disaster. On Box A, something has happened that has made the performance terrible; I get CPU spikes even playing a single MP3 directly to ALSA. On Box B where pulseaudio is installed, applications keep blocking each other for access to the sound devices.
Box B also had sound glitches, until some updated packages were released a few days after the Ubuntu 9.04 release day.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It seems like everyone I know buys a computer for "gaming". Without gaming, I'm not sure how many people would have computers. (queue "you're wrong debate.. go!)
If people didn't get computers for gaming, Linux would be adequate to do everything they need to do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How do I most easily develop an app to run on Windows, Mac, and Linux?
You need the best APIs in the world to be cross platform APIs. Do you imagine anything else matters?
I see several possible answers here : (1) Java sucks mightily, (2) Qt doesn't suck, but isn't native anyplace, and (3) GNUstep and CocoTron aren't quite baked.
I think the best long term solution is GNUstep, but people must (1) optimize GNUstep for porting on Cocca applications from Mac OS X, (2) develop a good port of GNUstep to Windows, and (3) push Linux applications developers towards using GNUstep.
I realize Qt seems temptingly fully developed now. Indeed GNUstep was originally written specifically to port HippoDraw away from NEXTSTEP, but even HippoDraw now uses Qt. But you don't bring in existing & popular applications by evangelizing Qt. Mac OS X however has oodles of applications. Furthermore, Mac OS X is a "safe" development platform with hoards of faithful users who could afford Apple's high price tag. If you give existing Cocca developers the ability to port their applications to Linux and Windows, well they'll likely jump aboard.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Linux fails because it's interoperability with anything that is not connected via TCP/IP just doesn't work. When I can get to the point where sound 'just works' and my digital camera (either Canon or Casio, both USB) and be plugged in and recognized and able to pull pics/videos off seamlessly, and when it works with normal MP3 files without jumping through 6 different hoops, play either WMV or QuickTime videos I'll consider it for the desktop. Don't tell me to get different hardware -- this is all commodity level stuff. If I need to buy 'specific' hardware, I'll buy a Mac. Until then, I'm sticking with Windows. (for the Desktop)
The only thing worse than the article is the summary. "Technical reasons"? My behind.
To the author, and to the rest of the world:
``0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.''
Even if true, so what? This has nothing to do with Linux being ready for the desktop.
``1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache. ''
How do you mean "no reliable sound system"? As for applications FUBARing it, I don't know if that is still true, but even if it is, that is not a problem with Linux so much as a problem with those applications. If you use those applications, your experience may be suboptimal. But you can also choose not to use these applications.
``1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output. ''
Eh? I don't find alsamixer "insanely difficult". Even if you do, there are plenty of others that may suit you better.
``1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.''
I have a lot of settings that I don't understand. But I understand "master" and "PCM", and those are all I ever use. The rest is just stuff I ignore ... and that many mixers don't actually display at all. I guess none of it is especially self-explanatory, but a bit of fiddling with the sliders and you will know soon enough. Is this a big issue? Even if so, it's not a technical issues - more a user interface issue.
``1.3 By default many distros do not set volume levels properly (no audio output/no sound recording).''
I don't know if that is true, but I'll take your word for it. It's not a technical issue, though.
``2. X system:''
Ah, everybody's favorite scapegoat.
``2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very unstable and often break backwards compatibility. ''
Nonsense. XLib is a stable API and has backward compatibility until ... 1985 or thereabouts? GTK and Qt unstable? Go fool somebody else. What you're saying here just isn't true.
``2.2 Very slow GUI (except when being run with composite window managers on top of OpenGL). ''
Maybe. Interestingly, it wasn't slow in 1997. So maybe X isn't ready for the desktop _anymore_?
``2.3 Many GUI operations are not accelerated. No analogue of GDI or GDI+. Text antialiasing and other GUI operations are software rendered by GUI libraries (GTK->Cairo/QT->Xft).''
I don't know what you mean here. There certainly is support for hardware acceleration.
``2.4 Font rendering is implemented via high level GUI libraries, thus:''
You would rather do it yourself? If so, you can! So what's the complaint?
``2.4.1 fontconfig fonts antialiasing settings cannot be applied on-the-fly. ''
This does not follow from "high level GUI libraries". If anything, high level libraries should help here. Also, such settings cannot be applied on the fly on various other systems that have been very successful on the desktop, so this argument does not support your case.
``2.4.2 Fonts antialiasing only works for certain GUI toolkits (see 2.1). ''
True. But then, so what? If you code your app so that it doesn't use a certain feature, then, indeed, it's not going to use this feature. That doesn't mean the operating system isn't ready for the desktop.
``2.4.3 Default fonts (often) look ugly. ''
Agreed. But that is not a technical issue, that's a matter of which fonts you use as defaults. If some or most or even all distros use ugly fonts by default, that doesn't mean Linux isn't rea
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
i've been trying to put linux on an old dell laptop for my bro-in-law...it's only got 256mb/500mHz, he can't afford to drop even $400 on a new machine.
i finally found dreamlinux...works like a...;-) wireless just works (wicd rules:-) even suspend works...on the live cd. installed, close the lid, it wakes up to a black screen:-( try configuring the power manager from the control panel, it starts up another instance, running as the logged-in user...1st instance is root's, so any config changes have no effect:-P gksudo /usr/bin/gconf-editor fixed that, but still black-screen on wake:-(
and wanna watch a dvd? just install libdvdcss2...after enabling the lenny multimedia repository (sudo vi /etc/apt/sources.list, not something a microserf would consider doing;-) totem worked, but jerky, so i installed vlc...how to set vlc as dvd-insertion default? simple: gksudo /usr/bin/gnome-volume-properties... /usr/bin/gconf-editor also pokes the same config files...
and none of these basic config utils are in the control panel, & the ones that are are broken or break a functioning system:-P
Fucky you with your one size must fit all mentality. Fuck you with your kiddy safe world. Fuck you with your if I can't use it, nobody else is allowed to either.
If you can't use linux then guess what, I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT. Should stick shifts be damned because americans can't deal with them? Should stinky cheese be banned because some ill people die from it? Should all of life be sanitized and sterizized until it is all a grey goo suitable only for you and your lowest denomanator kind?
Fuck you. Troll/flamebait be damned, the moment we give in to the cries of people like him, we are going to be banning and regulating everything because no matter how simple and safe, someone somewhere won't get it. Someone will cut themselves with plastic sciccors.
Windows for the cattle, OSX for the cattle with money and linux for those who want an OS they control and are willing to pay the price.
Don't like it? Then what the fuck are you doing on slashdot?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
winers never quilt, and quilters never wine.
What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
No iTunes.
Seriously - that is the ONLY reason.
(and I think, if iTunes deletes any more of my wife's MP3's, this may soon cease being an issue. . . )
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The article is absolutely right... these issues are always going to be problem on Linux. Some of these issues are old stand-by's from UNIX, after all. We can address many API and kernel stability and compatibility as well as sound and video issues if we are willing to simply stop using linux on the desktop and keep it as a server system, like its developers and contributors seem to intend.
I believe Haiku OS is doing an excellent job of meeting many of the problems laid out and is well en-route to provide a sane and stable free desktop system. What part of *the rules* says we can't solve desktop issues by throwing out Linux's outdated unix workstation desktop paradigm? Why not just develop a pure free desktop system and give end users the gift of consistency? With stable driver API's and a well designed GUI toolkit, we could find ourselves providing a competitive and far more lightweight (no joke) desktop solution that uses less power (like horsepower not wattage) and yet maintains much source compatibility with all this POSIX software we've amassed.
It's not "reinventing the wheel" it's building the wagon wheel instead of trying to chisel a wheel out of a limestone cube. You've got the POSIX model, you've got the free software ecosystem, what's stopping us from scrapping the infinite headaches that are cludging UNIX and X into the desktop and just making a for-real desktop system? This article was about the Desktop, not the workstation after all. If you don't believe that this system is making progress, just dd (or flashnul) it onto a usb stick and boot it up. You might be surprised.
http://www.haiku-os.org/
With a little bit of developer attention, this could slingshot ahead of Ubuntu in usability in literally a year or so. Just like that- a decade of desktop linux development could be surpassed just like that by simply stretching outside that constrained model. Let's just let linux be the server it wants to be.
Joe Biden is worse than Dan Quayle at his worst, and it's time we all accepted that we have a senile fool for VP.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Agreed.
Oh, and the author of the linked article has definitely never heard about this other Raymond Chen guy.
An eye opener read on how the Windows team goes almost disgusting ways to keep backwards compatibility:
http://www.informit.com/content/images/9780321440303/samplechapter/Chen_bonus_ch01.pdf
When ideas fail, words become very handy.
With Linux:
1. Will Flash media, WITH SOUND, work out of the box?
2. What about VPN?
3. What about wireless?
4. Any specialty software? Someone mentioned quilting software, is there a Linux package for that? If you say yes, provide a URL.
5. Printing?
6. Educational software?
7. Stuff to keep the kids away from nasty sites?
8. Home automation?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
http://www2.orange.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?c=OUKService&pagename=OUKPersonal&cid=1096023564458 [orange.co.uk]
"Orange has the largest integrated 2.5/3G network in the UK. This means that our 3G network covers 85% of the population, so if you happen to go out of our 3G range, you'll be seamlessy transferred to our 2.5G network" ... which is of very little use to me when I am working in the Highlands of Scotland supporting geology students. I can assure Orange that about half the locations we work in still have *no* phone connectivity whatsoever. Not 1G let alone 3G.
