Miguel de Icaza On Usability and Openness

doperative points out comments from Miguel de Icaza on the struggle for usability in many software products: "De Icaza uses OpenSUSE as his main desktop (with the GNOME interface, of course), says he likes Linux better than Windows, and says the Linux kernel is also 'superior' to the MacOS kernel. 'Having the source code for the system is fabulous. Being able to extend the system is fabulous,' he says. But he notes that proprietary systems have advantages — such as video and audio systems that rarely break. 'I spent so many years battling with Linux and something new is broken every time,' he says. 'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'"

Comments

More FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound and video is broken on open systems because of the RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft with their protected pathways, encryption, patented interconnects and tilt bits.

Re:More FUD

[MrHanky]

No, it's broken because there's an infinite number of tiny little parts that usually don't work properly together.

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

Well, that and the fact that Linux has no stable kernel ABI, partly to make it "agile" and partly to punish video card and other hardware vendors for not having the open source religion.

Re:More FUD

[jedidiah]

I find it odd that he would try to lump audio and video in this sort of rant. They are not comparable at all in terms of the sorts of issues involved with each.

Video on Linux is not broken at all. If anything, it is much better than it is on Windows or MacOS and Free Software from the Linux world is applied to the proprietary operating systems to help them deal with how they are "broken".

iPads are especially broken in this regard. They also don't play well with what Miguel runs on his desktop.

You gotta wonder what he uses as the "mother ship" for his iPads.

Re:More FUD

[e70838]

It is also broken on windows, which is the main reason of the success of VLC on windows.

I have less problem with my ubuntu system (with very few fiddling) than on windows 7 (with starter edition :-( )

Is it a troll ?

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

Nvidia seems to have no problems, you speak of things you know nothing about.

Re:More FUD

[AaronLS]

The way people throw the term "broken" around annoys me. "Poorly implemented/designed" would be more accurate. Broken implies it doesn't work at all, which is far from the truth.

Re:More FUD

[Galestar]

By "video" he may be referring to 3d accelerated games maybe? To play a Windows game on Linux can take hours of config time, to find out that it a) doesnt work at all or b) has 50% the performance as if you were running Windows.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and use Ubuntu as my primary OS, but I have to dual boot Windows in order to play games at anywhere close to decent performance.

Re:More FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm_analysis/

Vista's content protection requires that devices (hardware and software drivers) set so-called "tilt bits" if they detect anything unusual. For example if there are unusual voltage fluctuations, maybe some jitter on bus signals, a slightly funny return code from a function call, a device register that doesn't contain quite the value that was expected, or anything similar, a tilt bit gets set. Such occurrences aren't too uncommon in a typical computer... Previously this was no problem - the system was designed with a bit of resilience, and things will function as normal. In other words small variances in performance are a normal part of system functioning.

They cant document these 'tilt bits' (security through obscurity/patent/dmca) which is what causes the problems.

You cant create reliable open source drivers under this kind of shafting from MS/MPAA/RIAA.

How long until Intel's remote shutdown features in SandyBridge gets used to stop 'piracy'.

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

If you can get my M-Audio Solo working with ALSA and jackd, and my BlackMagic DeckLink working on Ubuntu, let me know.

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

Video on Linux is not broken at all.

At this point one might point out that if you can't watch Hulu or Netflix (we're talking about OpenSUSE here), cannot put in a credit card number to buy or rent a movie from Amazon Unbox or iTunes, and must install separate pieces of software in order to watch DVDs, this OS may not be "broken" but it might not really be meeting modern consumer expectations.

Of course you could argue they shouldn't be paying money for content, and that the DRM is illiberal or something, but you're still keeping the customer from doing what they want to do and what other platforms don't think twice about forbidding for what are essentially elitist moral reasons.

Re:More FUD

[kimvette]

By "video" he may be referring to 3d accelerated games maybe? To play a Windows game on Linux can take hours of config time, to find out that it a) doesnt work at all or b) has 50% the performance as if you were running Windows.

Oh hi, I see you are an ATI/AMD video card user trying to use the ATI/AMD drivers. Haven't you heard? Their drivers have been crap from the very beginning.

Want to be up and running playing games within an hour and a half of starting? Here is what you need:

(Prerequisites)
  * PC utilizing NVIDIA video chipset
  * Ubuntu or OpenSUSE install DVD (either one - if your interest is saving time these are the only two distros worth your time as an end user)
  * Internet connection

(Procedure)

  * Install your desired distro (it's stupid easy) - including kernel source packages
  * Install NVIDIA drivers (slightly less easy; you have to shut down X and run one command line to install the drivers
  * Download and install Crossover Games

Now, you can install many, many Windows games, including Rift

Re:More FUD

[PaladinAlpha]

But even that is just a result of people using a proprietary, Windows-specific API (DirectX) which then has to be completely reimplemented while working blind in Linux. Games that use OpenGL often have superior performance when ran in Linux, even when they have to go through WINE. And as for linux-native games, I don't think that "sudo apt-get install some-game" is really "hours of config time."

Re:More FUD

[clodney]

How does the existence of tilt bits in Windows affect the stability of drivers in Linux?

Re:More FUD

[CrazyDawg]

Broken does not imply that it doesn't work at all. Broken means that it doesn't function properly. It is not an absolute term.

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

I will be glad to try, I charge $150/hr with $300 minimum. Feel free to contact me about this.

Re:More FUD

[Galestar]

So what you're saying is ATI doesn't work (well enough) on Linux? You just proved Miguel's point;

We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.

One of those "needs" is the ability to use an ATI card (since a lot of people have them). Your reasoning that everyone should just use an NVIDIA card just doesn't fly. The OS needs better ATI drivers, stop making excuses.

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

Then it would no longer be open source, since you can't show anyone the source to those things.

Re:More FUD

[peragrin]

For $150 and 2 hours I can buy windows home edition and have it installed.

So why should I pay you $150/hr to make something work that I can do in the same time for less?

Re:More FUD

[Machtyn]

I wish that were the case, at least on Ubuntu 10.10. My recently purchased GIGABYTE GA-890FXA-UD5 (AMD processor) with nVidia 8800GT just will not load Ubuntu 10.10 with the proprietary drivers. Everything I've tried, from ripping out the open source drivers to preventing them from loading at boot has failed. Everytime it gets past the loading screen to display the login screen, my monitor goes black (then displays the "lost connection" dialog).

Oh, sure, in Fedora it seems to work fine, but it turns out I don't like Fedora's package manager and other things about it. And, okay, it's not necessarily a kernel thing, but an Ubuntu thing... but anyway - where was I going with this?

Re:More FUD

[AK Marc]

That's unrelated to the question of "does it work, and if so how." Cheaper and faster than your solution would be to go to a store than sells phones and get the cheapest $99 Android. That doesn't mean it's better. And the question wasn't "how do I make it work" but "how do I make it work on Unbuntu" Which you failed to address.

Re:More FUD

[Machtyn]

Another point of the parent's was that the card "has 50% the performance as if you were running Windows." Which I have unfortunately found to be the case. Even my nVidia 8800GT, which is 5 years old now(?), does not supply the full capabilities in Linux as it does in Windows. For instance, getting WoW up and running on Linux was easy, but my config would not allow me to get the same graphics settings as I got in Windows XP. What's the deal there? Getting Half-Life to run properly was a pain and the settings reset every time I stopped the game. Team Fortress 2 was only a small problem, but I didn't go tweaking the graphics settings. I was just happy to get it up and running.

System - eVGA nf610, Intel e6600 (3.0GHz dual core), 4GB RAM, nVidia 8800GT with proprietary drivers, Ubuntu 10.10 x64, with the latest version of Wine installed.

Re:More FUD

[CronoCloud]

To non-nerds, "broken" IS an absolute term.

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

There goes the lower TCO I guess.

I think you exemplify the fundamental open source attitude, namely that only people who know how to code deserve to have a working computer, and everyone else has to pay through the nose that the coders may deign to help them. The fantasy is world where the IT dweeb becomes the overpaid fat-cat and the right to compute is really a privilege delegated by a priesthood.

Re:More FUD

[AK Marc]

It is an absolute term. Someone doesn't say "my car is broken" when the intermittent wipers don't run at their preferred speed. Or if there's an unidentified rattle that doesn't affect performance. Or run around saying "don't use refrigerators, mine is broken" because they broke a shelf in their refrigerator.

When you ask the average person what "broken" means, it may not mean "doesn't work at all" since a broken shovel can still move some dirt, even if horribly impractical, but it means "damaged or incomplete to the point of unusability."

Re:More FUD

[Belial6]

Correct. An unstable ABI just means that some open source group that isn't the kernel developers just needs to make an abstraction layer between the kernel and the driver. In fact, this was common practice with wifi cards for a very long time. It's open source. If an unstable ABI is a problem. Make, or have someone make for you, a patch that fixes the problem.

Re:More FUD

[Nursie]

Can I suggest debian?

Similar enough to ubuntu and I find it's even more prone to working correctly.

Re:More FUD

[Anthony Mouse]

The OS needs better ATI drivers, stop making excuses.

There are three ways to get drivers for Linux:

1) The hardware manufacturer publishes all the information the community needs to make working drivers, and the community makes drivers.
2) The hardware manufacturer itself releases Linux drivers.
3) The community reverse engineers the hardware and makes drivers.

(1) is clearly the best option and anybody who isn't a lawyer or lawyer sympathizer can see that. (2) is a second best which is satisfactory as long as the manufacturer's drivers work. (3) generally doesn't lead to high quality drivers, or at least takes a very long time and consumes overly many resources.

There is nothing "Linux" can do to change this. The actions of hardware makers determine the quality of the drivers for their hardware. It's exactly the same situation on Windows: If a hardware manufacturer releases a crappy Windows driver, there really isn't anything Microsoft can do about it. The epic amount of older hardware that has no drivers for Vista/7 is clear evidence of that.

Re:More FUD

[UnknowingFool]

I think he's using the consumer definition which means it has to work out of the box. With Linux there is more flexibility and capability but that means more configuration and set up issues. Also for better or worse proprietary systems have relationships with content providers and their DRM.

Take for example playing a DVD. On Windows and OS X, you stick in any DVD and it plays. On Linux it might not play depending on the DRM. For legal reasons, the decrypting libraries (libdvdcss) is not installed by default. The user can get it quite easily and install it but a novice may not know why.

Re:More FUD

[AK Marc]

The content owners have asked (and the hardware providers agreed, at least partially because a number of the content owners are hardware makers - Sony) that the hardware not play some things in some ways without "approved" software. And there's an active campaign against "open" because doing things with "open" like putting custom "open" firmware onto a drive to remove region coding is legal but undesired. So if they malign "open" and call people who play region 2 disks in their region 1 drive "pirates" then they can associate them with criminals who fraudulently sell fake software as the real thing. And the RIAA and MPAA are very involved in that campaign against "open" and that campaign, even if not crafted to harm sound and video drivers on the desktop, does have that effect.

Re:More FUD

[Covalent]

Where are my mod points when I need them! I couldn't agree more and the evidence is in the outcomes: Linux has no problems with all kinds of monitors / printers / peripherals / etc. Those things don't have a MAFIAA "protecting" them. The things that do (video / audio) are a mess of copywrong and proprietary crapware.

Re:More FUD

[grumbel]

Nvidia seems to have no problems, you speak of things you know nothing about.

Nvidia drivers for older cards have been broken on almost every single Ubuntu upgrade, they always got fixed a few weeks down the line, but not exactly "no problems".

Re:More FUD

[Chris Burke]

* Install NVIDIA drivers (slightly less easy; you have to shut down X and run one command line to install the drivers

In recent versions of Ubuntu, I haven't even had to do that.

I can't remember the exact procedure, mostly because it's easy enough to figure out the specifics next time, but the gist was:

Ubuntu desktop -> System menu -> Administration -> Hardware -> Enable or Detect Proprietary Drivers -> NVIDIA driver pops up in menu -> Install (downloads the driver for you and installs it) -> X restarts -> Done.

Re:More FUD

[Chris Burke]

Running through Wine frequently means a loss of performance.

For WoW in particular, to get it to work stably and with everything looking correct you need to use the OpenGL render path, which Blizzard did not optimize as well as the DirectX path. People running WoW on a Mac have essentially the same problem.

For those few games which have native Linux versions, and where the OpenGL render path is a first-class citizen, Linux has been roughly equal to Windows (sometimes a little worse, sometimes a little better) for a long, long time.

Re:More FUD

[MysteriousPreacher]

Your argument is with capitalism - not some imagined cabal of geeks plotting against you. Open source is not guaranteed to cheap, and given your line of business I doubt you'd typically settle for bus fair and lunch.

  You're not looking for a coder; what you need is a serf with decent technical skills. Developers are not some kind of communal resource to be called on when people can't be arsed to pay someone to fix a problem they themselves can't solve. I can't speak for the entire open source community, but I think the general sentiment would be "Wipe drive, reinstall Windows, and fuck off".

