Slashdot Mirror
Desktop Linux Is Dead
digitaldc writes with this quote from PCWorld:
"It kills me to say this: The dream of Linux as a major desktop OS is now pretty much dead. Despite phenomenal security and stability — and amazing strides in usability, performance, and compatibility — Linux simply isn't catching on with desktop users. And if there ever was a chance for desktop Linux to succeed, that ship has long since sunk. ... Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the open-source community at large."
All I need is games.
I need nothing, absolutly nothing exception playable games.
WINE doesn't cut it, and I don't think that it ever will, I try it out regulary and it just sucks for the games I play.
Since 2004 I have been dual-booting between Ubuntu, where I do all serious and not so serious stuff, and Windows where I keep my FPS addiction alive (currently MW2)
Funny, I thought I heard this about the Mac several years ago. I have faith in Microsoft. They could alienate anyone.
BSD's not dead of course - look only to the Mach kernel in OS X for verification.
.... oh, that was easy. And it worked.
If you want to see how a desktop UNIX-based os should do it right, look at OS X. Say what you will about Apple - I don't care, only own a mac and an iPod (I have a Droid X for my phone) - but they did the desktop RIGHT. It's easy to use, fairly intuitive (passes the grandma test, for the most part), and is oh so easy to support.
I remember when I got my first macbook a few years back and I had a sprint wireless broadband card for it. I was thinking "you know, I should be able to make my mac a wifi base station and share my wireless". Preferences, sharing,
What is going on today on /.?
Linux Destop is Dead, Top 10 Reasons to Work for Micsoroft, Pirated Software Making Anti Teorist Drones Fail, MS Donating Software to Charity, Why We Should Use Dell and Forget Custom Desktops, Earth Shortage...
Did ... did it finally grow up? Sell out? Get brainwashed? Recieved ms-paid escort service? All of it in one hectic night?
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
... i dont get it.. why now? why at all?
Because Mr. Strohmeyer needed an article, and PCWorld needs their advertising revenue.
The real litigious bastards...
Every time Linux has been on its way to success on the desktop Microsoft has stepped in and made its life short. Why did Dell despite pretty decent figures refuse to sell their Linux desktops in the open? Why was it only avaliable in a very limited amount of countries? Why did a computer with Linux cost more than one without an OS or FreeDos, or Windows?
Linux was well enroute to gooble the whole netbook market up when suddenly Asus ditched it overnight after hard pressure from Microsoft. Resellers refused to take it in despite good sales figures.
This has nothing to do with Linux in itself. It could be the best OS in the world but it still dont have a chance until the monopoly is broken. The OEMs are held by the balls by Microsoft and nothing will change until that grip is lessened.
HTTP/1.1 400
If you want to see how a desktop UNIX-based os should do it right, look at OS X.
I came at it the other way around, since I inherited an older-model Mac laptop from my wife when she upgraded. I've been using Linux since the early SLS (later Slackware) distributions on my desktop and server systems. I like the way Apple has gone to some lengths to make issues like dealing with wireless networks pretty much bombproof, but I still prefer the configurability of my desktop Linux systems. The Mac UI isn't bad, but it makes me a bit cranky that there's no way to configure it to suit the user's way of working. Seems it's good to think outside the box, but only if you think the way Apple damn well tells you to.
Also, even after several years, it still bothers me that closing a window on a Mac doesn't terminate the application. I can understand the philosophical rationale (for what it's worth) behind this, but it seems unnecessary and wasteful.
KDE vs. Gnome: Tell me about it!
I wanted a drop dead simple distro for my wife and my mother to do their email and web browsing with no more virus headaches. I read up and found that Linux Mint was the friendliest experience out of the box.
I went to Linux Mint's website to get it and was offered this choice:
Linux Mint Gnome 32 bit edition
Linux Mint Gnome 64 bit edition
Linux Mint KDE 32 bit edition
Linux Mint KDE 64 bit edition
Linux Mint Xfce 32 bit edition
Linux Mint Xfce 64 bit edition
Linux Mint LDXE edition
Linux Mint Fluxbox edition
Linux Mint Debian edition
WTF. Now maybe I'm out of the loop and haven't been going to my local Linux club meetings, and I certainly don't know the secret handshake, but seeing this choice with absolutely no explanation of what the hell the difference is does not inspire me about a distro famous for being "simple for newcomers".
Perhaps there is ONE MAIN DEFAULT edition with some alternate editions available, but that isn't how it appears on their webpage.
I think I'll get them Macs.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Six months ago my brother, who is a very stalwart end-user-only, tried Ubuntu for the first time. He now recommends it for everything except for gaming.