In the UK the phone companies still advertise coverage by population rather than by geographical area because that makes them look a lot better. There's some very low populated but large geographical areas once you head away from the south east and big cities... :-)
I see it differently, it largely depends on whoâ(TM)s desktop you are talking about ⦠I use Linux as a desktop for over 6 years, and at this moment, Iâ(TM)m not installing XP even if I badly need it as I work in a company that develops software for windows, because Iâ(TM)m afraid it will break my Linux installation â¦
Desktops are not the same for everybody ⦠If you are about for average Joe who isnâ(TM)t capable of reading a few pages of documentation and setting up a decent desktop .. then you are right .. Linux is not for morons â¦
Linux is user friendly, but it choses his users carefully !
But in the end, who really cares about this .. if you like Linux use it .. if you donâ(TM)t .. you have the ability to improve it or use whatever you want ⦠If you donâ(TM)t like windows, â¦you canâ(TM)t improve it .. use Linux and improve it.
You actually *enjoy* these? You must be new here.
Am I to understand that there is no known operating system that is ready for the desktop? Okidoki, guess I'll just turn this thang off and go home.
Just pure bullshit. Effing Astro Turfer. Be Gone. Freak.
And what's always with the either/or.
Have Both! Why Limit yourself?
You can't afford a used 200 dollar box to run linux?
You intentionally refuse to experience Unix software?
Your too stupid and ignorant to learn the second largest operating system in the world? Willfully?
When asked to fix Apache on Linux, you are just going to stand there and look stupid and say no? Fuck. Can you breathe without instructions?
Get yourself a Linux Box and start learning. And then learn some more. And then some more. If you can't type then learn. 60 words a minute is minimum.
Windows is a car. Linux is a truck. You don't haul a couch in the back of your Vette.
Yes. You can have 2 operating systems at once.
I have given you permission.
WHY CHOOSE? RUN BOTH! BE FREE! BE MASSIVE!
I've been using Linux on my desktop for over 10 years now. Sure I've had ups and downs, just as I have with 95, XP, Vista...but I can honestly say the problems I have encountered in Linux were not attributed to Linux design or limitations. In addition, don't we all have family members that need help even on Windows or Mac OS? Is that the fault of the respective OS?
Here is the biggest difference in my book...
Windows cost money, does certain things easy (why its good for masses), but limits your freedom to use your computer as you see fit. (the proverbial car hood welded shut)
Linux is free, allows you to do anything you are capable of...
If you expect things to work with Linux without you having to do extra work, then you pay for support and they help you. (just like how microsoft does it). Enough people pay for support, things get fixed and everyone is happy and articles like this don't get written.
If you don't pay for support, or contribute to development, you have grounds to bitch why?
You got it. The only thing wrong with Linux today is that it's still developed in R&D mode. The distros, desktop environments, etc. are still changing too fast. This is a byproduct of the open source development model, and it's the reason Linux got as complete as it is without billions of investment.
But for general desktop usage, R&D mode won't hack it. And at this point there's not much good reason for Linux to stay in R&D other than inertia. Sure there are a few things that haven't shaken out a good desktop standard yet. As has been mentioned before, the presence of multiple sound and video API's is an ongoing problem. So much so that KDE4 built Phonon to wrap the 'native' API's in a standard one apps can code to (and lots of apps lost functionality in the process of converting to that least common denominator API).
Hopefully, the painful transition from KDE3 to KDE4 was the last 'total rewrite' in that project. And if that accounts for the pain, then it'll prove well worth it. GNOME seems about ready to undertake a similar wholesale update.
What would be wonderful would be for the next development cycle to be concentrated on really nailing down such things and targeting all the major toolkits toward the same underlying plumbing. And then keeping it the same for a good, long time (at least from the app's point of view). Then maybe the 3rd party apps would start to appear. As it stands, WINE is probably the most stable API available under Linux, and (no disrespect toward WINE) that's not a good thing.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I recently gave my sister an old laptop running Ubuntu while I was repairing her main machine, when I was done fixing the new one I asked her how she got on and if she would like me to dual boot the newer machine. She said: "It was ok but I don't need it". Linux didn't to anything different or special, in her judgement, to windows and she already knew how that worked. This makes sense most people buy based on need or desire.
FUD.
I agree with almost every point in this article. I have been a dedicated Linux user since RH 4.2
My observations about why Linux is not ready for the desktop:
1) Lack of compatibility between versions.
I can't say enough about how frustrating this is. Every time I upgrade versions, something breaks. Usually audio. In fact, most multimedia functionality breaks every time I upgrade. I generally find that the /dev/cdrom symlink is broken at the very least, but I've frequently found that all of my CD writer scripts have to be modified.
Recently, Ubuntu arbitrarily renamed the "libglib1.2" package, breaking every application that links against the GTK+ library. Why? No answer.
It's as if Linux is actively hostile to the concept of backwards compatibility.
2) Lack of support for hot-plugging. (point 13 in the article)
I plug in a thumb drive or usb hard drive and maybe the OS will notice it and mount it for me, and maybe it won't. Usually it doesn't. Usually, I have to become super-user and perform actions to identify the drive and mount it that would be beyond the knowledge of the average end user. And even if the user does know how to do it, why should they have to? A 10-second task just got turned into a 5-minute task.
USB scanners are the same way. They used to work, now you have to become super-user to use them. Some script that detected scanner plugin events and change the permissions just stopped working.
Multi-card readers: Same thing. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Windows, Solaris, and MacOS all solved the hot-plugging problem years ago, why can't Linux?
3. Hardware support regression
Mentioned in the article, but worth repeating. I really hate upgrading my OS and discovering that some of my existing hardware is no longer supported. Recent discovery: you can have USB1 or USB2 enabled, but not both at the same time. If you want USB1, remove the ehci_hcd module. If you want USB2, install it. See Bugzilla, Launchpad.net. It seems unlikely this bug will ever be fixed.
Linux is indeed not ready for the desktop/laptop without. Let me qualify that a bit. Unless you've got a boat load of money behind the project, you'll never get a Desktop Linux worth anything.
This means there would have to be a nominal charge for a Linux distro that is PROFESSIONALLY written.
But until such time the closest thing we get is the Mac OS-X which uses a highly customized BSD kernel.
On the server side Linux rocks. On Debian apt-get and dpkg are awesome. But servers do vastly different things, like email, web, authentication, etc. And I note, most of the packages are thoroughly vetted on the server products.
I've stated many times that tablet/handwriting features and collaboration software (that actually works!) are the reason that I stick with Microsoft products for productivity. Linux is absolutely wonderful, but I find that I'm far more productive with MS Office and SharePoint than OSS alternatives.
I think next, there should be lists like "Why Windows is not ready for the desktop." and "Why OS X is not ready for the desktop." because there are just about as many things wrong with those systems. A few of the points are actually sort of valid, but they are matters of degree. For example, volume settings on Ubuntu 9.04 are insanely complicated--but there are comparable problems on Windows and OS X.
Mostly, what the list tells me is that Mr. Tashkinov is rather immature and inexperienced. If he wants to help, he should clean up his list, submit bug reports for valid problems, and perhaps roll up his sleeves and fix a couple of them. If he has merely found his love for Microsoft software... well, don't let the door hit you in the back on your way out, hand over your wallet, and assume the position.
The article is written by a TROLL. (OK, either a paid shill for another software company, or a complete idiot, or a professional liar). A lot of the crap he is saying isn't just 'oh, kinda wrong', no it utter bullshit! COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT! He bitched about the Linux kernel being unstable and full of bugs! WHAT? The American Government Department of Homeland Security did a code audit using Coveritys code checker (a commercial spinoff of the Stanford code checker). They found the Linux kernel to be 20 times as 'clean' that is, free of bugs or potential security problems as other similar commercial software (read Microsoft et. al.). When buddy says 'full of bugs', he is spewing lies. The same goes for the big apps that ship with most distros, because the DHS audited those, too! I look at sites like his, and my first thought when pushing this kind of crap is: who is he working for, and why does he sound so desperate? Could it be that the FUD isn't working as well as it used to? Could it be that their market share is getting slammed? His imagination does not connect with the reality I'm staring at right now.
I think the lack of Information Rights Management is a significant blocker. Yes, you might not like DRM. In fact, you might consider it evil. But the fact is, corporations are NEVER going to adopt a client that does not allow them to establish information rights management policies for data leak prevention. That's a hot topic right now, and no large company is comfortable today with the risk of information leaks. Data leaks costs millions to corporations, and rights management tools have proven to be quite effective in reducing leaks of sensitive information intended for limited circulation (just as it has proven ineffective at controlling piracy of content intended for mass distribution). Email, document and application level rights management is a must today, and it is something that is very difficult, if not impossible, to address in an Open Source world (even without licensing limitations).
All we see on sites like Digg, etc., is Ubuntu, Ubuntu, Ubuntu.
The common user will gladly will pay some cash for a distro that will get him/her proprietary codecs, etc. 20-somethings think they are heroes because they keep tweaking their Linux boxen all day, hunting for fixes, etc. The normal user has no time for kid's stuff. We all got things to do.
The Linux community has got to understand that "Linux on the desktop" is not about some power user. We need codecs, drivers to work. If the thing doesn't work, people will either buy that shitty Windows machine or that glorious Mac (which a lot of us have done, just out of being tired of problems and hassles, and still wanting to go with Unix).