Re:More FUD

[zeroshade]

I don't know why OpenSUSE can't watch Hulu considering it is just flash. But being unable to watch Netflix on Linux is the fault of only Netflix. Having to install separate pieces of software in order to watch DVDs is due to licensing and some distros just say screw it and include the DVD packages anyways. It seems the problems you speak of are not within the control of Linux to fix.

Re:More FUD

[Anthony Mouse]

At this point one might point out that if you can't watch Hulu or Netflix (we're talking about OpenSUSE here), cannot put in a credit card number to buy or rent a movie from Amazon Unbox or iTunes, and must install separate pieces of software in order to watch DVDs, this OS may not be "broken" but it might not really be meeting modern consumer expectations.

So there exist Linux distributions that don't include Flash player or libdvdread in the default install. Either install them or use something like this that includes them by default.

As for Netflix and other Windows-DRM-using things, you might as well complain that you can't watch over-the-air TV on YouTube. You can't do it because Hollywood bought some legislation that prevents honest people from doing reasonable things. The only way to fix the problem is to fix the law.

Of course you could argue they shouldn't be paying money for content, and that the DRM is illiberal or something, but you're still keeping the customer from doing what they want to do and what other platforms don't think twice about forbidding for what are essentially elitist moral reasons.

In actual fact it has nothing to do with "elitist moral reasons" and everything to do with the DMCA and software patents. There is no technical reason why there can't exist e.g. a GPL DVD player -- they exist already. But they aren't included in most default installs because of legal stupidity. So I say again, you want to fix the problem, fix the law.

But I also want to say that I agree with you. Linux needs to support these things natively and seamlessly. It's just that you need to direct your efforts toward a different set of people. It isn't that SUSE needs to hire a cadre of programmers to get Netflix working on Linux, it's that everybody who thinks this is important should cut a cheque to the EFF so they can do something about it.

Re:More FUD

[Chris Burke]

I think you exemplify the fundamental open source attitude, namely that only people who know how to code deserve to have a working computer, and everyone else has to pay through the nose that the coders may deign to help them.

Which is why Ubuntu is dedicated to making a simple Linux desktop that "just works" and requires no programming or even enthusiast system administration knowledge, and is still free in both senses of the word.

Go ahead and criticize how they're doing at attaining that goal, because it doesn't change that they are working for it and thus your characterization of "the fundamental open source attitude" is wrong.

But on the subject of reaching that goal, my ex-roomate, a complete computer neophyte, has been using Ubuntu for several years and hasn't had many problems that he wouldn't have had equally in Windows, and no problems requiring technical abilities aside from before when the driver for his wireless card was not included in the distro, and working around failing hardware. It's hardly perfect, but doing much, much better than I expected and lends (anecdotal) support to the idea that Windows only seems easier to use if it's what you learned first.

Re:More FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Negroes are not allowed to enter Racist Joe's diner. Therefore, negroes are diner-incompatible.

Re:More FUD

[tuppe666]

Open source is not a religion. It is a development model, and works, and with what your talking about the kernel works very very well, you see major changes in each new revision, released about every three months. Its not to punish anyone, but its been made quite clear that progress will not be help back by binary drivers. In fact it shows how successful Open source is that the binary drivers cannot keep up with changes. It was once true that I had to sacrifice fps/just works to get new technology by choosing a an open source driver, now I can get all three. Nvidia have gone from the goto guyes for working fast video to troublesome binary blob, and this is only a recent change. The I think you meant was "Successful development model making massive progress will not be impeded by single hardware manufacture who refuses to adopt new technology"

Re:More FUD

[msclrhd]

Which you could apply to reading ePub documents, Comic Book ZIP (cbz) files or PDFs. Stock Windows does not support any of those whereas Linux has evince on Gnome and okular on KDE to name a few of the readers that are available on different distributions of Linux.

Also, flash support does not come with the stock Windows install. Or office tools to read/write documents and spreadsheets; you need to pay more for those.

Then there are the standard text editing (notepad) and drawing (paint) applications that have limited functionality compared to the stock Linux offerings -- Kate/gedit/emacs/vi/vim/gvim for text; gimp for raster graphics; inkscape for vector graphics (which Windows does not offer by default) and blender for 3D graphics (which Windows does not offer by default).

So it all depends on what you are looking for to work out of the box.

Re:More FUD

[tuppe666]

I had a quick look, not that I care these posts should be reserved for forums/irc or paid support to Ubuntu of h4rr4r(sic). The reality is after a 5 second google I get results of this highly specialised audio kit working on UBUNTU three years ago. I've looked through the instructions, and they seem trivial then. There is whole communities geared around serious audio on who would love to help you. I suspect you haven't really tried, although whining on Slashdot, that your exotic hardware won't work(sic) is not the best method of getting going.

Re:More FUD

[tuppe666]

I believe your suffering from a new order of things. Proprietary drivers on Desktop Linux were the best solution to overall general bad 3D support on Linux. Now we are seeing Manufacture supported open source drivers receiving all the love, and albeit need more fps...and more love are simply better than Nvidia can do. That said Nvidia drivers are pretty good, and I am surprised they are not working.

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

So go do that. You obviously cannot, or you would not have asked if it worked or not.

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

Nope, not much of a coder really either. I am a sysadmin which is what is sounded like he needed. My labor is not free, and he wanted help, meaning we could strike a deal. We call that capitalism.

TCO is not really impacted as the $300 he spends is surely cheaper than antivirus and all the other BS that goes with a typical windows desktop.

Re:More FUD

[x0n]

This is FUD in and in itself. Tilt bits are signals orthogonal to the normal functioning of video and sound drivers. If you don't implement platform-level DRM, you don't need to care about them. Linux drivers have had stability issues long before the concept of "trusted computing" came out of some ass-hat's tiny brain.

-Oisin

Re:More FUD

[x0n]

I will be glad to try, I charge $150/hr with $300 minimum. Feel free to contact me about this.

Ah, this reminds me of a old adage: "Linux is only free if your time is worthless."

Re:More FUD

[tuppe666]

LOL he has pointed out his solution, and Nvidia had a good reputation on the Linux desktop...and clearly he is having success with it, btw the article refers to the iPad not really the best example of 3D windows gaming. Ati has a well deserved bad reputation on Linux, because it was awful...Intel drivers were even worse, but people expectations were pretty low anyway. Ati's open source drivers are improving no end with real documentation and some manufacture involvement, and the proprietary drivers have been improving as well, blogs dedicated to how poor they are have vanished off the internet. Although years ago I was running an x800 with the open source drivers and would have no problem recommending them now. That said Miguel from his post is simply out of touch and he makes some pretty strange unsupported comments, pointing out apple products for there good 3D drivers is simply a lie. Video drivers have improved immeasurably from the dark ages of only a few years ago, and more improvement needs to done, but from one who is has lived and used Linux on many graphics cards. The dark days have gone, and the future looks awful bright.

Re:More FUD

[Qzukk]

So Microsoft followed the law.

There's a law that says your OS has to crash the soundcard?

Re:More FUD

[symbolset]

Completely a coincidence: The founder and CEO of Netflix, Reed Hastings, also sits on the Microsoft board of directors.

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

That reminds me of an old adage "Fuck off, asshole". I don't work for free, and I doubt you do either.

Re:More FUD

[Qzukk]

Yeah, well, I installed VLC last weekend in order to watch DVDs on my Windows 7 computer at home because after watching a couple, Windows Media Player suddenly announced that there had been some kind of problem with my monitor (funny, I can see the popup message, monitor looks fine to me) and would not play the next disc. I probably could have rebooted and moved on with my life (that seems to be the One True Fix after all these years, though when my audio stopped working I was able to restart the "audio service" (and I thought that I had finally ditched the audio server bullshit when I switched away from Linux)).

VLC worked fine, without even rebooting. It'd be nice if it was organized a little better (a sea of fiddly options all alike, along with a half-dozen deinterlacer options with no explanation of what "X" means or if I should choose it if I want the headaches to stop), but I suspect that VLC will never tell me it can't play a DVD I own because of some phantom "monitor problem".

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

Your argument is with capitalism - not some imagined cabal of geeks plotting against you.

My argument is that I want a product that has one predictable price, and once paid it works like any other tool. The open source business model is about selling services to make products that only work well enough to keep you buying more services -- Shuttleworth can engage in all the altruism he pleases but eventually someone needs to pay their bills, and for devs services on Linux are the only option. I don't want a serf, but if you decide a priori that shrinkwrapped software is forbidden, it becomes impossible to retail a "just works" solution; you're stuck paying the $100/hour guy who rolls his eyes at you all the time. I mean, this is your pitch for consumer Linux: it's free but your costs for support of X that Windows and OSX have will either cost you $unknown or $MAX_INT, if the feature is in forbidden by "stupid laws." Why would anyone take that deal? If you cannot yourself code, the continuing free-as-in-freedom benefits of Linux are meaningless.

I can't speak for the entire open source community, but I think the general sentiment would be "Wipe drive, reinstall Windows, and fuck off".

Everybody here assumes I'm using Windows, which is interesting. I've never used a Windows PC outside of a Kinkos, let alone owned one...

Re:More FUD

[jedidiah]

Intel GPUs are pretty crappy in general. It doesn't matter how good your drivers are. The card is likely to not even be supported.

This annoys me with my older Minis to no end.

Re:More FUD

[jedidiah]

...I wouldn't even expect "Windows games" to work very well.

Something actually built for Linux would be a different matter. It would be nice to hear about that sort of stuff.

Helps to not be using an antique apparently (as I think I learned today).

Re:More FUD

[jedidiah]

> I think he's using the consumer definition which means it has to work out of the box.

Which for most stuff works better in Linux.

The best you can come up with a corner case that didn't even work "out of the box" on Windows for many years since it required 3rd party software.

Previous versions of Windows could only play DVDs "out of the box" because Dell or HP did the gruntwork.

Re:More FUD

[IANAAC]

TCO is not really impacted as the $300 he spends is surely cheaper than antivirus and all the other BS that goes with a typical windows desktop.

TCO is most certainly impacted if all you can do is "try" at $150.00 and fail in the end. At that price I would want a "Yes, i know how to fix that."

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

Good for you, then I suggest you charge that or find someone that does. For guarantees like that my prices start much higher. Since they might require me to write driver and you think $150, which is half my minimum charge, is too much you could never afford it.

TCO is total cost of ownership, over the life of a typical windows computer more than $300, my minimum charge, will be spent on antivirus and the like.

Re:More FUD

[andydread]

I have this exact setup running Maverick. nVidia 8800GT (XFX alphadog) same exact motherboard with Phenom 9850 X4 CPU. Viewsonic 22inch 1600x1050 LCD Monitor. I have no problems what so ever. I do have the lastest BIOS installed. Try updating your BIOS.

Re:More FUD

[h4rr4r]

No such product exists. All software costs are non-fixed or high when you want new dev done. Such is the nature of all custom work in darn near any field.

The open source model is largely built around doing it yourself or failing that paying someone to do it for you. Like every other model. A big part of that model is paying for new things, like say a driver you want. Clearly you do not want to pay for that so good luck. The only enough to make you buy more model is the closed source one. Selling you licenses and CALs and external connectors that add no value and cost the software vendor nothing to provide.

The free as in speech benefits are numerous, and include the very ability to hire anyone you want to do the work.

Re:More FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of an old adage. You are

Re:More FUD

[Kjella]

Maybe the problem is that open source developers aren't very good capitalists? Imagine 1000 people, they each have the choice to pay 1000$ to have it custom developed once or 10$ each to buy a proprietary tool. What will they do? Buy the proprietary tool, every one of them. It doesn't matter that they'll pay 10,000$ total instead of 1000$ because they're not coordinated. Everybody feels the choice is to pay 100 times more for "nothing". If they're lucky one of those 1000 people is an open source fan and will write the tool to scratch his own itch, but nobody will cash out.

Because of the nature of open source you're not likely to make the 2nd or 3rd or 4th customer pay, all the cost is loaded onto the first customer and the rest get a free ride. Over time, that just gets worse as you need more and more development just to catch up to the proprietary software. Nobody in their right mind picks a custom developed solution where they bear 100% of the cost when there's an off-the-shelf solution available - particularly one where the cost is spread across thousands or millions of users as the mass market software is.

When you suggest it you just come across as a complete idiot or plain crazy that think this is worth hundreds or thousands of dollars to people to get fixed. Customers don't care what your paycheck is, they care what they pay. That open source isn't able to distribute the burden doesn't make your prices more reasonable, it just makes it a market failure. It's you that must find a competitive offering, you can't just dictate that you deserve to bill 150$/hour any more than record execs can dictate what album prices will be to pay for their yacht.

Re:More FUD

[ChunderDownunder]

I hope you don't greet all your potential customers with such a potty-mouth. Just saying... :)

Re:More FUD

[UnknowingFool]

For consumers playing their DVDs is not a corner case. Remember what an average Linux geek cares about is not what an average consumer cares about. Consumers could care less about Ogg support and how it is better than MP3s. They care that they can play MP3s

If you want more examples, how about that until the last few years, ATI support was severely lacking. Linux has support for more things but it's not always easy to get things working. It's easier than it used to be, but for your average consumer who doesn't know and doesnt care about the difference between X Windows and xfs, they can't be bothered. The mere appearance of difficulty keeps them away.