But he is pretty smart -- probably not a fair test.
Two weeks ago my neighbor across the street came to me and said she had a problem with her computer. She explained the issue in very primitive terms which boiled down to a broad-spectrum viral infection of Windows. She said a friend of her son had recommended that she "Do something called 'wipe my hard drive' then install Ooo Boo Too on Windows." The conversation continued in this vein for a while. In short, she is neither the sharpest tack in the drawer nor a skilled computer user. She asked for my help with the install. I said, well, maybe I should stay here in case you need help, but you should try to do it all yourself. If you can figure it all out, then you should be OK with using it, but it is pretty different from Windows.
I helped out with a couple confidence things -- "Should I really wipe the whole hard drive?" "Yes.", "Do I really need a password?" "[brief pro/con explanation]" "OK, I'll use a password." -- but she did the rest on her own. Once it was up I showed her where the icons were and how to search for more software, where to put in her password for the local wi-fi she uses, how the system updater works -- but nothing else. I left feeling a little nauseous about the number of "How do I..." questions I would get over the ensuing days.
Two days later I stopped over to ask how it was going. "It's great -- works a lot better than Windows did." (which I ascribed to cruft and viruses having made her Windows install slow) I asked if she had any questions. "Nope, everything is working just fine."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's funny, but I actually like the differentiation between closing a window and an application. But I do a lot via the keyboard, not the mouse, so when I want to close a window I use Command-W and know that the application will still be in memory to use Command-O or Command-N rather than having to relaunch the app. If I want to quit then I use Command-Q. I was actually a bit annoyed when they changed "single window/document/view" type applications to exit when their window was closed (though I get the rational.)
I also launch everything from Spotlight rather than spelunking around the Finder. One of the funniest things to me is how people (not saying you) assume that Mac OS X is not for power users and is mouse centric. But if you enable "All Controls" in System Preferences->Keyboard Shortcuts, have Spotlight enabled and know the difference between Command-Tab and Command-`, you can do most driving from the keyboard. Add the Automater's Save As Service, the consistent Service interface, applescript and the ability to assign global, application and context sensitive keyboard shortcuts and for me Mac OS X is a power user's dream. All right out of the box. For instance, using the Application's Shortcuts I've bound Command-. to bring up the System Preferences and by creating a "Finder Application.app" in the automator I can use Spotlight to jump right to the finder rather than tabbing through 20 apps or mousing around in expose. Plus Shift-Command-G in virtually any file dialog and Finder and you can type in a path rather than click up and down folder hierarchies.
While I'm in fanboy mode, I'll mention what I love most is the consistency. All (non-MS) application's text edit areas support the basic emacs-like ^a, ^d ^e, and ^k functionality. I'm an old emacs/bash guy, so I'm happy, even if it makes no sense to young-uns. Also, once you know about property lists, you can figure out where prefs are for 99% of applications. And if you can find to the right docs, you can tweak away. It almost sucks that there is no uninstaller, but it rarely matters and if you care - once again the consistency tells you exactly where to look for any left over files. I think that the "application bundle" is a great way to deal with managing all the files related to a program.
Apologies for the fanboyism. I also came from years of Linux experience, which I loved. But for some reason Mac OS X just "clicked" for me.
If you don't have it, I highly recommend TinkerTool which is free "as in beer" to explore some level of system/UI tweaking. Also, Lingon
is a pretty decent open source tool for navigating all the system and user startup services provided by launchd. It's no longer under development, but it's an Apache licensed program and pretty useful so maybe someone will pick it up. I install Lingon via MacPorts (though the git based HomeBrew" is intriguing...)
OK, I'll go away now...
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I can tell you why the Mac interface drives you nuts. Because compared to Windows and Linux, it sucks. For the most part they are all the same, but Macs have idiosyncrasies that you have to overcome. It is things like using a green + to shrink a window. That is just wrong. Things like the red X sometimes closing the application, and other times only closing the UI to the application leaving the to continue running.
Things like the menu bar being pegged to the top of the primary screen. That made sense when we only had one screen, and resolutions were so low that windows always needed to stack if you had more than one open at a time. Today we have multiple screens, so the 'flick the mouse to the corner' argument no longer applies, and having to figure out what application the menu bar applies to is just annoying and breaks the flow of work.
The list goes on and on, but Apple doesn't seem to want to admit that many parts of their UI are badly designed in the first place, or have become out of date for use on modern hardware, so they just keep repeating the mantra that Apple has an intuitive UI. I can definitely say that the emperor has no clothes.
The Desktop OS is dead.
Apple will wind down OS X over the decade - the PC era is over.