Twice now while a Windows machine was 'in the shop' for repairs I issued a loaner computer
running Ubuntu to a family member. Both my wife and my daughter were able to figure out
how it worked and to use Firefox and OpenOffice. I couldn't get Ubuntu to use my daughters'
Dell printer (it's listed as a 'paperweight' on the Linux printing database), but I could
get it to talk to our networked HP LJ4. My daughter now wants me to dual boot her windows
computer with Ubuntu, she liked the GAMES it came with (... what no games!!!!). She also
thought the screen savers were way cooler than what came with Windows.
There are companies that have put together computers with hardware that just works well
with Ubuntu (or some other Distro) that are usable right out of the box. (Too bad they
usually cost more than a 'bigbox store' windows machine).
We are finally beginning to see Windows improving because there are things that Linux does better. I would think every Windows fan would be cheering Linux on. Most of these criticisms are valid in that they are not so much about Linux having a Windows look and feel but where Linux falls short of good user interface principles as a system. What we could do here is prioritize the issues that he has taken the time to identify. We can consider when to submit bug reports. Ask developers questions. Decide which weaknesses are strengths. Talk to hardware vendors. Take a look at the code. Submit patches. Test new code. I dual boot Windows rarely.
I find the security model points disturbing though. Windows is a rather awkward system to trust with anything valuable. I only run it on my hardware after disconnecting the internet.
These criticisms are golden nuggets. For the most part they can be fixed. They are just a few bumps in the road of the journey to world domination.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/what_do_kde_4_2_and_windows_7_have_in_common#comment-127389
The King is dead. Long live the King!
Submitted by Artem S. Tashkinov on January 26, 2009 - 5:16 P.M.
I quite agree with you and after having tried KDE 4.1 RC1, I decided to stay with KDE 3.5.10 at least until KDE 4.3.0 is out.
I don't really need all those new shiny buttons when simple operations become difficult. Even though theoretically it's possible to tune KDE 4 to the point where it looks and behaves like KDE 3.5 .. the old one is just warmer, more responsive and simpler (yet remaining powerful).
Imagine that... another rant saying KDE4 is "not ready" for the Desktop... but, he defies his own claim that Linux is "not ready for the desktop" by using KDE 3.5.10. Do as he says but not as he does?
Yet, here I am, responding to this FUD on a 6 month old Sony VAIO VGN-FW140E laptop running Kubuntu 9.04 with KDE 4.2.3, a desktop which is running fast and stable. It does everything I ask of it and more, even more than what VISTA Home Premium could do on this same machine before I replaced it with Kubuntu. A friend of mine, 78 years old, is having the same results with Kubuntu 9.04/KDE 4.2.2 on his eMachine laptop. My wife's Acer Aspire 3004Li is also running Kubuntu 9.04 and while she hates computers, she is having no trouble running Kubuntu. Windows XP frustrated her before I replaced it with Linux. My old Compaq Presario 1500 is running Kubuntu 9.04 too, and without problems. My son's Gateway m675prr laptop is running Kubuntu 9.04 without problems. I installed it on another friend's Toshiba, where it works perfectly.
Since "Linux" isn't ready for the desktop are you suggesting I immediately take Linux off these machines and replace it with an OS which is notorious for being insecure and buggy, because it IS ready for the desktop? Ya, right. rof, llllll
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
There are cool games on linux. Not as cool as Crysis, but its not like you only get solitare either:
- America's Army
- Sauerbraten
- Nexuiz
- Enemy Territory
- Battle for Wesnoth
- Warzone 2100
- Glest
- Bos Wars
- Globulation 2
- Spring
-- dnl
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.
Fuck! I didn't know Linux is a proprietary software.
Fuck! ID Software never freed the engines of Doom, Quake, Quake II, etc
And so over.
It looks like this conversation has to happen at least once a year on Slashdot.
Time makes more converts than reason
5.1 Few software titles, inability to run familiar Windows software. (Some applications (which don't work in Wine) have zero Linux equivalents).
I wonder, what titles are these exactly? What popular Windows software lack a viable Open Source/Linux counterpart?
Epson. The company that gave you the colour printer where you could put black in all 4 drum positions. In this case, Linux is missing from the list of supported Oses, and the Linux driver is stated to be 0.0 bytes.
I take your point, but my solution is just to boycott Epson and, if asked why, I tell people "When you want to pass that printer onto someone else, it may not work, whereas any printer with Ethernet will always provide at least basic printing".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Where does this assumption , Windows Just Works, come from? I switch to linux because Linux Just Works. I was tired of unexplainable crash, lack of useful tools (such as gcc,bash etc.), insane slow downs caused by malware and resource leach cause by anti-malware. Yes linux has problems, more hardware support would be nice, but remember, hardware support is not something that M$ engineers built into windows, it comes from 3rd parties. It takes time to build a user base and market share that will convince hardware venders to release drives/specs/code for their products. That being said Linux still supports far more hardware then windows. Somethings stated in that article aren't even desirable or available on windows: A cross the board GUI configuration. Windows doesn't have this.A lot of stuff must be done in the windows registery etc. Could you imagine the size of this GUI would be, what with all the features and options of a text file or cmdline program. What is unfortunate about Windows is the lack of alternative.In ,say Ubuntu, I can configure the network in a GUI or drop to a console and enter a few lines in a text file or enter a few commands to accomplish the same. This is exactly what I find so intriguing about Linux.
I'm not going to try explain all the problems I had with windows and all the benefits I found with linux.
That still would have been wrong, because Windows is already on the majority of desktops, therefore it is self-evidently ready.
Deployed does not imply ready; it can mean the deployment was premature. In the case of Windows, malware outbreaks demonstrate that the deployment of Windows on home and small business desktops was likely premature. If it were ready on day 1, we wouldn't need Windows Update now, would we?
I've had some decent experiences with using Linux as a desktop. But until Ubuntu came around I kept switching back to Windows. I'm still using Windows right now infact, but that's due to various other factors. But even using Linux for over 13 years as a server platform and feeling comfortable with it, the LAST thing I wanted to do was configure X extensively. I want to install a desktop OS and have it work right out of the box as much as possible.
The biggest problems I had personally: The web browser and its plug-ins, and video resolution. I kid you not. It may even boil down to video card drivers and setup. Yes it's unfortunate I do have and used ATi cards, so I don't get the best support there. But even BEFORE then, before Ubuntu came around I ALWAYS ended up one notch BELOW my preferred and available resolution. I had 1280x1024 available, I could only get X to properly do 1024x768.
But no matter what resolution I could or couldn't get, if I used a java applet in a browser or a page with flash, there was a 10% chance my entire system would lock up. I could NEVER figure this out and this happened across multiple systems.
Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
The numbers for desktop I have heard imply that it is the other ninety-eight percent of the market.
I grew up with Apples, Macs and then moved into the Windows/IBM world. I have always had to put up with problems when upgrading to the new Windows O/S. I can remember nightmares like Windows ME and getting blue screens every day.
The Windows operating system has evolved and I am now running the RC for Windows 7 and I think it is great. I also run Linux MINT and feel that it is great, too.
When I first moved over to Linux, I was baffled by the directory structure, compiling programs and all the commands available to me. However, Linux rewarded me by teaching me much more about how a computer works from the inside out.
I use both operating systems for different reasons. Since I never use Linux for gaming or sounds, I run it under VMware workstation. I find Linux to be much better at running server applications compared to Windows.
All operating systems have their pros and cons. However, Linux is evolving quickly and with continued improvements in driver support, it could relace Windows completely in the next five years.
To me, an operating system is a tool just as a program is a tool for getting something done. If I want to program or do server development, Linux is my first choice. If I want to play video games, I'll hop on Windows.
I've used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows XP and Vista(unfortunately). I've also used Linux(various Distros such as Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and other) for the past three years(and will continue to use Linux). The conclusion I've came to is that I HATE them all. Each operating system has had at least two moments where I wanted to bang my head on the keyboard(but did not because I don't like physical violence over computer and components, though there was this 486 box). Perhaps, some time in the future I'll also use a Macintosh and hate it too.
All the sexy babes want me... to fix their PC.
I consider Windows to be a really awesome console, and in that respect, Windows has the best in latest PC gaming. It is not as "easy" as an Xbox360 or Playstation 3, and not as portable as many of the handhelds, but if you want one machine for gaming, Windows is a great way to go
One machine, or four machines? It appears that most PC game developers start from an assumption that a PC's monitor can't be bigger than 19 inches diagonal, and the developer neglects to add split-screen for people who have the PC hooked up to a 32" TV. (Most 720p and 1080p HDTVs have VGA and HDMI in; you can add a VGA input to an SDTV with a scan converter.) So you usually need a separate PC and a separate copy of the game for each user, and that gets a lot more expensive than plugging four controllers into an Xbox 360 or a PLAYSTATION 3.
For some reason, driver hunting for Windows is acceptable
That's because for devices like a Microtek ScanMaker 4850 USB flatbed scanner, you don't have to hunt for the Windows driver because it's on the CD that came packaged with the scanner. In Linux, on the other hand, SANE doesn't support it at all.
- Super Mario Bros.
I won't live in a free house that's "almost as good" as on I've paid for. ... I don't need a wood shop, forge and raw materials to put up shelves in my house. Someone else does that and I put up the finished good.
When I load up an OS I want it to do what I want with little to no tweaking at all.
No source files
If I spend a day tweaking an OS I want it to be because I want to, not because I have to.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Linux is just fine as a desktop OS.