Re:More FUD

[UnknowingFool]

While you cite specific examples, if you review your own examples how many of them would an average consumer care about? For Flash and PDF, getting the necessary software is a click away. I can tell for certain that Linux gave me no good reason why it refused to play DVDs without having to cat /var/log/messages. How many consumers would do that?

Re:More FUD

[shutdown -p now]

Linux still has plenty of problems with WiFi - depending on what chipset your one uses, it may be stable like a rock, or you may have to resort to ndiswrapper, or it may not work at all.

In the last two years, I had to purchase a WiFi adapter on two separate occasions. Both times I took smartphone in with the store, went through items available on the shelf, and googled each one to see how well it is supported on Linux. More than two thirds required ndiswrapper, and even then there were numerous forum threads about problems with specific configurations (ad-hoc, WPA2 etc).

How does your "MAFIAA" theory explain that?

Re:More FUD

[Machtyn]

Flippin' heck! That was it. Updated BIOS and all was good. The only reason I hadn't tried that before is because I didn't have windows at the time so I didn't have the online updater. And I didn't want to mess with a boot up disk. Besides, I just got the board brand new, it should have had the latest version... right? (facepalm to forehead)

Thanks!

Re:More FUD

[andydread]

Awesome glad it worked. Rule of thumb they never ship motherboards with the latest BIOS.

Re:More FUD

[Knuckles]

Tell AMD

Re:More FUD

[Knuckles]

* Install NVIDIA drivers (slightly less easy; you have to shut down X and run one command line to install the drivers

Not in Ubuntu, no.

Re:More FUD

[Knuckles]

That's the movie provider's fault largely, and in part unbelievably stupid: I need libdvdcss only to watch movies for which I have paid. The movie industry's attempt to prevent me from watching movies I have bought is what's broken.

Re:More FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has lots of problems with scanners, webcams, microphones, drawing tablets, odd Wi-fi chipsets etc. Printers work really well because Apple did a ton of work on CUPS...

Re:More FUD

[micheas]

Windows and Mac OSX have no more guarantee about max price to be spent than Linux does.

You can get one predictable price for windows or Linux, but the price is fairly high, typically about $500 per core per year no matter what the OS. There are variances, and that cost generally does not include software licenses.

Even without the ability to code there are multiple business cases to use opensource software. A) Vendor lock-in. Don't like Redhat's support, call Oracle or one of the centos supporters. B) Business continuity risk. If your linux vendor goes under, you can still get support for your platform, although probably at an increased price, as the previous price point proved unsustainable.

Most of your arguments seem more true of "enterprise" software than open source software. I would argue that this is the big reason that Microsoft was able to push into the server room, despite the higher quality software from IBM, HP, DEC, Sun and others.

Setting up software that is in Debian' s repositories tends to be a trivial app store like experience.

While I'm sure you can find examples to support your theories, your theories don't seem to be highly correlated with what I have seen..

Re:More FUD

[Compaqt]

Aha!

So that explains it. I always wondered why you would go with an tech (Silverlight) who's goal was to be MS's Flash, when Flash was already on every computer in existence.

Re:More FUD

[Compaqt]

Does it do that?

For MP3s, at least, Ubuntu is set up so that it prompts you to download drivers when you attempt to play them in RhythmBox. Don't know about DVDs.

Re:More FUD

[UnknowingFool]

Using Kaffeine on Fedora, I tried playing a DVD by clicking on the "Play DVD" icon. The screen flashed different colors but the DVD did not play. It also gave no error or warning. At first I cleaned the DVD thinking it may have been scratched. I tried several different DVDs and got the same result. I even looked up the Kaffeine player on the fedora site. Nowhere does it mention on the site what could be wrong. Out of curiosity, "cat /var/log/messages | grep DVD". There I got messages about to the effect of "DVD Encrypted" and something about "decrypting libraries not found". That's when I looked on the internet and figured out that libdvdcss was not installed and why. It only took like ten minutes to fix but it would drive a novice user away from Linux.

Re:More FUD

[germansausage]

Where does this persistent myth that all windows users must pay $ridiculous_amount for anti-virus software come from? Avast, Avira, AVG, Clam-win and bunch more are all free for home users. Same for Spybot, and Hijack This, Comodo and Zone Alarm firewall.

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

All software costs are non-fixed or high when you want new dev done

That's sortof the central trick though... if your business model works on a pay-per-user license, you can finance the development of one new package with the income from thousands of customers. The alternative, when you give away the software, is that one user or syndicate ends up in the catbird seat of financing all the development. If you'll notice, all of the successful, best-of-class OSS applications and systems that you can get now are in fact paid for by huge corporations, or are based on code and man-hours from moribund closed-source projects, and most of the ongoing labor comes from support and tweak enhancements.

The narrative, wherein a single coder has an itch to scratch, assembles hundreds of unpaid individuals around the world and delivers the best package you can get, is a myth. Most OSS projects you can name nowadays, and just about all consumer-facing ones, owe their refinement to large corporate sugar-daddies, present or historical, that dump(ed) man-hours into refining the projects to their needs, while simultaneously using those projects' very free-ness to deny markets to their competitors. The only exception I can think of at this time is ASF, but even they are deeply dependent on financial sponsorship from Google, Microsoft and Facebook. It suits these corps to have a free web server out there -- it means they can compete on providing plugins and services to sell their own attempts to separate users from their money and increasingly, their data.

Re:More FUD

[iluvcapra]

Windows and Mac OSX have no more guarantee about max price to be spent than Linux does.

To be honest, I think you're rationalizing and this assertion doesn't reflect reality, not as much as it used to, particularly if Windows and OSX definitively have the feature X and Linux does not.

Setting up software that is in Debian' s repositories tends to be a trivial app store like experience.

Yeah I know. Just tell me where I can put in the credentials for my Google Checkout account so the downloaders can pay my licensing fee.

Re:More FUD

[arikol]

...and video is about more than just 3d acceleration.

TV tuner cards, for instance, can be hours, days, or even weeks of fun. In fact, they can be a gift that keeps on giving.
I spent hours researching which one that was available in my local stores should work under Linux. Then I started installing. Around 30 hours of work later I got it up and running. In the meantime I had learned how to enumerate devices, compile drivers, and load kernel modules. All of which is knowledge which I am not interested in. Of course this required getting both audio and video to work. Getting one to work at a time was much easier than getting both up at the same time.
Well, a few weeks later the kernel was updated. Rinse, repeat.
Except this time the same settings could not be used, so another 5 hours or so were used to figure that out. I quickly learned to hold off on kernel updates until I had time to mess around with that bloody driver.

I now keep that TV tuner card in my spare parts box because I can't be bothered with that crap.

For comparison, that same card worked under windows XP without any messing about (of course through a proprietary driver). A TV tuner on my Mac laptop works by plugging it into a USB port. Plug in, watch TV. The Mac is more expensive to purchase, but involves almost no time on maintenance or figuring out setup issues. WinXP requires a bit more maintenance. Linux requires at least one nerd in the home.

I still run two Linux computers at home (and one Mac laptop) so my experience isn't all bad. In fact, I find problems like these on Linux LESS frustrating than the regular maintenance required by WinXP, but most people don't. This one issue is enough to drive hoards away.

Re:More FUD

[oliverthered]

Yep... n u just wait till the first to patent comes in...

All that software that relies on obscurity.... well you don't want someone to reverse engineer your stuff and patent the algorithm you use then sue you.

I suppose copy protection algorithms being available would be one bonus.... but it depends how viral the changes to patents are.

Re:More FUD

[oliverthered]

how about... lets say... umm.... you find a few other people who want the same problem fixed and all chip in a bit...2
150 people and that's only 1 dollar an hour... 1500 people and it's 10c... a few companies chipping in as well... and I think it would be cheaper than all of them buying windows now wouldn't it...

your total is a very selfish one.

Re:More FUD

[Grishnakh]

They're definitely working towards that goal, but IMO they could do a better job (then again, I don't see any other distros doing a better job). There's a lot of things about Linux that still don't work that great, even after 5+ years of reaching a state where things work pretty well.

For instance, the Nvidia driver is a huge problem. I use Kubuntu 10.10, and every time the kernel is updated, it breaks my Nvidia driver, because it simply isn't well-integrated. I end up having to log into the console (because graphics no longer work at all), apt-get purge some packages, and then re-install them, so that the dpkg scripts re-download the Nvidia driver and compile the bit that needs to be compiled for the kernel. That's not something you can expect a non-technical user to do. Of course, the Nouveau driver works much better, but I thought Ubuntu was supposed to be a more pragmatic and less idealistic distro: Nouveau simply does not work if you want/need 3D graphics! Using nouveau means not being able to use Google Earth, Neverball, or Extreme Tux Racer. Of course, you could use Intel integrated graphics, but those 1) require you to buy a laptop or other low-end system, and 2) have abysmal performance compared to even the lowest-end Nvidia card (mine's a lowly GT 220).

There's other things that don't work so well either. Recently, I wanted to create a DVD (the kind you put in a DVD player) of a video I had in MPEG4 format. Boy, was that an ordeal to do while keeping subtitles. I eventually ended up using ManDVD, but only after first using ManDVD to create an 8GB MPEG2 file (because ManDVD does that when you select "DVD5" for some reason), then using some command-line utility to break it in half (it was a long movie), and using ManDVD again to create two DVDs. Overall, the process is NOT easy. It'd be nice if K3B, for instance, had built-in DVD authoring features, and you could just grab any video file (MKV, AVI, MPEG4, DivX, etc.) and have it automatically convert it, and warn you if it's too big and offer to split it across 2 discs, etc. But it's not there, and instead there's a bunch of disparate programs (ManDVD, QDVDAuthor, dvdauthor, etc.), all half-baked, which work in some situations but not others.

IMO, instead of spending so many resources on constantly fiddling with the main desktop GUI (Gnome, now Unity), they (both Ubuntu and other distros) should work on getting a lot of the commonly-used programs into a better state, so that non-advanced users, or even more-advanced users who want to do something that they don't often do, such as creating a DVD and don't want to mess with a lot of command-line utilities, can do so easily with included software. Desktop environments have really been "good enough" for 5-10 years now; it's the other things that cause users problems, such as Wi-Fi, 3D video drivers, various commonly-used software (I've heard others complain about video editing), etc. Making it easier to post Twitter messages from their desktop is not going to win converts when they run into problems every time their kernel update breaks their 3D video driver and some moron tells them to simply not use 3D.

Re:More FUD

[Grishnakh]

Yep, this is exactly what Nvidia has done in fact. Their driver is a binary blob, but there's an abstraction layer between that and the kernel which is compiled separately for every kernel version, while the binary blob stays the same. This also allows them to get around the problem of their driver not being open-source; the part which is kernel-specific is open-source, while the other part is not.

Re:More FUD

[Grishnakh]

Your numbers aren't very good, nor your scenario.

For one thing, the proprietary tool is rarely a single-time purchase. Most of the time, especially with business-oriented stuff, it's a regular recurring expense. For instance, large businesses using MS software don't pay a single-time fee, they pay a yearly fee based on how many computers they have.

Secondly, proprietary tools frequently employ lock-in strategies to prevent customers from moving to other tools, such as by using proprietary file formats. With open-source tools, it's usually quite simple to change tools if you need to.

Thirdly, proprietary tools are often cumbersome to use, requiring dongles, license servers and other annoying schemes to make sure you're following their licenses and not allowing more users than seats you've paid for. Open-source tools require none of this burdensome crap, saving your IT department a lot of time and resources.

Finally, your idea of "1000 people" is too simplistic. Some customers are bigger than others. Large companies can have thousands or even tens of thousands of employees, each with a computer. Their software costs can be astronomical, so for a small handful of these large companies, it can indeed be much cheaper for them to contribute money or programmer time to an open-source project, and allow tons of individuals to freeload off their contribution, than to pay the proprietary fees. For instance, suppose a company the size of IBM pays $500,000/year for some software license. That'll easily pay for 3-5 full-time software engineers, more if they use some of their people in India. Or better, they can make much smaller contributions to existing open-source projects to make the changes and customizations they need; this can allow someone who's already developed something much like what they need to stay at home and work full-time on his "baby", plus he'll be much more efficient since he's already an expert at the codebase. If several companies (who need the same software) can coordinate their efforts, they can easily afford to create an open-source project that will put the proprietary company out of business.

Nobody in their right mind picks a custom developed solution where they bear 100% of the cost when there's an off-the-shelf solution available - particularly one where the cost is spread across thousands or millions of users as the mass market software is.