For users, this was heralded by the advent of the iPad, which will usher in 10,000 copies. For data centers, this came with large-scale, production virtualization.
Your beloved PC? Now a "content creator's" workstation. Everything from word processing to simple photo-editing goes on line - or into an "app".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
In all fairness, try finding -anything- specific at ibm.com.
Ain't that the truth. Though, again in all fairness, it's hardly anything unique to IBM. Commercial web sites are often annoyingly short of detailed information about their products. They go for the flash, but you and I are too dumb to be given details.
Recently, I've been looking around at high-quality DSLR cameras. I've gotten tired of my old one whose manual focus is so complex that by the time I've got it to work, the cute critter I'm trying to photograph has moved on or flown off. If I use the automatic focus, most of the time it's the twigs in front of the critter or the grass in the background that's in focus, not the critter. So I want to know how the manual focus works. This in formation is incredibly difficult to find in the companies' sales info, even the so-called specs. They merely say that they have a manual focus setting, and then go into a flowery description of the marvels of their multi-point automagic focus system.
With one camera, I finally hunted down the details, and it turned out that the camera didn't have the claimed manual focus at all. It had a list of 7 "preset" focal lengths that you could choose from. I wasted a lot of hours hunting down the info that made me cross that one off my list. A lot of cameras' lenses have what looks like focus rings, but if I can find one in a store to test, I find that it's a dummy that doesn't turn; it's just a sort of grip and shock absorber, not a focus mechanism.
The same sort of approach is used with all sorts of products. You and I don't need the details; we just need to buy their product. Even if it turns out not to be what we were looking for, and won't work for our intended applications.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You are just used to the idiosyncrasies of different desktop environments to the point that you don't think about them any more.
This is what Apple fans like to tell themselves. Sorry, but it isn't true, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it so. My computer usage far predates both Windows and Mac.
It's a bit silly, for instance, to criticize Apple's UI for inconsistency in close/exit behavior when you click the red X window control, when this button is modal in all other major UIs, with no indication of which mode you are in (hint: it's usually close mode if there is one window open, and exit otherwise).
What are you talking about? One of us is confused about the definition of "Modal". What I can tell you is that the X button on both Linux and Windows is very consistent. It closes the window, and any of the windows children. The only applications I have run across on Windows that do not follow the consistent behavior are bittorrent clients and IM clients. (Inconsistent, but I understand why.) With MacOS, it is all over the board.
The green zoom button always causes grief to new users because they think it's ought to be a minimize/maximize button, which it isn't. This expectation is entirely a consequence of coming from UIs that treat minimize/maximize as a primary UI operation.
You sound ridiculous saying this. The reason that the green + button causes grief is because for as long as any of us have been alive, we have agreed that a + symbol means 'add'. I means you are making something more or bigger. Green means go. So, a green + means go bigger. In fact, if the green + button was minimize/maximize, it would still be wrong. A green plus should never shrink a window.
So, no, it isn't because I am used to other OSes. It is because I am used to being a human who is part of society beyond Mac computers.
The menu bar pegged to the primary screen is indeed an old and debatable quirk of Mac OSes, but it should be noted that your criticism doesn't really apply to the portable market, which might explain why Apple has so much success there.
The placement of the menu was debatable back when single monitors where the only setup. Today, it isn't debatable any more. It is now simply a poor design. So, Apple uses a system that is bad for use at a desk and is neutral for a portable instead of using a UI that would work well for both. Notice I did not say "desktop" because when used at a desk, a laptop will often have two monitors hooked to it. It is funny that you use this argument, yet you claim that the OS is designed to be productive. An OS who chooses to make multiple monitors a second class citizen in it's UI design cannot be claimed as one that is designed to be productive.
I agree that it is inaccurate to describe Apple's UI as intuitive---parts of it are astonishingly sophisticated. Intuitive suggests that it should be easy for new users, but that is the way of Clippy and Start buttons. Apple doesn't design to be intuitive--that's a leftover meme from 1985. Apple designs to be productive, which makes it annoying for people who already have burned in productivity habits from platforms where this is less of a design ethic.
You are the only one claiming this. The mantra of Apple has been that "It just works" (and when it doesn't, it is the users fault) and is "Intuitive". There is nothing inherently more productive about Apples UI. In fact, it is things like the lack of a maximize button, the fact that to increase window size, you can only do it from the lower right corner, and putting the menu for a program on a different screen that the application, that makes the MacOS UI LESS productive.
While Clippy was a failed attempt at a better help system, the Start button is useful, productive AND intuitive. MacOS also has a start button of it's own. It is just split between the 'Appli