There's nothing the FOSS crowd can do about half-assed buggy (and sometimes intentionally crippled) ACPI implementations, uncooperative hardware vendors and general apathy toward FOSS in general.
These are the issues preventing widespread Linux adoption.
It's not that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, it's that the current crop of desktop PC motherboards aren't ready for Linux. Especially in budget machines. They are slapped together quickly with very little if any testing to see if things are truly compliant. If it boots Windows, they consider it done.
Hell, they barely run Vista without catching fire.
A $280 eMachines POS is probably going to have a hard time. Unfortunately, this is the market where I've seen the most Linux interest from consumers. These consumers aren't smart enough to not buy crap.
Even worse is explaining, the A656-4666 runs it great but the A656-4667 used a slightly different incompatible audio chip.
This is an uphill battle that can't be won until vendors:
A.) Are more open with specs so the FOSS community can help.
B.) Stop taking bribes from MS.
C.) Actually give a crap.
We're getting much closer to C everyday but most vendors are only willing to provide buggy blobs. The unstable kernel API isn't helping any.
Vendors would have an EASIER time supporting BSD but the market admittedly just isn't there in a lot of cases.
When it comes to complexity of any design, be it how to set the volume or play a sound in liuux, or how to operate a clock radio..
My feeling has always been if the design can't be explained on the back of a napkin, it's probably over engineered, and more complicated than it has to be.
I await with patience the day a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) standard adopted by all the linux distros, such that if the user runs 'kiss audio on', all those wacky options distros support for that subsystem would be turned off (audio daemons, etc.) and a flag file in place so that all apps would see that eg. 'audio is in kiss mode', ensuring there's only one way to set the volume/play a sound/etc.
Kiss mode would be great if you run into some wacky problem where sound stops working, and you can just put the machine into "standard" mode to get through the week, then explore robust solutions on the next free weekend..
And of course the KISS spec for each subsystem would fit on the back of a napkin. At the top of each page would be the command to enable the mode; 'kiss audio on', 'kiss networking on'. And no cheating with tiny point type, or breaking up a category into multiple 'sections' each with its own napkin..! ;)
Just a thought.
Linux has been my desktop since 1999 (after switching off of an SGI), and for the last 5 years I just keep a mac nearby for multimedia stuff linux can't handle easily.
Well, when they'll ALL work on Wine, we'll have a great article for the Slashdot front page!
How likely is that? When game developers do not target Wine, we can expect Wine will uncover all manner of bugs that won't get solved (unless the Wine developers want to "fix" game bugs on their end). It's a pretty insane way of doing things.
Buy what supports your platform. I have a number of the very small collection of commercial, proprietary games that have Linux native versions. I also play WoW which runs rather well under Wine - the rumor being that Blizzard devs are unofficially checking their builds against Wine during the development process.
Why do I need permission to do things? If I'm in front of my own bloody computer, then I have permission. There should be a home version with NO paranoia and a version for the office where the IT man is god.
Ubuntu goes a long way to making Linux accessible, but it still needs desktop tutorials designed to explain to a retard ape like me how to perform the most common tasks.
After years of running at the Linux wall, I eventually learned that it is actually a more logical system than Windows. --But that logic isn't explained anywhere in an even halfway reasonable manner. --Like on a desktop tour of the system actuated on start-up. Nope. --You have to cruise through web forums and basically already know everything in order to even ask a simple question. --When I tried to get my graphics tablet to be pressure sensitive, all the solutions required advanced knowledge in a variety of different areas which I found utterly baffling and alien. When I tried to understand the lingo of one of those other areas, it was invariably explained using more of the same indecipherable terms from another area.
I built my own Apple ][ with a frickin' soldering iron and I can troubleshoot some pretty complicated problems on a PC, but every time I approach Linux, I end up pissed off and confused.
Linux will be ready for the rest of the human race when somebody finally gets a brain-bing and hires a bloody design consultant who knows how to respect and communicate with the rest of the human race. So far, this at hasn't happened. I would have thought it should be a frickin' obvious course of action, but clearly it is not. Maybe that's why Gates and Jobs are millionaires.
I want to love Linux, but so far it's like being in a relationship with a woman.
-FL
1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
Yes, this. I'm running Ubuntu; I recently upgraded my work machine (driver is snd_intel8x0) from 8.10 to 9.04. I was hoping that PulseAudio would stop freezing up (sound-using applications become unresponsive, and I need to kill and restart PulseAudio), as I'd been assured that the various complaints about PulseAudio were all due to 8.10 shipping a bad, pre-release variant.
I hesitate to use phrases like "PulseAudio proceeded to shit all over my sound" or "play a simple fucking MP3 without skipping, like my five-dollar iPod knockoff does", but they seem apropos here. Perhaps Rhythmbox or gstreamer are at fault here; I don't know--I just know that even with the system idle, sound playback skips and stutters. Mplayer will play sound all right, but video and audio become desynchronized when using the PulseAudio audio driver. Using the esd driver, which is just a frontend to PulseAudio, works. Go fucking figure.
Inability to play a damned MP3 on the included jukebox app with extraordinarily common commodity hardware? What fucking year is this?
5.2 No games. Full stop. Cedega and Wine offer very incomplete support.
Hmph. Someone doesn't like playing emulated console games. True, it's nearly impossible to do so without breaking the law, but he could have at least mentioned it.
(Also, I don't game much, but I completed Eversion, a rather fascinating freeware game, on my Linux desktop, running under Wine without issues. It's not latest-and-greatest, but it's certainly something.)
8.1 Most distros don't allow you to easily set up a server with e.g. such a configuration: Samba, SMTP/POP3, Apache HTTP Auth and FTP where all users are virtual. LDAP is a major PITA. Authentication against MySQL/any other DB is also a PITA.
This seems weirdly specific. How often is this even required? If it is, using NSS with something like libpam-mysql/libnss-mysql looks pretty plausible.
12. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.).
Any authorization or authentication mechanism of this sort can be bypassed with social engineering. How exactly is this a problem in the operating system--what kind of OS lacks this problem? Should it be locked down so that a licensed sysadmin needs to come by and swipe their ID to allow admin tasks to be performed?
As for keyloggers, I do agree. An X11 keylogger can run without root permission. Give it a run; it's rather unsettling to see it gobble up passwords and such. I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies, but it seems likely that there is a problem.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
After head-vs-wall with Ubuntu, I tried LinuxMint - everything works. And I mean everything - sound, browser, multimedia - all work right off the bat. A first for any Linux I have tried the past 10+ years. Currently I have it on a dual boot alongside XP Pro.
But.. lets say you want a really polished app to download photos from a camera (GiMP is a good equiv to Photo$hop for POST processing) - you may find there are several contenders, none of which actually WORK. Which is exactly the Achilles Heel of Linux since its inception: a lack of mature, smooth apps that just plain WORK. I do not have the time or inclination to hack code, re-compile, etc.
until the Linux community agrees upon a file structure (remember United Linux?) it is just to difficult for the everyday person to install / uninstall applications. I have been using Linux since Red Hat 4.0 but I am in the IT field, and I switched over to Macintosh when system 10 came out. I still get all the power of a Unix command line and my family gets a GUI that just works for them.
Wine - is a frickin disaster. I hauled its ugly ass off my Linux. Irfanview looks and drives like an early v2.x and not the 4.x version it is. With a dual boot I would want to simply point Wine to my legit PhotoShop, Irfanview or other application and run it inside an emulation. No, Wine goes and downloads a fresh bottle of rewired dregg-o.
What a colossal ass!
To be fair, Palin also has a colossal ass.
Linux could be more popular if Windows wasnt so easily piratable..
I'd agree in so far that if you are going to advocate for open source alternatives, you had best understand your audience because anyone who takes you seriously will want to ask you questions about these "open-source alternatives". Thinking people understand cost of change applies to everything in life, so why talk people up unless you are ready to explain or point to literature that can explain what they are getting themselves into. If you are giving a tutorial, be sure you can be at least as ready as any Microsoft zombie sales guy to show people what they want to see. "Open source" is political more than anything else to the small guy. I get caught up cheering the GPL, but once someone is actually interested, stop posturing yourself and show people what they want to know, like "All your basic programs are in the applications menu, and sorted by genera". That covers a lot! You don't need to explain that there is no start menu, because why would they look for one if they know where their programs are. Next, show them how to change their wallpaper, then maybe their home folder. Don't ask someone what they want to run, and try to show them something else; ask the person what they want to DO, and show them how to do it. Don't show them just how customizable everything is, because how can they be interested in changing what they may not even understand yet.
/bin and read through man pages of anything you find in there that sparks your interest... but of course, this is ONLY for those that have decided they are no longer content with being a "normal user".
I will say that in my advocacy for Linux, STAY AWAY FROM WINE!!! Wine is great for the nerd that finds themselves switching between windows and Linux for games and would otherwise prefer to drop Windows. BUT, if you are "selling" Linux, unless there is a specific application you have tested and you know works well and you can setup for them, you must let Linux stand on its own merit. Wine is great for many applications more than a year old. Many old applications that don't work on XP / Vista have more of a chance of working on Linux, but these are fairly advanced tasks to undertake. A feature I wouldn't want to live without is regex web searches, but I am not going to use that as a selling point. I show Ubuntu to people who are frustrated with Windows and refuse to use mac. They are the easy sell. Once they have totally switched and are in love and grateful, I let them know, or remind them that the true power of expression is on the command line and that IF they are inclined to be a Linux guru, you should start with the Bash man page, and from there, when feeling so inclined, check out
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
I plug in a thumb drive or usb hard drive and maybe the OS will notice it and mount it for me, and maybe it won't. Usually it doesn't. Usually, I have to become super-user and perform actions to identify the drive and mount it that would be beyond the knowledge of the average end user. And even if the user does know how to do it, why should they have to? A 10-second task just got turned into a 5-minute task.