Sure they do. If they're a giant company, and there's an existing open-source project that does a lot of what they need, it's cheap for them to pay an expert $150/hour to make the changes they need, so that they wind up with something that fits their needs 100%, rather than some "off-the-shelf" overpriced proprietary crap that's filled with bugs and only fits their needs 80% and the vendor may or may not make the other changes they'd like to optimize it for their business. On top of that, the open-source project, once the changes are made, will be free for continued use, whereas the proprietary solution will usually require continual yearly fees. The company will only have to pay extra money for the open-source solution when they want more changes made.

Obviously, if you're comparing open-source projects vs. proprietary boxed software for individual, home-based consumers, the open-source isn't going to be able to compete economically, because 1) home users are dirt cheap, 2) they aren't coordinated as you point out, and a few people will pay and the other 99.9% will freeload. This is precisely why you don't see a lot of open-source 3D games that compete with the titles from large companies, but you do see, for instance, very successful open-source CMS systems. Last I heard, whitehouse.gov has selected Drupal for their CMS.

In the end, open-source, as an expense, makes much more sense for companies (esp. larger ones), which have large numbers of computers and users.

Re:More FUD

[AaronLS]

Exactly. When I see people misusing the term broken, it sounds like they are trying to make something sound worse than it is. I think it has become apart of geek culture because they feel they have to state things over the top for anyone to take them seriously, but too me it just seems childish.

Re:More FUD

[AK Marc]

Recap:
Bricked: "In a state where the main functions are inoperable and the average user would not be able to restore it to original condition."
Broken: "previously working item which is no longer practical for the intended purpose."

Where do people misuse these? "No, your phone isn't bricked by the recent update, because if you reboot holding '2' and '7' and reprogram the boot loader from the shell, then it'll work just fine, I've done that 10 times already." That's bricked. The average user will never know how to do that and if they did know how to do it, they wouldn't anyway because they'd be uncomfortable with it. "Linux is broken because it has never done XXXX." Wrong again. That's DOA or unfit for purpose. Broken requires something that worked and no longer does. All the people who claim some implementation is "broken" because it never worked are using the incorrect word. And that's not even mentioning people using "broken" to indicate "works 100%, but not with the efficiency I'd prefer."

But there is a hard push to purposefully misuse words for their emotional effect to push some agenda. I get tired of that. It's bad enough all the ignorant people who don't care to use words accurately, but add to that those people purposefully using the wrong words and I want to commit linguistic homicide (or move to France where the language is prescriptive and enforced by law, but I don't know French).

Uh Huh

[MightyMartian]

'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'"

Which is why de Icaza sold out to Microsoft, y'know, to help meet some needs...

Re:Uh Huh

[hedwards]

Lay off, some people happen to like working with the special needs population. And I for one think they should be commended.

Re:Uh Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the title reads like "Adolf Hitler On Tolerance and Equal Opportunities".

Re:Uh Huh

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

...because Oracle is so much better, right?

Re:Uh Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Lay off, some people happen to like working with the special needs population. And I for one think they should be commended.

involuntary surgical sterilization == best thing you could ever do for "special needs" people

Bigger Question

[Anonymous Coward]

'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'

I for one am fine with that. To me the bigger question is: can Linux systems cater to the average end-user who has no intention of ever understanding how the system works, without losing everything I love about Linux? You just can't do that without dumbing-down the system. Not "dumbing-down" like smart people vs. stupid people, but "dumbing-down" like technically inclined versus not technically inclined.

It's really ok if Linux never becomes the next Windows, if you never see it on 90%+ of desktops. The 90% of users who are not hobbyists and are not tinkerers and do not find the technology fascinating already have several companies that are happy to meet their needs.

Re:Bigger Question

[iluvcapra]

To me the bigger question is: can Linux systems cater to the average end-user who has no intention of ever understanding how the system works, without losing everything I love about Linux?

Ubuntu? I think you can definitely build a distribution that's user friendly, but the problems most people have are support for certain kinds of hardware and availability of certain applications. In both cases, proprietary OS vendors basically pay off hardware vendors or make partnership deals to make sure hardware isn't a problem -- this isn't really an option for a Linux distribution. On the application side, you have that whole installed base chicken-and-egg problem, and for the new mobile OSs people sell now, open or not, the major companies championing them, be they HP, RIM, Apple or Google all do a ton of legwork to induce app developers to their platform, by running app stores with co-branded distribution and advertising.

Linux distros do a lot to help free software projects get distributed, but I've never seen a Linux distro lift a finger to try to help a developer make money off a sale. Linux business models generally live in denial of the possibility of selling software for money so they don't tend to attract that kind of developer, for better and worse.

Re:Bigger Question

[MrNemesis]

You just can't do that without dumbing-down the system.

You know Miguel works for the GNOME project, right?!

Joking aside, it's perfectly possible thanks to open source's inherently modular structure. Someone makes an idiot-proof GUI, distro X bundles it as the default and only option. Someone makes a uberhacker GUI, distro Y bundles it as the default and only option. Distro Z prides itself on being able to switch from newbie to expert and back again in less than three seconds.

IMHO, GNOME tries too hard to lower itself to the lowest common denominator jack of all trades - look at the recent decision to remove the "minimise" button from the taskbar because it's apparently not useful and not optimised for touchscreens. But neither is the rest of GNOME, or all the apps it's going to run. Sorry, if it's touchscreen users you're after then I'm sure GTK is perfectly capable of having a new UI constructed from the same frameworks.

Similarly, KDE often gets flak for having too many confusing options. It's personally the UI I prefer (after I've spent forever configuring it) in *nix but it's not without its own share of problems either, and much like GNOME they seem to have some project heads who are entirely convinced that theirs is the One True Way of doing it. KDE remains more usable to me because of its configuration flexibility though, but it can be baffling if you don't already know your way around, and they make fewer stupid choices than GNOME.

The problem with both KDE and GNOME's approaches (and windows as well for that matter) is people who are convinced that one tool can be everything to everybody (this goes for almost every DE I've seen in the PC world), and that the inherent differences between, say, a 5" touchscreen and a 60" TV warrant completely different approaches. So to answer your question: yes, Linux can (and does) cater to computer novices (I'm not aware of anyone needing to use the CLI in ubuntu for example, but I could be wrong) and still leave all the juicy stuff available to geeks like me. I'm no fan of apple, but when they released a phone they were smart enough to realise it would need a brand new interface, not a badly screwed fork of their desktop OS as MS did with WinCE. This supposedly revolutionary idea has netted them billions because it's the only approach that makes sense. Tightly coupled with the need to have differentiated UI's for different purposes is the attitude some people take is that theirs is the only way to do something, anyone not doing it their way must be stupid. This is tragically false - everyone has a different way of working, and what works for one person doesn't work for another. For instance, I can't live without focus-follows-mouse, despite the fact it took a lot of effort to get working in windows 7, but almost everyone else hates it. Some people just don't want the options to be there because they don't think they're important, and this stops people from finding tricks and tweaks that may help them work better; some bury the config panels with boxes and the user often doesn't have a clue what options to start with.

Off my high horse now. All YMMV, IANAL, IMHO, etc. I just think all these "there is one best way" arguments are detrimental to the computer experience as a whole.

Re:Bigger Question

[Desler]

It's really ok if Linux never becomes the next Windows, if you never see it on 90%+ of desktops. The 90% of users who are not hobbyists and are not tinkerers and do not find the technology fascinating already have several companies that are happy to meet their needs.

This would be okay if not for the fact that there are so many evangelists and zealots (some going so far as putting Linux on someone else's computer without permission) didn't push it as if it was the be-all-end-all and that EVERYONE should be using it despite the fact the needs and wants of many of those users aren't met be Linux. It would be great if it was nothing but a hobbyists and tinkerer OS but that isn't how MANY of the FOSS faithful try to portray it.

Re:Bigger Question

[Karlt1]

I for one am fine with that. To me the bigger question is: can Linux systems cater to the average end-user who has no intention of ever understanding how the system works, without losing everything I love about Linux? You just can't do that without dumbing-down the system. Not "dumbing-down" like smart people vs. stupid people, but "dumbing-down" like technically inclined versus not technically inclined.

You're right, no one could ever be successful in selling a Unix certified operating system to the non technically inclined.......

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars

Re:Bigger Question

[anyGould]

To me the bigger question is: can Linux systems cater to the average end-user who has no intention of ever understanding how the system works, without losing everything I love about Linux? You just can't do that without dumbing-down the system.

I'd say it's perfectly possible. I used to be a tinkerer-type, but I just don't have the time anymore. I don't use Linux anymore because I had to choose between "tinkering with my computer" and "doing what I wanted to do in the first place". So I will demote myself from "technically inclined" to "average user who wants his machine to work"

And here's all I need - I need to install Ubuntu, and it just works. Video cards, sound cards, all the peripherals. I wish I had time to tinker with config files and settings - I really do - but I don't. It needs to Just Work Out Of The Box. All the power user settings aren't scaring people away, but the requirement that you need to know how all the internals work so I can check my email. To use the classical car analogy, I don't mind being able to pop the hood and tinker with my car - I just also need the ability to get in, turn the ignition, and drive somewhere hassle-free.

Re:Bigger Question

[Tetsujin]

'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'

I for one am fine with that. To me the bigger question is: can Linux systems cater to the average end-user who has no intention of ever understanding how the system works, without losing everything I love about Linux? You just can't do that without dumbing-down the system. Not "dumbing-down" like smart people vs. stupid people, but "dumbing-down" like technically inclined versus not technically inclined.

It's really ok if Linux never becomes the next Windows, if you never see it on 90%+ of desktops. The 90% of users who are not hobbyists and are not tinkerers and do not find the technology fascinating already have several companies that are happy to meet their needs.

Yeah, that's generally how I feel.

I don't think it's necessarily even a question of "dumbing down" - it's just a different set of needs and expectations. Personally I believe making a good system for hobbyists is a lot tougher: building interfaces for the "average user" is how most people think about UI design, I think, and if you're making a more complex UI, you're also creating more ways to trip yourself up in the design process... "hobbyists" needs are less clearly defined at this point, and possibly (since, presumably, the hobbyists will always be doing something new) will stay that way.

I think even the "hackers" of the world appreciate a system with a certain amount of polish, consistency, coherency - it's just the direction the overall design takes that differs between "hackers" and hobbyists, people who enjoy the machines for their own sake enough to want to spend time learning to interact with the in more complex ways - and those who have "simpler" needs.

(and from a more other, differenter post)

it's perfectly possible thanks to open source's inherently modular structure. Someone makes an idiot-proof GUI, distro X bundles it as the default and only option. Someone makes a uberhacker GUI, distro Y bundles it as the default and only option. Distro Z prides itself on being able to switch from newbie to expert and back again in less than three seconds.

It is possible, but in the real world this represents a division of resources. The number of people working on open source, and the amount of work they can contribute, are actually limited quantities. The ability for competing solutions to coexist and thrive is also limited. We've got Gnome and KDE right now - if someone started another desktop environment project for Linux, how many people would jump on board developing it? How many people would use it? How many people would tailor their applications to suit it? I think the situation with Gnome and KDE would have to be really bad for a competing solution to gain any significant amount of ground.

Also, as I said before, I think even hobbyists like to have a certain consistency and coherency between applications. You don't get that when one chunk of your programs are part of Gnome, one chunk are part of another major project, and one chunk is relatively undisciplined GTK stuff... But that's hard to achieve without clear direction and leadership - and that kind of leadership is hard to establish without a central authority (like Microsoft is for Windows, or Apple is for Mac) guiding the decisions. So the prospect of a coherent, well-designed environment, designed particularly for hobbyists and tinkerers seems unlikely to materialize...

Re:Bigger Question

[Draek]

Honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with the GUI anymore, not even our grandmas (mine certainly doesn't). Even GNOME and KDE are pretty damn good for most users these days, and for us part of the geekier crowds we've still got projects like Openbox and Awesome marching ahead.

The problems, rather, lie in areas such as solid OOTB support for hardware both popular and obscure, and various kinds of software and codecs with problematic licenses. Meaning, even grandma can easily play a Theora movie on the default Ubuntu install, but it requires a certain amount of computer savvy to play one encoded in h.264/AAC with hardware acceleration.

The difficulty I think the GP was talking about, lies in all the compromises we'd have to make as a community to attract all the corporations required to provide such support, and to fulfill the arcane legalese in their licensing frameworks. You just can't do that without sacrificing some of the freedoms we take for granted today, which is why like the GP I'm not sure we should.

Re:Bigger Question

[Draek]

Even the most hardcore OSX user would readily admit it follows MacOS' design decisions rather than UNIX', and the reason why that doesn't sit well with Linux users ought to be obvious. So no, your example actually favors the GP's argument than otherwise.

Re:Bigger Question

[jenningsthecat]

You just can't do that without dumbing-down the system.

Sure you can. GUI tools can be written to allow tweaking without directly editing config files. I use such tools under Gnome, I like them, and I wish there were more of them and that they were better than they are. But the people who like tinkering needn't use such tools at all. (I'm perfectly capable of editing config files and writing scripts to tweak my computing experience - I just don't really want to).