Is it that the device isn't showing up, or that the device isn't mounting? That is, does it show up in the output from 'lsusb' or not?
I've never had a working USB mass storage device fail to detect and mount on any of my Linux systems; for me, it's been a solved problem.
USB scanners are the same way. They used to work, now you have to become super-user to use them. Some script that detected scanner plugin events and change the permissions just stopped working.
Weird. The only scanner juggling I've had to do was installing a particular firmware file for my Mustek ScanExpress 1200 UB Plus, because (a) it's not freely redistributable, and (b) there are several different scanners with the same USB ID, and I had to specify which one I had.
Multi-card readers: Same thing. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
As these are just USB mass storage devices, I think it's the same permissions issue you're seeing.
I'd recommend that you open a question at Launchpad Answers and see if you can get some help on this. Something is amiss on your system, and fixing it is probably preferable to working around it like this. (I'm assuming that you're using Ubuntu.)
It seems unlikely this bug [EHCI problems] will ever be fixed.
Well, it certainly won't be fixed unless someone reopens the kernel.org bug report. (The original report was identified as caused by broken hardware; that's why it was closed.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'd have to agree that this OS is still not ready for the majority of users. I have experimented with the last few releases and have continually had problems with video drivers. As a consumer of an OS, I shouldn't have to go to the command prompt to install a new driver for any component. Like mac proponents are so happy to say, it should 'just work'. Or, it should be as easy as clicking an installer file.
Installing a driver in Windows is light years ahead of Linux in terms of ease of use. Maybe I am missing something with driver installs for this OS, but it is a daunting task and it should be easy.
My friends keep telling me "oh, the next version of linux is out next week". I tell them that I am just not interested any more due to these issues. If I have the latest GFX card from nVidia or AMD, I have to install a new driver and it is just to arcane for me to deal with. It should just work, or be easier than it currently is. Until then, I'm not using it.
My neighbor lady comes over with her dell netbook full of the xp virus that she "PAID" for and isnt working... I take it, download Ubuntu Netbook-Remix, throw it on my usb drive and load it on her netbook in 30min. Gave it back to her the next day, all she does is check email, surf the web, and instant message. Havent seen her since.
"I fail to understand why anyone would actually pay for an OS" atleast _that_ OS.
I would be willing to pay for a good OS and I actually do, I try to support the some Open Source projects that way.
New things are always on the horizon
> Some of the gripes listed here really resonate with me, having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10 on my main testing-stuff laptop; it's frustrating especially that while many seemingly more esoteric things work perfectly, sound now works only in part, and even that partial success took some fiddling.
It's an alpha. What do you expect?
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
Linux has never worked perfectly for me. Sure, it works out of the box or it seems to be working initially upon install. Then suddenly on the next bootup X dies on me. How can people say that Linux "just works" when something as trivial as sound working properly has me searching different forums for hours. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for linux. Having to use windows right now is a necessity even though it is a big resource hog but its the only option I have as I don't have time to tinker with my OS to make sure it works properly. The reason I like linux is because of the way it can be customised. Windows can be maintained to be as fast and as responsive as linux(also if its vista then decent specs are also needed). The issue here is the "maintainance". You need to have a few different applications to keep it from slowing down after a while. Lets not forget the antivirus which isin't even required by linux. I like linux but I'm gonna stick with windows for the time being as it just isin't worth it for me to waste hours just so my computer works how its supposed to anyway. There is nothing really inherently wrong with windows. Both linux and windows are viable on desktops. People talk about the steep learning curve in linux which doesn't matter if you use ubuntu. I got my mother to learn using ubuntu in less than 10 minutes when the windows on the family desktop computer died. My mother prefers linux for everything except for work as open office really cannot be compared to MS office. She sends people word documents and the formatting is always screwed up.
VirtualBox is not ReactOS.
VirtualBox is Virtualization - you can assign disk space / a partition to an os and install it from linux - or run a linux distro from a windows os.
You can run (in my experience) any non 3d windows app - I haven't found anything that doesn't yet - however I have only used photoshop and a few other apps - I stopped using windows about 5 years ago and I have found my I.T life to be less stressful..
It's a hobby system that's cute to fiddle with then turn it off when I want to do "real" work? Like working with..an Oracle database, running on a Linux machine. Is my Tivo a "hobby" system? I guess I shouldn't expect much from the routers, phones, and other devices that have put Linux at the core of their stack. I mean, it's just a hobby, right?
All you have done is describe heavily customized and professionally maintained systems that serve a single clearly defined purpose.
The router routes.
Interaction with end-users is trivial.
If linux is not yet ready for the desktop, what have I been running on my desktop for the last 8 years?
*the desktop? i thought everyone had their own.
it's plenty ready for my desktop.
one of the biggest hurdles keeping Linux our of the domestic desktop market is the developers apparently can't put themselves in the shoes of the average user. In my personal experience they tend to hold the end user in contempt
Apple and Microsoft both began with the client. The stand-alone PC designed for the non-technical end-user.
Both have strong roots in the home market. In primary and secondary education. In mom-and-pop small business.
They clawed their way up. They didn't work their down.
VirtualBox is not ReactOS.
Right: VirtualBox is the virtual machine that runs ReactOS inside Linux. VirtualBox can also run Windows, but my point is that you need a Windows license for that.
I gotta say I HATE the very low end Sony and Dell computers. From the first time you start it up, it will never work that well again. Once you break it, you can never get it back. Yeah, its more complicated than that, but my number one reason for switching to Linux completely and never using Windows again for any reason was the pain of installing Windows, at least all that was necessary to get it all working just the way I wanted. You just can't be aggressive with Windows and hope to maintain it.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
You want Linux to be Windows.
When you use Linux as Linux, with its limitations and its advantages, you realize that it is a more productive environment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is a feature.
It is a testament to the inventiveness and dedication of some programmers that they actually make some Windows programs work in Linux, but frankly that is a cop out.
Linux has no shortcomings for not being Windows.
Linux is different and should be approached with a different mindset.
If your mindset is to ape your WIndows (or Apple) environment, then for bunnies sakes, spare yourself the pain and us your whining and stick to what works for you.
Those of us that have been working bot professionally and domestically with Linux for more than a decade now can't frankly be bothered anymore about the silly "year of the desktop" for Linux.
In my case that was 10 years ago...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How exactly is this a problem in the operating system-
The problem is that mainstream Linux has just two ways to run an application: root or user. Both of those have the problem that they can with no problem delete or manipulate all the files a user has access to, for a single user system that means all applications can wreak as much havoc as they want. Its not an unfixable problem, there is SELinux and such that provides much more granular support of application rights, but that isn't something your average desktop distro uses and it would need quite a bit of work on the user interface side to integrate tightly locked applications smoothly (see OLPC for a nice example how it can be done).
I have a small company and we have used desktop linux (Mandrake then Mandriva) for about 5 years exclusively. Last version of Windows we used was Win98. So I dont understand the question. Perhaps you meant why is it that some people are not ready to make the switch. But as far as I care it was ready for the desktop 5 years ago.
I didn't realise. I'll stop using it then.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
On the Desktop, everything that Linux distros have, Windows also has.
If by desktop you mean the things you can click on in the applications menu... hmm... Unless you are talking about things like ProTools vs Jack/PulseAudio I can not imagine what you are talking about, especially when one claims to be a UNIX Systems Administrator.
Needless to say, they will be annoyed and frustrated when their Linux distro pulls out one of its patented "only half-works" issues on something that should be taken for granted like sound or graphics.
A) cheap hardware sucks B) your normal home user doesn't set that stuff up, so why do people keep trying to compare preinstalled Windows to a one size fits most crammed onto a Live CD designed for use by someone that had to read the manual to turn it on. It is a ridiculous argument. You are not going to find a build to order Linux machine with ANY of the problems you stated, but you do have those problems (and far worse) frequently trying to use retail windows on a Dell/HP.
And as usual, gotta say that I continue to love year after year the number of qualification used to try and make Linux seem insignificant is hilarious.
I can see it now, HEADLINE 2010: 99.9% of Normal Home Desktop x86 based OEM prebuilts from 2003 with XP SP2 purchased by senile grandmothers and "had to take out a loan to go to community college" students buy commercial Linux support. Once again, Microsoft has had great success with latest Operating System, Windows 7. Will 2011 be the year of Linux?
I think someone told Bill Gates that you couldn't herd cats, and took it figuratively as a challenge. Little did he know he ended up with sheep, but he was pleased (and rich) just the same.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
My big hassle with Linux is winmodems. How the hell is Joe Sixpack ever going to connect on dial-up using Linux unless they have an external hardware modem. My 8 year-old Windows ME computer is fine since it has a hardware ISA modem, but this is not the case with modern computers. PCI hardware modems are basically unavailable in New Zealand. Unless you really know about Linux and compiling things it is impossible to use a winmodem.
I have a copy of Vista, it took three tries to install it, and it took me about an hour to get it looking like XP again and to turn off UAC. It sucks up RAM like no tomorrow. But it doesn't matter. I wanted DirectX 10 and my box has 6GB of RAM, upgradeable to 12, so I really don't care. I could have a Linux box that is built on a better platform that will make far better use of my system resources, but how would it be anything more than a toy?