The 90% of users who are not hobbyists and are not tinkerers and do not find the technology fascinating already have several companies that are happy to meet their needs.

Yes, but there are still compelling reasons for that "90% of users" to adopt FOSS, such as lower operating costs, better community support, and a higher degree of autonomy. And there are still compelling reasons for the FOSS community to accommodate them, such as a broader user base to support development of software that otherwise might not garner enough users to achieve critical mass.

The availability of tools to make Linux friendlier and more accessible to the average computer user, need not compromise geek appeal and nerd cred.

Re:Bigger Question

[Karlt1]

Even the most hardcore OSX user would readily admit it follows MacOS' design decisions rather than UNIX', and the reason why that doesn't sit well with Linux users ought to be obvious. So no, your example actually favors the GP's argument than otherwise.

By definition, if an operating system is certified as complying with the Single Unix Specification, it has followed the Unix design.

MacOS is Unix, Linux distributions are only "Unix-like", unless they receive certification.

Re:Bigger Question

[AK Marc]

In both cases, proprietary OS vendors basically pay off hardware vendors or make partnership deals to make sure hardware isn't a problem -- this isn't really an option for a Linux distribution.

Um, no. It's the other way around. The hardware vendors still pay more to MS than MS pays to them. And Dell supports MSOS, not MS (for the OEM licenses sold by Dell). All it would take is Dell recognizing that Linux is cheaper (software costs, MS kickbacks, support costs, and sales) than MSOS. They've tried it, and it wasn't. You could argue that it's because they didn't push it sufficiently, but you can't argue they haven't even tried. And after trying, they moved away from it. Perhaps they didn't try hard enough. Perhaps it's because Linux isn't ready for the desktop. I don't care, I'm just pointing out that it's been tried and it didn't work, and it's not because of them being paid off by MS.

Re:Bigger Question

[Belial6]

No, it doesn't. All it shows is that some people will claim that anything that doesn't meet their particular version of 'What UNIX should be', it doesn't count. Linux isn't Unix. it is a Unix like system. The same could be said for OSX. The same could also be said for Android.

Re:Bigger Question

[grumbel]

can Linux systems cater to the average end-user who has no intention of ever understanding how the system works, without losing everything I love about Linux?

Yes, because those are different qualities. The average user simply wants stuff to work by default and the average tinkerer won't have a problem when stuff actually works. There are of course a few things that are hard to get right, hardware auto-detection for example is great when it works, but can lead to unpredictability and can be harder to fix then just manually loading a few kernel modules and getting the right set of configurability into an app is also tricky, but those are not really unsolvable problems, but simply hard ones.

The biggest issue is simply that getting software end user ready is a lot of work, work that most Open Source developers don't seem to be willing to spend, as they are happy when their software works and don't care much to also make it easy to use. This is especially true as a lot of "ease to use" comes from consistency and not many Open Source developers are willing to switch their software around to confirm to somebody else style guide.

Re:Bigger Question

[zeroshade]

The average user will not be installing their own OS. The Average user will have a friend/family member/tech support install their OS or buy a computer with it already installed. Therefore the requirement of knowing how to configure the OS if you're installing it makes perfect sense.

Re:Bigger Question

[Draek]

By definition, if an operating system is certified as complying with the Single Unix Specification, it has followed the Unix design.

Wrong. By definition, if an operating system is certifying with the Single Unix Specification, it is allowed to use the UNIX trademark in their advertising, nothing more than that. The fact that the specification was made decades after UNIX itself should make that obvious enough.

UNIX isn't a set of libraries you have to implement, it's not a bunch of binaries you have to emulate, it's a particular design philosophy and one OSX does not follow outside the very, very small part of the OS that's tailored specifically to pass the UNIX certification and little else.

Re:Bigger Question

[Karlt1]

UNIX isn't a set of libraries you have to implement, it's not a bunch of binaries you have to emulate, it's a particular design philosophy and one OSX does not follow outside the very, very small part of the OS that's tailored specifically to pass the UNIX certification and little else.

Joe_Random_Slashdot_Poster (916851) does not get to define what is and is not Unix -- the Open Group does.

Re:Bigger Question

[Draek]

No, they get to determine who has the legal right to use the UNIX trademark, nothing else. Trademarks are legal names, not concepts, not design philosophies, do not try to conflate them just because you want to make your OS of choice look better.

Re:Bigger Question

[Karlt1]

No, they get to determine who has the legal right to use the UNIX trademark, nothing else. Trademarks are legal names, not concepts, not design philosophies, do not try to conflate them just because you want to make your OS of choice look better.

So do you really think that Apple just paid the Open Group to use the Unix trademark without going through a certification process?

Re:Bigger Question

[Draek]

No, I think that the certification process covers so little that a modern OS can ignore UNIX design philosophy almost completely and still pass it. Which should be obvious if you've ever looked at the actual specifications.

Re:Bigger Question

[Compaqt]

Somebody mod this up for making the statement blindingly obvious to anyone other than GNOME/Ubuntu that different devices call for different interfaces.

And NOT for removing stuff from the desktop because it's problematic on a touchscreen. Or a netbook. Or a phone.

HTML 5

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML 5 is going to help Linux quite a bit in the video department.

I use Linux as my default desktop. I will only use Windows to crank out a resume/CV because the free office suites still don't hold a candle to MS Office. Other than Office, I shun Windows.

Re:HTML 5

[causality]

HTML 5 is going to help Linux quite a bit in the video department.

I use Linux as my default desktop. I will only use Windows to crank out a resume/CV because the free office suites still don't hold a candle to MS Office. Other than Office, I shun Windows.

MS Office runs well under Wine. In fact, in my experience, it crashes more often in Windows (occasionally) than it does in Wine (almost never).

That's completely counter-intuitive of course. One would reasonably expect a Microsoft program to run better on a Microsoft OS than anywhere else. Yet at least with MS Office that has not been my experience.

Anyway if this is the only reason why you are dual-booting into Windows then you shouldn't really need to keep Windows around at all.

Re:HTML 5

[jedidiah]

...yeah, msoffice for just a resume.

There were consumer word processors that predated msword that were quite adequate for that sort of thing.

Never mind 2011. If you were some sort of advanced corporate user that had to play nice with the rest of their Borg collective (company), then your remarks would make a bit more sense. WP style overkill is simply not needed in many cases.

Re:HTML 5

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>MS Office runs well under Wine.

WINE must have improved a lot since 2009, because when I tried it, Netscape Accelerator Software refused to operate. Microsoft Explorer 8 also was unstable.

I guess I need to give the new 2011 version a try.
What I'd really like is a Windows Clone OS to boycott MS completely.

Re:HTML 5

[h4rr4r]

Netscape Accelerator Software probably still won't work. You might want to upgrade to a real internet connection, or at least report bugs about it.

If you want a clone windows why would you want to boycott MS?
Windows is braindead in many ways, like not replacing files that are in use for one.

Re:HTML 5

[mhh91]

MS Office for a resume? Last time I checked, LibreOffice/OpenOffice.Org can produce valid .doc files. But personally, I wrote my own resume in LaTeX, it looks a lot better than anything you can do with a "productivity suite".

Re:HTML 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Try ReactOS for this, although it is still in beta.

Re:HTML 5

[Anonymous Coward]

I will only use Windows to crank out a resume/CV because the free office suites still don't hold a candle to MS Office.

That is absurd reasoning. If you just need to "crank out a resume/CV" then you don't need something that "holds a candle to MS Office." That's like saying you drive an 18 wheeler to the grocery store because a Toyota Corolla doesn't provide a high-enough place to mount your CB radio antenna.

MS Office is for highly-specialized niches. 99% of people would never miss it. Ten years ago you could get software that ran on Linux, that was just as good at writing resumes, as MS Word is today. I understand if you have some gripes about non-Microsoft word processors but to claim they're not adequate -- no wait -- to claim they're not already perfectly adapted for such trivial jobs like that, goes beyond ignorance into looking almost like dishonesty.

Re:HTML 5

[morgauxo]

I think this was a joke?

Re:HTML 5

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>Netscape Accelerator Software probably still won't work.

Why not? WINE should be able to run virtually any windows software, right?

>>>You might want to upgrade to a real internet connection

And if Dialup is the only connection the various Motel 6s or Super 8s provide? What is your suggestion then for my stays? Obviously I can't upgrade their property.

Dialup is also the only connection provided at work (since the intranet is filtered to block radio stations, facebook, etc).

Re:HTML 5

[Nursie]

I've been watching the ReactOS project since the first announcements on here, probably almost ten years.

Is it even in beta yet?

I like the idea, always have, but AFAICT it's never really even been ready for the hobbyist, let alone the mainstream.

Re:HTML 5

[GCsoftware]

Where do you live, 1998?

Re:HTML 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad as I am to say this.....

Good luck submitting it to agencies. Every one of them I deal with resumes/CV's MUST be in MS WORD and nothing else. And no, Open/Libre Office won't do. I tried it and they reject it. End of story.
Yeah I know it is a PITA.
This applies even for Linux/FOSS Jobs...... eh? You can't be serious. Well that was my reaction. It matters not one iota. It is the employment agencies who insist on this.

Rant over. Now back to recviewing the 50+ CV's I have on my desk....

Re:HTML 5

[Belial6]

Your work blocks streaming radio and facebook, but supplies you with an analog phone line that you can keep tied up 100% of the time with dialing in to streaming radio and facebook? That is just dumb. I'm not saying that YOU are, but whoever makes the decisions on things like phone and internet is phenomenally stupid.

Re:HTML 5

[Belial6]

Oh, and just to show that I do understand stupidity in business, the client I work for considers it too much of a security violation to let me plug my laptop into their network with a cable, but not to let me dial in with VPN. So, when I am working on site, I have to tether my laptop to my phone to get an external internet connection that then connects back into the network via VPN. Somehow they feel that sending the bits across the public internet is more secure than keeping them on the cable at their site.

Re:HTML 5

[Belial6]

The classic example is that on occasion a document written in an alternative WP would not render correctly in the employers copy of Word. It has been a decade since I have needed to send out a resume, but as I understand it, the days of glossy watermarked paper and fancy fonts to stand out are dead. I've seen posts that specifically as for the resume in plain text. At the very least you should be able to send a PDF which you can be completely sure will render correctly.

Are employers that require the resume to be in specifically in MS's .doc format really that common anymore?

Re:HTML 5

[HAKdragon]

Microsoft Explorer? Really? It's Internet Explorer (not to be confused with plain Explorer, the default shell/file management tool in Windows.)

I hate to sound like a troll, but I've seen this a few times here on /., and It's starting to bug me.

Re:HTML 5

[zeroshade]

Every place I had wanted to submit a resume accepted PDFs, LaTeX can produce PDF files, thus you're fine =)

Re:HTML 5

[h4rr4r]

That is the goal of wine, not the current state.

I would suggest you get a data plan via cellular wireless.

Re:HTML 5

[Knuckles]

Run Codeweavers commercial Wine version if you want guarantees and little hassle. See, e.g. http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/search/?name=microsoft+office

Re:HTML 5

[Knuckles]

Why not? WINE should be able to run virtually any windows software, right?

Not at all, where did you get the idea? Wine runs software if it happens to implement all APIs the software needs. The Windows API is huge and Wine does not implement all of it, by far. It rightly concentrates on progress in the areas that are used by most software. There are application databases if you want to know details about supported software, at http://www.winehq.org/ and http://www.codeweavers.com/ (commercial Wine variant)

So is this the year?

[quangdog]

Looks like according to de Icaza 2011 still won't be the year of the Linux Desktop.

Re:So is this the year?

[MightyMartian]

Maybe there will never be a year of the Linux Desktop... There'll just be the Year of the Linux Smartphone... The Linux Embedded Device... The Linux tablet...

Re:So is this the year?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'm pretty fed up with OSS attitude toward usability. Apparently you just don't get it.

There needs to be a way to use the software on my machine that doesn't require me to open a MAN page and edit a config file. There's a simple reason for this; people do not have TIME to do these things. The utopian world of thousands of sweaty, Cheetos-encrusted Metallica T-Shirt-wearing geeks the world over writing code that will break the Microsoft monopoly is permanently doomed to failure because you all think that design is making a Mac OSX Metacity theme.

User Interface design has nothing to do with making things "pretty"-- it has to do with making things usable. This is something where nearly all F/OSS fails. Miserably. Making software that does work cleverly is good. Making it intuitive and powerful is excellent. That's not dumbing it down; you'll find that making a user interface that works well, and designing software to do things right, quickly, is significantly harder than writing good, clean code. Shifting the blame of not being able to design an interface well to users being "stupid" is shameful-- don't blame your inadequacies on anyone but yourself.

There will never be a year of the Linux desktop because geeks will never get that.

Re:So is this the year?

[CronoCloud]

Why did you post this AC, IMHO this is +5 insightful!

Re:So is this the year?

[Microlith]

There needs to be a way to use the software on my machine that doesn't require me to open a MAN page and edit a config file.