If the main reason you installed Vista (and went through all that trouble with it) is so you could have DirectX 10, which is something only needed for playing games, then your Vista computer is really nothing more than a toy. Red herring.
I am not interesting.
His view is from a Windows person as is demonstrated time and again by his comments. He's thinking like a windows person. Linux is not windows. The intent of linux is not to be Windows.
Much of what he says is just flat out wrong and shows that he hasn't looked at linux in a very long time.
He's not a qualified programmer in Linux environment and that of Windows to give a comparative summary, because if he was qualified he would be stating otherwise in most regards, including his apparent inability to get simple things like sound working.
If you look at Windows from the perspective of installation of a system from the box you'll see his comments are so far off that he's no real idea what he's talking about. His comments regarding mixer are so badly presented as to seem mostly like he's biased and searching for things--otherwise it is apparent that he doesn't understand Windows itself because if he did he'd know his comments regarding audio are very misplaced and when comparing Windows sound issues to Linux he should have been concluding that, for the most part, Linux beats Windows.
Basically he seemed a simple mind incapable of actually understanding Linux and wants to box it into the Windows mold.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
So be a windows gaming boxer and dual boot. Play your games under windows and use linux for the rest like the rest of us.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Most users of operating systems think their OS is free. It came with the computer they bought, and the additional cost of the operating system is almost completely unknown in a typical computer purchase.
As a matter of fact, I don't know any (non-technical) user that has ever actually bought an operating system without an accompanying hardware purchase. These types of users buy new computers when the old ones are two slow, or are broken. Whatever comes on the new computer is what they use.
This problem is further illustrated in the return rates of Linux based netbooks. The price difference (about $50 in most cases) is not enough to sway the average computer user to an unfamiliar operating system.
Price should matter, but in the scope of a hardware purchase, operating system cost is almost irrelevant. Linux will need to compete on features and functionality, because cost is not enough.
-ted
http://www.csounds.com
give it a serious look, you wont be disappointed.
The fast changing pace of Linux is it's greatest strength. In half the time of Windows (from DOS to current) Linux has grown to exceed Windows in many regards. There are issues but then again there are issues with every OS, including OS X.
In the next 10 years that fast changing pace will exceed Windows in every incarnation quite easily, and we're just talking about the desktop. I think most would agree that the server side of things Linux has them already beat, hands down.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I have used everything from DOS, to IRIX to whati currently use which is Windows XP, Ubuntu and OSX. /Inkscape) and am not Microsoft fan boy, but to say Linux for the desktop is a reality is not true, especially for anyone doing graphic arts and multimedia production.....
The one thing I kind of dislike about Linux is the crap support for hardware. I have yet to get dual screen working and as an animator trying to learn Blender in Linux to see if that is better than running Blender in Windows,I found that frustrating. I am handy with a PC but not a geek. I have installed Linux Windows and OSX on my own, but Linux for not techies is a joke.
I use use a lot of open source (Blender / Gimp / Open Office
I also make my living using Max, Photoshop and FCP......and while the Open Source stuff is closer, it's not there enough for most artists...
but it is gettign better. 5 years ago Gimp and Blender were jokes. Just wish the hardware stuff could be unified so I could run them as fast and as well as I can in Windows and have the ability to edit video and sound as well as I can on Windows or OSX....
It is all about flash. Flash still reeks on Linux. Users like me will never give up flash video. I will gladly pay the pence to get XP or whatever, and run flash.
Until Flash is fixed on linux, it fails mightily on the internet.
Just that simple.
New Economic Perspectives
Ah; I see what you're talking about. Isn't this exactly what's provided by PolicyKit?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Has anyone bothered to address the points in TFA?
He seems to have taken a "shotgun" approach, found some valid arguments, some mistaken, some that don't make sense (something that linux flubs, but windows flubs 10x worse, isn't hurting linuxes chances..) I'd say more than half the items he listed are just not valid...here it is, point by point. Not long-winded, and I grant good points he's made.
1., some distros have audio working fine. This situation is embarrasing though, I must grant that.
Almost all of section 2 is incorrect...
2.1, gtk and qt both maintain good compatibility between versions.; 2.2, the GUI isn't slow. 2.3, almost all GDI-like operations are accelerated; 2.4, X Render extension accelerates antialiased fonts. 2.5, X does have double buffering.
3., no comment; the old "every distro should be the same" argument regarding packaging etc. I disagree, but it's a valid argument.
4. Being able to do everything via GUI is fine. This isn't some point for Windows though, I mean technically a registry editor is a GUI but it's really not any better than going to a command line.
5.1-5.2, I grant the relative lack of some specialized softwares and games.
5.3... various hardware & winprinters won't work in windows either (like, will work in one version but not the next.) 5.3.2, one thing vista did that was good was made the web camera vendors follow standards, having some webcam not work is unlikely now. 5.4, sure you can watch blu ray, it's just with "5.5 questionable patents and legality status"
6, 7, 8 complain in general about software quality... not a valid point when comparing to windows. 8.1 in particular made me laugh.... what does running Samba, SMTP/POP, Apache HTTP auth, and FTP, with virtual users, and LDAP, have to do with a desktop? And how is Windows possibly better at that?
9-11, no comment... I suspect these are largely true, in particular the linker being slow.
12. is a rather weak security argument.
13, not so bad. Most distros have a "compat" package to put on to run *old* binaries... he kind of muddles in programmer errors (double frees shouldn't happen) with actual C library changes.
14, not much of a comment, but just saying "samba doesn't count" for smb/AD is silly.
Here in India we get computers from every major vendor pre-installed with Linux. You get to pay more if you want Windows installed. I don't see why Linux on the desktop will be a problem. These vendors are global (HP, IBM, DELL, ACER, etc.). If you have an application without a Linux version, I would recommend a virtual machine.
Nothing beats Windows for an expensive gaming console, but that isn't the only reason to use a desktop computer.
Ok, so I read the article and I could escape the obvious conclusion that every point made came down to the same thing. Linux is not ready for the desktop because Linux is not Windows. The agenda here is transparent. The is no reasonable counter to such an argument because there is no reasonable argument. It screams "My mind is made up do not confuse me with facts." But then there is no one OS for all just like there is no one brand of anything from toothpaste to cars for everyone. But just like all cars are designed to use a common infrastructure so all operating systems should be designed against a common infrastructure so it does not matter in the long run which you choose for yourself. In order to accomplish that we need only to break the MS monopoly and level the field for honest competition.
There are so many compromises that only need account access, that if you give someone an account you may as well give them root if they're malicious. So "If you know what you're doing and you don't run as Administrator all the time, you don't need AV anyhow." doesn't cut it in my book.
How futile ?
If you like the MS way, keep it.
Personnaly, I have a Vista for gaming, and a squeeze for the rest, and I will NEVER switch to anything else for work and productive activities because it's simply free, efficient, reliable and you learn thing using it. It's not perfect, but it'll be better in 2 years, and still free.
Thanks to all contributors for their great work and gift to mankind.
1) Many of the people that use Windows use it not because they prefer it to the alternatives, but because they are ignorant of the alternatives or are simply resistant to change. I'm not saying (and I doubt anyone else is, either) that Linux should be forced down the throat of Windows users. In fact, I think the much-anticipated Year of Linux on the Desktop refers to a time when Linux is common on peoples' desktop computers, not when it is the only operating system around. If I encourage a friend or family member to give Linux a try, it's not to move towards everyone using Linux, it's because I think it will better meet their computing needs, and at a better price, to boot. Linux should help them, not vice versa.
2) Hardware / game / specialty app support. Linux enthusiasts are constantly frustrated by a lack of Linux support for certain hardware, games, and commercial applications. As vocal a group as we can be, we're not going to get open source drivers for Lexmark printers, a Linux version of Diablo 3, or Quickbooks for *nix until the market is a little bigger. A lot of the desire for wider Linux acceptance comes from the fact that a larger user base would make supporting Linux a no-brainer for some of the manufacturers and developers that are not yet doing so.
Instead of spouting junk on /. and having endless arguments about why Linux should or shouldn't be able to work as a desktop OS, let's go and fix one of those problems. I mean, there must be someone on here that can code, and you would have to be an idiot not to realize and/or admit that Linux distributions- Just like any other OSes- Have at least some serious problems. How about that?
Most of those run well in wine...
It appears that Linux do not fit the needs of this guy : so why is he using IT ???? Linux has its goal, which might differs from Microsoft Goals, this sould not be a problem.
The main error is comparing Linux Vs Windows, which is a non sens.
The first question is : what are my needs, then what OS will best fit my needs, Linux is not the answer for this guy.
(its vision about Linux viruses let also cleary appears that this guy do not apprehend at all the Linux approach, reality, and goals).
Regards.
I completely agree. Security? A lot of local/remote vulnerabilities for the linux kernel everytime!
there are so many ubuntu users who started with drake. myself included. everyone i ask what ubuntu version they first used and usually the answer is dapper drake. i wonder why is it like this?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Why? Because I, personally, do NOT want to be part of the stream of sheep. I use GNU/linux to fix Microsoft's issues (passwords, filesystem problems, viruses) and I also do NOT prescribe to the "normal applications" that everyone on the planet runs. I'm happy with that. Very much so. I still "hang" with those that run all the basic Microsoft based applications and the likes, but I prefer to personally find an alternative to use for myself - and quite possibly turn someone else onto, but I'm not going to stress about GNU/linux becoming mainstream. I'm happy I'm running GNU/linux (Ubuntu 9.04) on a Microsoft Windows' underrated machine, and also more than happy to show that to others that I have to work with and deal with. I rather like the fact that I can underscore all the security "issues" that face Microsoft based machines with my little nasty laptop. I can live with that. I rather like the "uniqueness" that I have cultured because although I run ONLY GNU/linux, I work on primarily Microsoft based machines - and I don't have to deal with maintenance or other issues - and that's what sets me aside from the mainstream. All good. Now, in the "for instance" of KDE, it's "trying" to be "cool" and has become so far beyond usable that it's a paradigm unto "let's make this usable" by developers that are far from the "normal user". Get real folks. Let's just stick to what we have stuck to for years and be quirky and be, at least, knowledgeable about what WE'RE doing and forget the mainstream. Linux on the desktop (for the world?) C'mon. Every try to offer support for someone that's received a GNU/linux based PC because they're poor? Try to work that one out? Nah. Give the sheep MS Windows. I'll come and fix them. Happy to do so. Let the "giants" battle it all out. I rather like the fact that in GNU/linux we can see "from hindsight" what we want to do and how we want to fix it. Simple that. Sorry for the rant, but had to say it. Let's stay OFF the desktop (publically) and enjoy our own niche. Yeah, beat me up in IRC, but it's all good. Trust me...
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
Drake was the first time I heard of Ubuntu - media blitz? I don't know.
Inability to play a damned MP3 on the included jukebox app with extraordinarily common commodity hardware? What fucking year is this?
Install VLC. Problem solved. It was the very first thing I did on installing Ubuntu. I know well enough to not even bother messing around with Rhythmbox.
Believe me when I say that most of, "Linux's," problems, are actually 100% Gnome's problems.
There naturally are enterprise solutions. We have one at our University - home made from downloaded distribution. But I am sure you can set it up using full commercial support. Or Scientific Linux at CERN or Fermi lab have various such options.
I read until I hit the part about Linux having a bad setup for security, laughed, and stopped reading. That was enough to let me know that this guy is clearly an idiot. Doesn't he realize that the reason so many people run into security problems in Xp is because they run as admin? No viruses for Linux ONLY because of its low popularity? Umm, it is the number one web server, and it still maintains a good security reputation. It is the number one embedded OS, and it still maintains a good security reputation. It is run by companies like Google and Yahoo, and still maintains a good security rep. Trust me, I should know. Linux is much more secure than Windows. Windows Vista is the only version of Windows that is reasonably secure, until you turn off the annoying warnings.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
Simple. As long as Linux remains a niche OS, it's not very likely that most hardware makers will provide Linux drivers.
What if Linux distros suddenly had 50% marketshare? How many hw companies could ignore Linux drivers then?
There ARE games for Linux: Wine works surprisingly well
Is Wine a game? no, its a compatibility layer to run Windows games. Wine *IS NOT* a solution to any software lacking on the linux platform. A game in Wine is a Windows game, not a linux game.
Also, ubuntu noobs fail. Its just Debian for kids.
Slackware noob, you mean? RTFP
..since his premise is .. well.. maybe not wrong, but inapplicable to the vast majority of people, it's no surprise he goes off into weirdo territory.
You see, that's true, but for any given user, the probability is low that they actually need any of these proprietary apps. I agree that some people need AutoCAD, but 99.99% (and I don't think I'm exaggerating those digits, if anything I left a few 9s out) of the people don't.
In other words, a handful of people. Yes, those people matter and I mean them no disrespect. If they're stuck with Windows, I'm sorry. But that person's father, mother, wife, son, and every neighbor on their block, doesn't have that problem.
Word is the main historical exception, to such an extent that I suspect over half of Word sales and upgrades in the 1990s were caused by someone being emailed an MS Word document. But it's historical -- people can now survive that scenario w/out needing MS Word; OpenOffice can read the file.
A typical (not all, but most) desktop user has no need of any proprietary software at all; and everything (yes, really, everything) they need will be available through their distro's repository. They never have to manually download/install anything. Whatever they need is either already there, or they click something in their software installation tool, to make it magically become installed.
And that makes things like this irrelevant.
The cost is low. The developer makes the app, the distro gets it packaged, and the user clicks something to install it.
Likewise, it's very rare that a typical user has this problem:
because while it's true that their distro's repository doesn't have everything; it does have everything that 99% of the people need.
Yes, some people will be stuck with Windows. That has no bearing on Linux not being "ready" for the desktop, as already proven by lots of people using Linux desktops for many years now. And that's the real weirdness about articles like this. Complaining about problems is fine, but we already know the actual real-life premise is that Linux is already ready for the desktop and has been for many years. It's there and it works and most people who try it are fine with it.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
In other words, you need permission for executing programs for exactly the same reason that you need a lock on your front door.
Well, sure. And exactly for the reasons you explain, I have a front door lock, which would be the metaphor for the fire wall, or in my case, the hardware router I use. But the OS?
That's like putting locks on my fridge and washing machine for fear of intruders. If you work in an office, (or a live in a rowdy dorm), then I can see the necessity of that. But my house is my house, and the OS ought to reflect that. A simple wizard upon installation would solve this; "Are you going to be using this computer on a network where lots of random people will have access, are you going to be sharing with your family, or are you going to be the only user?" --Give three choices with explanations of what each choice will do, and of course, allow hard core Linux users to do whatever the heck they want by making the wizard entirely optional.
Dumb it down like a Mac, but never lock people out of the guts. I never understand why so many software vendors remove their full featured option sets when they adopt simple GUIs. How hard is it to leave a an 'Advanced' button in place?
All I'm saying is that for a Linux distribution to be successful, it has to take newbies into account by making explanations and system maps easy, informed, standardized and readily available on the desktop.
They should use the Meyer Brigg's (sp?) personality profiles to come up with the three or four most common approaches to learning and sculpt three or four help menu formats to take everybody into account. I know that some help menus make zero sense to me, while with others I feel like a good friend knows me and is giving me exactly the information I can digest and use for the situation at hand.
Communication is an art, and Linux was written by geniuses who can't paint for shit.
-FL
So "ready for the desktop" is about games?
When I walk through the office, the only games I see people playing on their desktops are Flash games inside their web browsers. Those poor bastards, stuck working with their Macs! When will they realize that they aren't real desktop users? Tech nerds would call their computers "servers" or something, because they run unix.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
You know, I have always wondered why WordPerfect is still Windows only. Despite the recent increase in market share and popularity of OSX and even desktop Linux Distros like Suse and Ubuntu. A linux netbook with a "light" WordPerfect would be imensely usefull to quite a number of students.
I can install the Adobe reader, Firefox, etc with one button push on windows. On Linux... well, I don't have the time to figure out where everything goes.
If there isn't a one push install, why even bother with providing titles. The mass market won't figure out how to install it anyway.
Once this is done, the other issues can be worked on. eg drivers - I never have gotten my cd player to run under linux. The box has one, but it's never been used)
I use mplayer with ESD output, as mentioned above; this works fine. I don't have any particular issues with the kernel itself (well, I do--yay for hard freezes due to the wireless driver shitting itself!--but they're separate), but I'm using the operating system as a whole, and while I appreciate the ability to put apps together in any way I wish, the standard methods it ships with should work properly. I don't know whether to specifically blame Ubuntu, or gstreamer, or GNOME, but something is definitely broken in there.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It sounds like you want some form of mandatory access control. The most popular ones are SELinux and AppArmor, but there are other approaches, each one claiming that the others are horrible. There are also considerably simpler setups like cuppabilities, which are written into the app itself, rather than being imposed in a system-wide manner.
I think Dan Bernstein wrote something about how to drop as many privileges as possible from a userspace program, but I'm blanking on where it was, or how useful it is to normal folks.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The author complained about Ubuntu 9.10 having faults. 9.10 is at Alpa one level and not intended for production use. The test should have been with the latest release 9.04.
Thank a veteran -- George
For many of us who are curious, but not programmers, Linux really is basically a hobby system. It's the appeal of figuring out how things work, that brings a lot of us over from M$.
I didn't expect my laptop's Ubuntu 9.0.4 to work perfectly on install. In fact, it took me three days to figure out what I needed to do to get a DVD to play. I would never dream of recommending Linux to less-savvy people as a replacement OS - but I did get a sense of achievement out of getting it set up for myself. So for most of us who aren't trained IT professionals, it's like hauling home a broken-down car in order to teach yourself some mechanic skills. If that's not a hobby system, I don't know what is.
I recently tried to rebuild my parents machine, the windows install had died so we bought a new HD with a view to doing a clean install and then trying to recover the files from the original hard drive.
I also offered to install Ubuntu for them as a dual boot so that they could give it a try.
I spent literally 4 hours installing Vista. Once it was installed, (which took some time) I dutifully ran windows update and downloaded a bunch of updates.
On restarting the machine, it gave the usual message about installing updates, then crashed. We waited 15 mins just to be sure it had definitely crashed.
Then restarted and the system wouldn't boot. This was a totally clean installation of windows. The hardware hadn't changed, it was to a brand new clean harddrive.
In despair, and because it was close to 11pm by now, I said I would install Ubuntu for them and then come back to do windows another day.
30 minutes later, Ubuntu was installed. Of course it wasn't just the OS that was installed but also Open Office, FireFox, F-Spot, Whatever the CD Burning thing is called, printer was working, graphics card was working, digital camera was detected OK...
That's all my parents need.