Fine. Find someone and pay them to implement it.

There's a simple reason for this; people do not have TIME to do these things.

They also don't have time to implement your hand-holding.

The utopian world of thousands of sweaty, Cheetos-encrusted Metallica T-Shirt-wearing geeks the world over writing code that will break the Microsoft monopoly is permanently doomed to failure because you all think that design is making a Mac OSX Metacity theme.

Asshole demands and attitudes like this are totally deserving of being ignored. And the vast majority of people working on stuff like this aren't being paid to fix the problem all the whiny "but why aren't you making it easier!" people complain about.

User Interface design has nothing to do with making things "pretty"-- it has to do with making things usable. This is something where nearly all F/OSS fails.

It is usable. But not for people whose interest in understanding the technology they use is basically zero. And the people doing the development have no interest in making it work for them. This is not THEIR problem, however.

Making software that does work cleverly is good. Making it intuitive and powerful is excellent. That's not dumbing it down; you'll find that making a user interface that works well, and designing software to do things right, quickly, is significantly harder than writing good, clean code.

Maybe that's why they say fuck it to writing silly GUIs for things that don't need it, and instead focus on the problem at hand?

Shifting the blame of not being able to design an interface well to users being "stupid" is shameful-- don't blame your inadequacies on anyone but yourself.

Maybe you've given them zero reason to care? Have you ever thought that they just might have absolutely dick in terms of obligations to you, or the others like you that insist on having everything done for them?

Re:So is this the year?

[Belial6]

The Linux user interface issues have be solved for a very long time. At this point Linux is in the same boat as Windows an OSX. They have a very usable UI that they are trying to tweak to make better. Geeks got it, and have already addressed your concerns. If you are still opening MAN pages, you are in the same boat as people claiming that electric cars are badly designed because it is too hard to put gas in them.

Re:So is this the year?

[Microlith]

No it's not. It's a whiny person demanding other people's time and effort be focused on their personal problem with open source. Perhaps if he actually cared, he would lead the charge himself. Paying people is a good way to focus them on your problems.

Maybe if it wasn't more worthwhile to focus on areas where Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, people might care about it.

And maybe, five minutes later, I can post again. Stupid fucking post timer.

Re:So is this the year?

[Anonymous Coward]

year^h^h^h^hdecade of the trying to catch up with Apple....

Re:So is this the year?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, part of the problem.

Re:So is this the year?

[Archwyrm]

There needs to be a way to use the software on my machine that doesn't require me to open a MAN page and edit a config file. There's a simple reason for this; people do not have TIME to do these things.

So, your configuration GUI supports full text search of its options and help system? I suppose you can also search the system's entire configuration easily to find the thing that you want to change in the first place? Yes, time is where this argument breaks down, because unless you know exactly where to go in the configuration GUI, you are going to spend a lot of time flailing around in it. If you do know exactly where to go, in either case you aren't going to be looking at a man page/help system, are you?

Also every time I have resorted to the Windows help system to find out how to do something, I have wanted to chew my own leg off. The best help system for Windows is made by Google..

Re:So is this the year?

[Yunzil]

It's not "his personal problem" with open source. It's A LOT of people's problem with open source. Plus, anytime someone actually dares to say some interface is, shall we say, less than optimal, someone like you comes out of the woodwork to say "don't you dare tell me what to spend my time on! If you want it fixed, why don't you lead the effort to fix it yourself!"

Therein lies the problem. You want desperately for Linux to succeed, but you don't want to actually spend the time and effort working on the things that ordinary users care about.

Re:So is this the year?

[Microlith]

It's not "his personal problem" with open source. It's A LOT of people's problem with open source. Plus, anytime someone actually dares to say some interface is, shall we say, less than optimal, someone like you comes out of the woodwork to say "don't you dare tell me what to spend my time on! If you want it fixed, why don't you lead the effort to fix it yourself!"

Yes! Because it isn't their problem. It's your problem. And if you want it solved, you need to put your money where your mouth is and give people an incentive.

Therein lies the problem. You want desperately for Linux to succeed, but you don't want to actually spend the time and effort working on the things that ordinary users care about.

And yet Linux is already wildly successful. The only place it isn't is on the end-user desktop, which is dominated by Microsoft and the huge pile of software that depends on Microsoft-only technologies present only in Windows.

Re:So is this the year?

[the_womble]

There needs to be a way to use the software on my machine that doesn't require me to open a MAN page and edit a config file.

If you mean that the OSS software that requires config files to be edited needs to be easier to use, I disagree. It is mostly server software or parts of the system you should not change unless you know what you are doing. The last config files I edited on my Linux desktop were Apache, PostgreSQL and php.ini, If you are not comfortable editing a config file you should not be messing about with any of this stuff anyway.

If you are under the impression that the average user needs to edit config files to get things done, you are just plain wrong.
  I just installed PCLinuxOS E17 light. This is not a geek distro like Arch, but it is definitely something on which you expect to find rough edges (it uses a desktop that is still in beta, and a light variant means that a lot of stuff is omitted, meaning more set up to do afterwards. Total problems to date:

1) I had to change an out of date sources list. This is the only config file I had to change, and I did not edit it, just downloaded the new one and overwrote the old.
2) The printer set-up was missing from the control centre. I had start up the GUI software installer, synaptic , Eelect two printer related items (following instructions from the website) and click "apply".
3) I cannot get E17 to lock with xscreensaver rather than its own screenlocker. It is a beta.

MY previous Liinux install was Mandriva KDE for my father. I did an entirely GUI install, which took ten minutes. Added some software (again, purely GUI), and set up some users (again, in a GUI). No config files. That was about six months ago and I have not had any requests for help from him since, which is a lot better than when he used Windows.

You do need sometimes to edit config files when things go wrong. That is probably easier than editing the Windows registry when things go wrong. The average user cannot do either.

Hasn't used RealTek

[Hatta]

Closed source audio can break too. My last motherboard had onboard RealTek audio. Worked perfectly in Linux. Under XP, it crackled endlessly. Ended up buying a discrete sound card.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[MightyMartian]

I had an el-cheapo HP notebook that had absolutely horrible video playback under Windows, just terrible. Put Ubuntu on it, and other than having to download the WiFi drivers (ethernet worked fine), it ran waaaay faster... Could watch DVDs, hidef, you name, but under Vista it was just a horrible dog.

Of course, being an el-cheapo HP notebook, it fried itself.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[AntEater]

...Worked perfectly in Linux. Under XP, it crackled endlessly. Ended up buying a discrete sound card.

I think you ended up fixing the wrong problem.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[trollertron3000]

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Galestar]

In order to get the microphone working on my Ubuntu Lucid, I had to recompile ALSA from source, and go through about 30 steps to get it installed. This was fine for me, or probably anyone else here as we are pretty technical, but how can we expect normal users to be able to do this?

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[MobyDisk]

Realtek drivers are notorious for this. I had this same issue too until I found juuuust the right driver version that worked. Windows 7 resolved the issue too.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[hedwards]

I had issues with Ubuntu not playing well with my bluetooth keyboard. I could use it with grub, but the log in screen wouldn't detect it. So, I had to log in with my wired keyboard. I suspect that there's a way of making the change permanent, but I don't have that problem with OpenSUSE or any other OS I've used.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Hatta]

Yeah I know. But I wanted to play some games that weren't supported in Wine. The discrete sound card gives me less noise too, so it was a worthwhile purchase.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[hitmark]

Not sure why it worked in grub, but i suspect the reason why it did not work on login (if it was graphical) is the age old problem of X going its own ways when it comes to hardware.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[aliquis]

Personally I just installed Open Sound System on anything it could be installed on.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[FloydTheDroid]

Linux has audio?

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Nursie]

I had a similar thing with a few versions of Ubuntu about two years or so back. Had to compile ALSA from source to get it to recognise the headphone jack on my laptop. And recompile every time I updated.

After a couple of cycles I switched back to debian (which I first used in 1995!) and all has been well ever since.

Well, mostly. As much as any computer ever is. Right now my hackintosh is having boot problems and Win 7 is infected with god knows what so debian Linux is currently getting the 'just works' award from me.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Eggplant62]

They seek out someone much more knowledgeable than they are and they pay that someone to take care of the problem, just like they do when they encounter problems with Windows or other software, or they do the research and learn how to do it for themselves. You'll note that most software manufacturers don't support their own software, they farm all that out to a network of 3rd-party vendors to take care of those needs. You have a problem with the creation of economic opportunities for software support specialists?

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the problem?
Ubuntu already comes with ALSA, so if it wasn't working it's a configuration or packaging problem of ALSA.
A normal user wouldn't be expected to do this, as it's a bug, not standard practice.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Zebedeu]

Of course, being an HP notebook, it fried itself.

FTFY :-)

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Shompol]

True. I had a Dell laptop where mic did not work properly under XP, but when I installed Ubuntu it still did not work. Do not get sidetracked, Dell is the real enemy here!

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[shish]

In order to get my scanner working on Windows 7, I had to... wait, no, I never did get it working; and with the source unavailable I can't even fix it myself :( How can we expect normal users to deal with that?

Thankfully I normally run ubuntu, and it runs fine there (plugged in and worked immediately, didn't even need to spend hours online hunting for drivers)

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Hopefully, newer versions of Ubuntu already have that version of ALSA drivers
2) Ubuntu maintains backported versions of ALSA (the package is linux-backports-modules-alsa)
3) As a last resort, there is this: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-audio-dev/+archive/ppa

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst that might be true, I've noticed the average of cracking sound cards on linux is MUCH higher than windows.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[jwhitener]

Not if he was trying to get sound to work to play a game.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Prune]

XP (and previous Windows) is well known for having a crappy audio architecture, problems with latencies and really poor quality resampling by the volume control (!). There are threads about this on various A/V forums. MS had to redo the audio subsystems completely in Vista/7.

Re:Hasn't used RealTek

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to get the microphone working on my Ubuntu Lucid, I had to recompile ALSA from source, and go through about 30 steps to get it installed. This was fine for me, or probably anyone else here as we are pretty technical, but how can we expect normal users to be able to do this?

Normal users would do the same thing that they do if they use Windows and some peripheral don't work. Buy a new one, or buy a new computer (the old one was "getting slow" (=virus) anyhow). Alternatively, they ask, or even pay (but then they wouldn't be normal users, would they), somebody they know to fix the problem (and chances are slim that it is even possible to fix peripherals that don't work in Windows, at least in Linux it is usually doable). (If it was a built in microphone and it didn't work, what odd, anorectic distro do you use? Change to a more popular (and more bloated) distro! One with a more bloated kernel will solve your problem.)

Let the childishness begin..

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, we know, you don't like anything related to M$, MicroShaft, or Micro$oft, and de Icaza is a total sellout. Having choice is great, as long as you choose (insert technology here), amirite?

Re:Let the childishness begin..

[jedidiah]

This guy is gushing over a closed proprietary product that isn't even supported on the desktop he's alleged to use.

How does that work exactly?

Re:Let the childishness begin..

[tomhudson]

This guy is gushing over a closed proprietary product that isn't even supported on the desktop he's alleged to use.

How does that work exactly?

It's because Novell is in the process of being bought, and he's hoping to get Canonical to hire him to replace Matt Asay, who left in December (didn't even last the whole year). So what better way than to rant about linux user interfaces - Shuttleworth's current hobby-horse.

Re:Let the childishness begin..

[Tetsujin]

Yeah, we know, you don't like anything related to M$, MicroShaft, or Micro$oft, and de Icaza is a total sellout. Having choice is great, as long as you choose (insert technology here), amirite?

Here's a thought: maybe wait until someone actually posts something along those lines before you start bitching about it?

'Cause I seriously haven't seen any of that so far...

Windows is popular because it works.

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

I use both Linux and Windows at home and the office. The reason is simple - for back end stuff where I need to write custom stuff, hack data about and get it to do stuff then Linux or occassionally *BSD is king. For front end usage where I want a clean slick and above all consistent interface I'll often use Windows. Partly because I need to interoperate with other people, but mainly because it offers a better and easier working environment. Linux on the desktop is good if you are doing teechnical stuff, like writing an encoding system for digital amateur radio (my current pet project). For using the computer more as a commodity tool for email/word processing/video watching etc Windows still is better presented and more importantly doesnt break grotesquely with every new update that appears like Ubuntu does (and yes I'm looking at 9.10) Until Linux, or more strictly I suppose GNOME/KDE etc get over this then I suspect that further adoption of linux on the desktop will stall.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[0123456]

Windows 'works' largely because it comes pre-installed. Try taking any random PC, wiping the disk and installing Windows on it from an official Microsoft install CD and you'll find it at least as hard to get working as Linux.

Though personally the last few times I've installed Linux I just stuck the CD in the drive, selected a few install options and half an hour later I had a working system sitting at the logon prompt. Finding, downloading and installing all the correct updated drivers for a fresh Windows install would probably take longer than that.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[robmv]

Windows alone does not works, a new laptop or desktop with Windows and every driver needed and applications installed just works. Do not compare a tested hardware and software configuration with using Linux in any crappy hardware you could have. I am a ThinkPad fan and even when I received my free upgrade to Windows 7 for my small Windows partition (Fedora is my distribution of choice) I needed to use for a clean install the extra DVD with the Lenovo Updater, to download a lot of drivers and applications to make Windows usable. that kind of support is possible, the real problem is that there aren't many Linux hardware sellers and they are very small

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[TheLink]

Due to work requirements, I installed Windows 7 64 bit on my corporate laptop from scratch (it came with Vista Home 32 bit or something unsuitable). Wasn't any harder than installing Ubuntu despite teh fact that Dell did/does not officially support Windows 7 64 bit on that laptop model.

As for download time, both require lots of updates to be downloaded.

Given the amount of crapware bundled with most laptops, wiping and reinstalling Windows from scratch might actually be a good idea. Just most people can't do it (no licenses or time or knowledge or will).

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

That describes how I have installed every Windows PC I've ever used, from the days of 3.0 onwards.

I'm not talking about installing, that's relatively simple although Windows is still easier to get installed than Linux, if only because of better driver support. I'm talking about wanton breakage like when you upgrade a package for a security issue and find it borks all the other stuff it talks to in a majorly problematical way - eg Pulseaudio, or when someone decides to implement a better power saving scheme and Ubuntu parks the drive heads every 2 seconds and wears the load ramp out...

However the article is about useability, and I'll maintain that Windows is still more usable than Linux on the desktop (not in teh datahall) and a big reason for that is the stability of the UI and codebase compared to a six month moving target like Fedora or Ubuntu.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

For using the computer more as a commodity tool for email/word processing/video watching etc Windows still is better presented and more importantly doesnt break grotesquely with every new update that appears like Ubuntu does (and yes I'm looking at 9.10) Until Linux, or more strictly I suppose GNOME/KDE etc get over this then I suspect that further adoption of linux on the desktop will stall.

That's something that a lot of people seem to miss.

If you need to get at internals, Linux is the choice. If you want a workhorse back-end system, Linux is the choice. If you want a desktop with great cutting-edge features, Linux is the way to go - KDE betas are best for that ;). On the other hand -- if you want a desktop system that stays out of your way, Just Works, and requires little maintenance beyond letting an auto updater do its thing... Windows or OSX are your only real options.

When I use my computer to get a task done, my time is valuable - and I increasingly resent time I am forced to spend fixing or working around issues that are not immediately germane to the task at hand. That task might be browsing the web, editing a document, writing code, watching a video, debugging, etc. I have consistently found that I can't simply do that on the various flavors of linux - there's always something that seems to need adjusting, or stops working correctly, or doesn't work at all.

The problem is that people will often start blaming at this point, when they hear these statements. They'll say, "It's nvidia's fault for not doing X" or "it's your fault because you didn't do Y" or "it's the upstream maintainer's fault because he didn't do Z". Which is, unfortunately, completely missing the point: when you are using a system to get a task done, fault does not matter.

I, as a user of a product, want to simply use the product -- and spend zero time hunting down answers that I shouldn't need to concern myself with. As a developer and a tinkerer I understand why doing this is necessary, and can even enjoy it sometimes. But as an end user, I experience a ridiculous level of frustration and exasperation when I need to devote MY time to working around somebody ELSE's issue - no matter whether we're talking about operating system, development tool chain, pc games, the amazingly badly designed FIOS TV interface, or anything else.

In recent years, I also find that the desktops are experimenting with increasingly weird crap - things that are both fun and frustrating. (Fun because they look like good concepts. Frustrating because the deviation from the familiar means less time Just Working even as I enjoy playing with them.) I will keep trying every few months, and I certainly have more than my fair share of back end linux servers and dual boot desktop systems - but for the forseeable future, Linux just isn't there.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[godrik]

I beg to differ actually. I do not think the interface is the main problem. If the machine is properly installed then people use gnome very easily without much trouble. In my experience, the problem mainly comes from hardware support and installation. Getting a graphic driver to work just correctly can be a major PITA. I stumbled yesterday on someone with a laptop with hybrid graphic card: an intel for low power consumption and an nvidia for performance. It just does not work. The user would be happy with gnome but there is no support for his weird system.

And I am not even talking about the nightmare of wifi drivers. If you are lucky it just work. If you are not lucky you have to install a firmware package. If you are unlucky, you have to compile/install kernel modules by hand.

I think the main problem is there. The lack of hardware support is the main problem to reach the mythical year of the linux desktop.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[mhh91]

Ubuntu is the ONLY Linux distribution that breaks when you update it. I use Mandriva, and it updates smoothly, and I guess this is pretty much the same with Fedora and OpenSuSE.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been using Linux as my main desktop for years! and have a different opinion with rewards of email/word processing/video. Linux is better than windows in all of this. Thunderbird email is very good/Open Office is not the fastest but it has all the features you need and does not cost $350 like MS Office/Video Land works for xvids but lately %100 of my video watching is either flash or HTML5. I also have a PS3 that I use for Hulu+ Netflix and Sony Store video. Amazon video does not work in Linux but I blame Amazon for that. using Silverlight is lame IMHO.

The only what Linux is NOT good for is :
Games (specially with multiple monitors, even native games have problems keeping the mouse in it's own monitor).
specialized hardware:
My Canon LIDE25 has calibration problems with sane. and CanonToolbox is very friendly and easy to use in windows.
Brother Laser printer. have problems in linux where it some times it prints garbage. So i have it connected to a DNS-323 using d-link sharepoint (usb over tcp) works like a charm in my wifes desktop).

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

Oh I've had my fair share of suckyness from Fedora as well - although that's fair enough as it's meant to be a place for trying out new idea's. I couldnt comment on SuSE as I've hardly used it to be honest. For desktop/laptop usage i've jumped to the new Debian - it's by far the best in terms of stability and consistency. The contrast between that and Ubuntu is amazing. I'm almost hoping that Squeeze is going to be good enough to use for a proper desktop - so far it is actually looking fairly promising.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[k8to]

Funny. My work osx laptop has apps that stop working at every significant point release, while my desktop linux install has had only one or two 10 minute problems in the past 12 years of continuous upgrades.

I don't believe you.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[edmicman]

I have a Thinkpad with switchable graphics - integrated Intel for low power stuff and an ATI discrete chip for real graphics. I'm running Ubuntu 10.10 on it. The way it works is basically Ubuntu doesn't support on the fly switching so you select in the BIOS which setting you want "on" and it uses that. Every Ubuntu seems to detect there's proprietary drivers for the ATI stuff just fine - but every time I've tried using those and using the discrete graphics, it reboots and just comes to a blank screen. I always end up having to either reinstall the whole OS, or boot with a disc and delete xorg or somethingorother, then switching back to the integrated graphics for it to Just Work. On top of that, I'll search forums and blogs and get thousands of different answers, from having to compile my own whatnot to it shouldn't be using this setting in the first place. I dunno, it's a complete hassle. All in all I love running the linux desktop but I think the audio and video have been the biggest PITAs the whole time. Enough that every so often I consider switching back to Windows 7. I did do that probably a year ago and it lasted about two weeks before I wanted to go back. I missed my wobbly windows!

Maybe I need to wipe everything clean and start from scratch on the next Ubuntu release and try it again...of course I still don't think there's an answer to the true on the fly switchable graphics, so who knows.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[hedwards]

That's more of a Linux problem. Since there's a kernel with no definite userland, that sort of thing happens. I haven't had the problem with FreeBSD or Windows because there is a much greater degree of separation between the base install and any 3rd party applications. Windows was having similar problems to Linux in the past with 3rd party libraries getting mixed in and replacing system ones, I think they've mostly got that sorted out in recent versions, but that was a large part of the stability problems of the past.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Well, that sure contributed to this discussion of valid concerns. Here, I can do it to:

Funny, my linux installs have continually been plagued with problems.The worst one was the time I once installed the latest Ubuntu update and - due to a bad Xorg driver - Xorg stopped working completely. Even better, because by default on most distros, wireless network login is attached to your desktop shell and not your system boot... I couldn't get online to track down the reason for the failure without using another computer. I only got online after going to another system, finding the problem, manually downloading the replacement package, transferring it via pen drive, then installing it by hand.

On the other hand, in the last several years I've been able to run Windows without doing anything but allowing automatic updates; and periodically grabbing driver updates (also found through windows update).

We can continue to whip out examples of good/bad experiences on our respective platforms - but that's missing the point. Refuting my statement by claiming you've had a good experience doesn't erase my bad experience; nor does it erase my years of working with actual end users to understand how they work.

And implying (as you seem to be) that I've just made all this crap up is just silly, as it effectively closes off any possible useful discussion that we might have.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Hatta]

- if you want a desktop system that stays out of your way, Just Works, and requires little maintenance beyond letting an auto updater do its thing.

Funny, this is exactly how I'd describe my Debian Sid box.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never experienced anything of what you describe. Including windows 'just working'. I administered a windows environment for a few years. It was broken. I got tired of looking at microsoft service bulletins and notices telling me to use third party applications for system services. "This functionality is currently broken. Microsoft recommends using 3rd party software to provide this functionality. Microsoft assumes no responsibility for this software. Contact your computer manufacturer for assistance." And on and on it went. NTP was a critical service (the database needed critically accurate timestamps, and lawyers very often wanted log times). That NTP was one of many things broken, make administering it a bitch! I would go home, and Linux worked perfectly everytime, but according to you, pretty beats functional. Kind of like a shiny brick. Ooooh pretty!

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Sigh. Please append "for me" to the final sentence; and "IMNSO opinion to the first full paragraph" as otherwise I'll apparently be deluged with anecdotes to prove me wrong.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Corporate Troll]

For your Canon LiDE25... I have a Canon LiDE 20 and I use VueScan instead. Supported on OS X (Natively, the LiDE 20 is not supported by OS X), Windows (Never tried though) and Linux (Tried on Ubuntu 10.04, works fine). It supports an insane amount of scanners. My dads AGFA SnapScan 310 (SCSI) and his Minolta DImage (also SCSI) dia scanner work perfectly using it.

In all fairness, XSane worked fine with both the LiDE 20 and the SnapScan 310 (but not the Minolta Dimage), but the interface is... something to get used to.

It's also a good example how commercial software can work in the Linux world.

A question: how did you get TCP over USB to work on Linux? My mother in law has an all-in-one scanner. As a printer/scanner works fine directly connected to USB under Linux, but I have connected it to a print server so the other computers can also print. It uses JetDirect (port 9100) and works fine on all computers on the network. However, I never managed to get the scanning part to work. The print server supports USB-TCP, but I haven't found how to get it working under Ubuntu.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 'works' largely because it comes pre-installed. Try taking any random PC, wiping the disk and installing Windows on it from an official Microsoft install CD and you'll find it at least as hard to get working as Linux.

I do this regularly, and it's not hard at all. You boot windows 7, and everything works out of the box. Worst case scenario, your network card isn't supported, so you install the driver and then Windows Update pulls drivers for everything else in the machine.

It takes about 10-20 minutes to install Windows 7. Not more than 30 like you imply.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

You must have missed the part where I said I preferred Linux in the datacentre back end.

I never said pretty beats functionality - in fact I kind of said the opposite. For some usages Linux beats Windows, and also the converse holds true. Yet you choose to pick one situation and compare it against another - I'm sorry but the comparison simply doesnt hold true. If you had wanted a solid stable backend system then you should have researched and picked a better one than persevere with a broken one.

This, is essentially the problem that people seem to have when the do the comparisons. Would you write a CV/resume on a CLI only server using LaTeX? Yes you could, of course you could but it would probably be easier to write it using Word, or Openoffice if you prefer in a GUI.

You could write a scientific anaylsis tool on a large dataset using something like Python or Fortran - many people do of course. A spectacularly bad language to choose would be Intercal which wouold do it - it's Turing complete, but you wouldnt want to use it?

The point I am making is that computer is not and never has nor will be a one size fits all solution. For some tasks people will prefer to use *nix, for other tasks people will using Windows, for yet others they will use an embedded system like SCADA or whatever. Withint those worlds, change is bad *if* it stops you doing what you did before.

We have people coming from the US to our offices and they simply cannot get on with driving a manual rental car. The combination of the other side of the road and gear management is beyond them. It's the same task but it's sufficiently different that it causes too big a problem for them - so they just don't use it and get a taxi. For when I go to the USA I cope fine - because I have had plenty of exposure to other side driving in France, and I own both manual and autobox vehicles. If you make a sufficiently sudden change in a familiar environment, people will stop using it. This is why a rapidly changing environment such as Linux puts people off, and whan they pace of change introduces errors it makes it even more so. This is not a superficial issue as you so disparagingly try and make out with silly "oooh pretty" soundbites - it's a real problem that has good reasons for existing and it affects most everyone because that's how human nature works.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 'works' largely because it comes pre-installed. Try taking any random PC, wiping the disk and installing Windows on it from an official Microsoft install CD and you'll find it at least as hard to get working as Linux.