My job is done, they are chuffed, I won't have to offer family tech support again for the forseable future so I'm happy too.
They don't play games though. Maybe this thread should be qualified to
Why Linux is Not Ready to be used to Play Games or Watch Blu Ray Movies
I still contend that we don't have a selection of consumer-oriented desktop applications for Linux, and little indication that the situation is likely to change in the foreseeable future. We agree that the retail store possibilities are very unlikely.
We could easily construct a wishlist or consumer apps for Linux. My list would include Adobe's Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements, as well as their professional graphics products (Dreamweaver, Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop). I'd also add Intuit's Quicken and TurboTax, Roxio Creator or Toast, a Linux equivalent of WinDVD or CyberDVD, drawing programs like Visio and CorelDraw, a painting program, a website creation program like RapidWeaver or Freeway Express, and much more. There's also a very long list of educational titles and game titles that are almost entirely absent from Linux.
I don't see that level of development as happening anytime soon, so I have backed away from the notion of Linux on the desktop for all but the small percentage of people (including many /. readers) who are capable of managing their own systems and working with the available applications. Linux is an excellent platform, but it's hard to see the business opportunity for consumer apps on Linux, without which Linux will not attain significant desktop market share.
"We could easily construct a wishlist or consumer apps for Linux. My list would include Adobe's Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements, as well as their professional graphics products (Dreamweaver, Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop). I'd also add Intuit's Quicken and TurboTax, Roxio Creator or Toast, a Linux equivalent of WinDVD or CyberDVD, drawing programs like Visio and CorelDraw, a painting program, a website creation program like RapidWeaver or Freeway Express, and much more. There's also a very long list of educational titles and game titles that are almost entirely absent from Linux."
I don't know what Photoshop Elements is. I use gnucash for financial management. gnomebaker for making CDs. WinDVD? I don't know -- my linux laptop came with something that plays DVDs. I use dia for drawing, and kolourpaint for painting. I haven't bothered with a website creation program. As for educational and games - generally, I don't bother. The kids use flash games on the web, as well as educational resources.
All of this software came with my current laptop "integrated" (pre-installed, or manufacturer supported download). It's an Acer Aspire One, running the horribly named "Linpus" system. Adobe Reader and Flash pre-installed as well.
I did install an mplayer codec pack to allow (media-du-jour) to play.
Of course, having the list is of use to me as well; I need to know the Windows equivalents occasionally.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Ok, I'll give the guy proprietary applications. Though only with the caveat that wine is getting better all the time.
Games? All the windows games I own run on Linxu... But, the real point is that by "desktop" he means the recreational home computer, not the serious work desktop.
He also mixes desktop and server functions in the same list. It has been a long time since I set up several of the server systems he mentions. I have done them on Linux, but not on Windows. If there are still no good GUIs for server functions, OK, but he was talking about the desktop not the server.
So, I guess he is talking about the home recreational desktop that doubles as an LDAP server. Weird... But, still if that is what he calls a desktop, OK.
When it comes to the desktop what he says is d *false*. Every complaint is about "some distros"... Ok, why would you use those distributions? I used to have all the problems he lists, many many years ago. Then I switched to Ubuntu and over time they *all* went away. Everyone, all of them, not one of the things he lists as a problem with "some distros" is a problem with Ubuntu 9.04. Seriously, I can't remember them being problems since sometime around 7.
His complaint about libc incompatibility is interesting. Yep, I can load a Windows app written for an ancient version of a Windows .dll and it will load and start to run. And then crash because it depends on bugs that were fixed 3 years ago. The app won't complain, the OS won't complain, it just won't work. At least with Linux you know you are trying to run code against libraries that are not known to work with that code.
The load time problem he mentions, is pure crap. I work on Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP every day. I use OpenOffice and MS Office on Windows and OpenOffice on Linux. I use equivalent machines in both locations. The apps load fast enough that I don't notice a pause on either application. Start up and shut down time is a problem with Linux? Since when. I don't sit there with a stop watch but I do not notice any difference in boot up or shut down times. They are both long enough to be annoying. Ok, he is talking about gigahertz machines like they are fast and not junkers.
Stonewolf
My family and I use Linux everyday. No windows anywhere. My work uses Linux, ONLY. The title is misleading or incorrect.
Well I would say that author of this post doesn't confirm to me the feeling that author of the preface to the article gave me that this man from Russia is a computer expert. First if he programmed and GUI so far he would surely have to know that Qt is ultra super duper stable, I come from company that uses Qt as primary development, so far we have about 500.000 lines of code in Qt. We have more 300 customers using our DMS application. NO STABILITY PROBLEM, AT LEAST NOT WITH QT.
Found also other incorrect statements, but didn't bother since I expected more from the article, but found out it is yet another one form the series of very "smart" ones.
It's a shame, but Linux has a long way to go before it catches up. Sure, 'doze has its problems, but I think all of the issues the author raised boil down to this:
Windows (with all of its faults) is still a single cohesive environment. Linux is not. It's like tug of war. The Windows team is pulling the same way, Linux, everyone has a section of the rope and everyone is pulling in a different direction.
I am sick of not being able to use a wireless NIC natively in Linux. I know there are chipsets that work, but Windows works with ALL of them. Until wireless becomes something that "just works", using Linux as a home users desktop OS is out of the question. Most people are turning to laptops and access points for their home systems. These are the people that need to be converted. Until they sign off on Linux, the OS will just be relegated to us geeks in the server room. And don't even get me started on WPA.
Why I don't care if Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop(tm)
0. All proprietary Windows software will run on Wine some day. Full stop. The only "complicated" software the vast majority of desktop users will ever "need" is games. Expensive propietary software will get cracked and pirated. Always. People will ignore software patents. Forever. Windows (as we know it) will die some day. Wine will live on. You'll see.
1. Choice is good. Pick the one which works best for you. Learn it. Can you learn? Learning new stuff is good. It makes you grow as a person.
1.1 See above.
1.2 See 1.
1.3 So change it to your liking. Geez.
2. I agree X sucks. But it's usable. And getting better. There will be alternatives in the future. The future will come.
2.1 See 1. And they never broke on me.
2.2 You should not use X in that 386 of yours. Get a Pentium II or better. Oh, and see 1.
2.3 See 2.2.
2.4 See 2.
2.4.1 It will in the future. The future will come. And see 1.3.
2.4.2 See 1.
2.4.3 See 1.3.
2.4.3.1 If it's being resolved, don't complain. Be patient. And help, if you can.
2.4.3.2 See 1.3.
2.5. See 2.4.1.
3. See 1.
3.1. See 1.
3.2. See 1.
3.3. See 1.
3.4. Just recompile it. Oh? No source code? That's why proprietary software is a bad idea. It's not Linux's fault.
4. Why? See 1.
5. Popularity is overrated.
5.1 See 0 and 1.
5.1.1. See 0.
5.2. Funny. Wine runs most of the stuff I throw at it. And it's getting better. See 0.
5.3. Buy Linux compatible hardware. It's usually better. Also, see 1 and 2.4.1.
5.3.1. See above.
5.3.2. See above.
5.4. DVD is enough for most people. Oh, and see 2.4.1.
5.5. An U.S. problem. Not Linux's fault. The World is not the U.S. And see 0.
6. No one forces you to use the very latest stuff. Use the one that works for you. And see 2.4.1.
7. All software have bugs. Also, see 2.4.1 and 2.4.3.1.
8. See 2.4.1. And 2.4.3.1.
8.1. How many typical desktop users need that? Or even know what that technobabble means? Also, see 2.4.1. and 2.4.3.1.
9. All that stress is not good. The diference is probably seconds. Seconds, people. Seconds. Seconds. Why such a hurry? And see 2.4.1.
9.1. See above.
9.2. See 2.4.3.1.
9.3. See 2.4.3.1.
10. The CLI will stay indefinitely. Full stop. And see 2.4.1.
11. See 2.4.3.1.
12. Windows is much worse. The best antivirus is you. And see 2.4.3.1.
13. See 3.4. And 6. And, sometimes, change is good.
13.1. If the source is available, fix it. If not, see 3.4. And 6.
13.2. See above.
13.3. See 6. And 7.
14. Wasn't this about common desktop users?
14.1. See above.
14.2. See 1.
14.3. See 2.4.3.1. And 8.1.
I can this hype about Ubuntu not understand! There are many Linux distributions to make everything better than Ubuntu. Especially in the multimedia field Ubuntu is very bad.
I think most reasons are the toil and trouble of a newbie setting up a linux desktop. You know, most problems for this guy are fixed with some googleing and buying a few good books, like any end-user of any operating system should do. Other issues might have a lot to do with licensing.
Like anybody else here, I'm the sysadmin of a couple of my computer illiterate friends.
For those people I always set up a linux box, put 6 BIG icons on the desktop, rename them for the task ( normally: Internet, playing music, watching pictures, writing stuff, download music ( it's legal to download here! ), msn and editing pictures. )
This is what they use, nothing more. they don't have the intention to use or learn anything anyway and in this way, they at least turn their computer on!
Took me a while to notice this and a while to write this, but here is my reply: http://log.logfish.net/node/58
I dont give a shit what other people do with their computers, I switched to Linux 10 years ago, and I just love it! everyday more!
I don't get it, I am absolutely not technically experienced, however, I run Ubuntu Linux 9.04 and everything is running smoothly and perfectly on my half-decade old machine! So what's all the fuzz?
The wise are not erudite, the erudite not wise!
The only complaint I got from reading all those reasons is that it's not Windows.