Not my experience. I tried loading linux on an Atom board and a 6 year old Windows XP disk (SP1?) installed with no problems. Windows update and it was ready. It took a while though. A 1 year old linux cd in contrast didn't even have the LAN network driver, so I had to find the driver, find the right deb, install it, then update and in the end S3 suspend never worked... even after many hours messing with it (and programming for linux is my day job). Windows XP had the driver at least 5 years before linux.

On a VIA C7 the 6 year old Windows XP disk again installed fine. Meanwhile 1 year old linux couldn't find a graphics driver so it was using vesa mode so ridiculously slow. Again, resuming from s3 sleep just didn't work, even after managing to get a graphics driver or even disabling graphics entirely. Windows XP worked with no intervention at all, and linux didn't work at all after days of messing with power configs (I really wanted to get it working...).

I really don't think you've tried this recently. Windows Update has drivers for almost all devices. They may not be good drivers or the most up-to-date, but they work, and in any case you can pretty much always get it working somehow. Linux is great if you have commodity hardware or some device some linux dev happened to have... otherwise it's really broken.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[LordLimecat]

Youre also comparing apples to oranges. Drivers are contained in the Linux kernel; they are not contained in the Windows kernel (though windows does prepackage and ship with many drivers in the base install). Windows gets a new version every 3-5 years; Linux distros every 6mos-2 years (sometimes more tho). So Windows is more likely to have out of date or missing drivers... but when both Linux and Windows are missing drivers, Windows is almost always easier to install said driver with-- mainly because Device manager doesnt really have a functional equivalent in Linux that ive found that allows 2 click or 20 second driver installs (if anyone knows of one, Id be interested).

The problem isnt just "not many Linux hardware sellers", either; there are only like 2-3 popular, well tested user-geared distros that Ive seen.
The most popular and polished of them, Ubuntu, has a thing for grabbing every bleeding edge innovation it can find and stuffing it into a 6 month integration cycle, and letting users beta test it for a few months after release. Thus you end up with a perfectly fine laptop that a vendor sells working fine on 8.04, but then when he does clean install or upgrade to 8.10, PulseAudio breaks everything. Or the new compositing manager pukes and breaks gnome. Or a change to the wifi drivers broke everything. Or their NIC is blacklisted because of a nasty kernel bug in a just-released kernel (intel E1000?), and they no longer have wired lan.

There are many issues here, and part of it is lack of "critical mass", but part is also that Linux has a lot of areas to improve on, and when youre improving many things at once (ubuntu), things tend to break rapid-fire.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Debian unstable and love it, but you either haven't used it for very long, work in an extremely isolated environment, or are just flat out lying. Plenty of things have been broken in SID over the years (xorg, bluetooth, cups, ssh, alsa, acpi, networkmanager etc.). That's fine for people that like to tinker and have a bit of knowledge and time, but for the vast majority of the population it's simply unacceptable. Debian SID is not, and should not be, for the general population.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Tetsujin]

Windows 'works' largely because it comes pre-installed. Try taking any random PC, wiping the disk and installing Windows on it from an official Microsoft install CD and you'll find it at least as hard to get working as Linux.

These days I think it mostly depends on your hardware. I got a Wacom tablet for Christmas and had to take some fairly extraordinary steps to get it working on my Linux system (it required a newer version of the Wacom driver than Debian provided at the time - and hence, also, an updated kernel and X-server, and a custom-compile of the necessary Xinput driver...)

I don't do too much Windows installation these days - but from "back in the day" I would expect that getting hardware working on a new Windows installation is mostly an issue of installing the right driver (unless you're unfortunate enough to have hardware that simply doesn't work in your version of Windows...)

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Tetsujin]

if you want a desktop system that stays out of your way

You have unused items on your desktop!
We have helpfully hidden all those pesky start menu items that you rarely use!
This dialog box is Very Important, so we've made it so you can't move it, or put any other window in front of it, until you've dealt with this thing!

(Fortunately, you can turn a lot of those kind of features off, and have a system that mostly stays out of your way...)

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then be a fanboy and don't believe what he says. But I not only believe him, but I agree 105% with everything he said. I've been using Linux since Red Hat 5.2 and seen how things have progressed, and used to love playing around with things. In 2007, I decided Linux was good enough for work, and planned a migration that happened in January 2008, to Ubuntu, which was the best option at the time.

And, just like GP said, things just failed epically after a few months while Ubuntu did it's own thing, and the UI was just inconsistent. In 2009, I had converted everything back to Windows because it just works and doesn't rob me any time.

But, obviously, you and other blind fanboys will blame me for not doing something right, or doing something else. For that, I just have one final thing to say: wake up, go live in the real world and see what are people's priorities.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is popular because it works

I think you got that backwards. The only reason Windows works is because it's popular. If Linux was popular, hardware/software devs would be prioritizing Linux support.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[LordLimecat]

- if you want a desktop system that stays out of your way, Just Works, and requires little maintenance beyond letting an auto updater do its thing... Windows or OSX are your only real options

Theres truth to all of what youve said, but youre simplifying things waaay too much. There are times Windows will just refuse to work with a system (ie, shipped with vista, provides no XP drivers, nothing works in XP, and Vista SP2 hasnt shipped yet), and Linux will land you with a beautifully configured and funcitonal system out of the box; there are times, conversely, where nothing you do seems to get Pulse to work with flash, or theres no driver for your wifi card, but Win7 just nails it from the get go.

Ive stopped using Ubuntu for the most part for a few reasons, but the main one was that I used to do a lot of WoW and used ventrilo for it, and one of the upgrades finally stopped working quite right with wine, and I was just tired of having to make each and every proprietary, windows-only thing I did work right on Linux. It was doable, and fun and instructive for a while, but after a while the excitement fades and you tire of pushing so hard against the reality that you really do need Windows-only apps (Evolution's OWA integration SUCKS compared to real MAPI support from Outlook!).

But I can fully envision someone who really does need only the web and a few other things and for them Linux Just Works in a way Windows cant-- fully integrated updates, general freedom from the spectre of malware (the reason is irrelevant)

They'll say, "It's nvidia's fault for not doing X" or "it's your fault because you didn't do Y" or "it's the upstream maintainer's fault because he didn't do Z". Which is, unfortunately, completely missing the point: when you are using a system to get a task done, fault does not matter.

There is a lot of truth to this, but people forget about these incidents on Windows because theyre considered part of what you have to do-- XP didnt come with passable nVidia drivers worth gaming with, nor did Vista; you had to hunt them down and install them. But when you have to do the same on Linux-- which is basically an identical experience with a single binary that you run and does all the work for you-- all of a sudden its "too much of a burden on the user".

Its also worth mentioning that comparing a preinstalled OS with preinstalled drivers to one that you install from disk post-factory is apples-to-oranges-- If / when Linux is preinstalled from an image onto HP or Acer laptops, they wont have driver issues-- they wont ship until they are fixed. See for example the instant-boot varieties like Acer's and HPs preboot web-browsing-only Linux distros-- the wireless works flawlessly on those, because the manufacturer took care of it.

In usability and out-of-box-experience, Windows and Linux (generally) are getting closer and closer; I rather suspect that as that continues, the complaints about Gnome and Ubuntu's changes will be rather more vocal.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[LordLimecat]

This is why anecdotal evidence doesnt really work-- He has one experience, you had another, and noone can really discern which is closer to reality from either of you.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux desktops experiment with weird new crap because it's "sexy" to the developers. This is a huge problem with the open source community. Nobody wants the un-sexy, but absolutely essential, job of doing regression testing.

Eh, screw it, some hypothetical, passionate end-user (who, in Linux, is presumed to be very tech-savvy) will just file a bug report, right? And then maybe we'll get around to figuring out why your saved data gets corrupted in our app. Well, soon as we're done tweaking Compiz on our own desktops. Wobbly windows are the bomb, yo.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. My last Windows install went like:

"Enter" "Enter" "Enter" "Enter" "Enter" "Oh, Pacific Time Zone" "Enter" "Enter" "Enter" "Enter" "Enter" "Enter"

Yeah. That was real hard.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[kriebz]

That's because you're using Fedora or Ubuntu. Sure they're popular, and with good-ish reasons, but in my circle, most have moved to Debian on the desktop and server, and if not Debian on the desktop, OS X. Installing Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice and leaving things sit, only doing security updates, works just fine and covers the basic needs. And even stock GNOME 2 is "usable", i.e. non-scary for most users. Actually, "GNOME 2 is not scary for average users" is probably the thing Icaza wants to hear the most.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[zombiechan]

Given the amount of crapware bundled with most laptops, wiping and reinstalling Windows from scratch might actually be a good idea.

It's exactly what I do with all my new computers. It's not too hard to do.. I ran a windows update and had to hunt down a graphic driver. That's about it.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[rourin_bushi]

Except that, at least on all the machines (laptop and desktop) that I've run Windows installs on in the last 5+ years, Windows *never* has the ethernet driver needed. Either I luckily squirreled the driver away on a separate partition, or I have to use a different computer to download it via sneakernet. That's only an option because I have multiple computers around.

On the other hand, every linux distro I've tinkered with in the last decade or so has always been able to talk to my ethernet devices (WiFi is a different story -.-)

And install speed is largely just a function of your HDD speed, for both linux and windows.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[AvitarX]

Like Debian 10 years ago.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[stoanhart]

The days of Windows XP are over, man. Windows 7 has functional drivers for damn near everything.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Belial6]

So, you make a comment that Linux constantly breaks and Windows doesn't. Someone responds with exactly the same story, but with Windows being the broken OS and Linux being stable. So, your response is to tell them that their experience isn't valid?

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I've had Fedora break too; Mandriva - back when I used it was Mandrake - was good as far as it went (this was ... 10 years ago, maybe longer by now?), but I didn't like the direction it went in after it was purchased.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Draek]

The problem is that people will often start blaming at this point, when they hear these statements. They'll say, "It's nvidia's fault for not doing X" or "it's your fault because you didn't do Y" or "it's the upstream maintainer's fault because he didn't do Z". Which is, unfortunately, completely missing the point: when you are using a system to get a task done, fault does not matter.

Yes, it does. If it's NVidia's fault, then bitching to your distro's packagers about it is as useless as complaining to my waitress that my car broke down on my way to the restaurant: it may serve to take out my own frustrations, but it'll do nothing to solve the problem at hand on addition to causing an unrelated person unnecessary grief.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Hatta]

I've been using it for years. Occasionally apt will refuse to update some packages because of dependency problems, but otherwise it's been clear sailing. Unstable means that the repository changes often, not that the software itself is unstable. It may help that I don't use half of the packages you refer to as breaking.

None of this means that Sid is appropriate for the general population. All it means is that Sid stays out of my way, Just Works, and requires little maintenance besides an 'apt-get upgrade' from time to time. The amount of time I've spent fixing Sid is insignificant compared to the amount of time I've spent trying to get Windows into something usable. Still haven't found a decent virtual desktop manager.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Rinikusu]

With XP, you have a point. However, for shits and giggles I downloaded the Win7 RC last year and tried installing it on:
Thinkpad X31
Sony Vaio R505JLK

Thinkpad went flawless, everything was found and if not found, got itself on the internet and automagically installed all the drivers. Very smooth.
Vaio R505JLK - not as smooth, but it also found almost all of my hardware and let me know that Intel no longer supported the i845 (I think?) chipset and had no plans to write drivers for it, which meant my video was pretty crappy (640x480, limited palette), BUT it was usable. Compare this to the fact that Linux won't install at all on this laptop due to an APIC issue of some sort and hangs on boot with all distro CDs, including live CDs that I tried, Win7 kinda wins by default on this one.

I was very impressed with Win7, but not enough to fork out the cash for upgrades.

Now, recently my dad's computer took a shit. He got hit with some sort of malware, the fix made it worse, and then from what I could tell, the hard-drive was potentially going bad (5 year old machine) and me being across the country, i couldn't really diagnose over the phone (and didn't really want to try). He was going to drop $500 on a new computer when I told him to wait for me for my yearly trip home in a couple weeks, in the meantime, I mailed him a copy of the latest Ubuntu. Five years ago, he had ambitions of recording music (he's a musician) and the like and I was loathe to recommend Linux to him because I didn't like the idea of him trying to figure out ALSA, JACK or whatever else was around back then. However, we've identified that his entire online experience is 1) Firefox (that's the internet to him. Actually, Google is the internet to him, but whatever). 2) Several forums he loves to read and troll. What the fuck does he need a $500 computer for? Anyway, he got the CD, plopped it in the tray, booted the machine, and the liveCD comes up, detects everything perfectly, and now he's online. Who cares if someone hits his machine with malware? He reboots and it's back to normal. Kudos for Linux for finally become "dad friendly", at least in my household.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most drivers if not included are provided by the manufacturer on a CD or you can download them. It has a wizard where all you need to do is select the location of where the drivers are and it installs them for you.

Try doing the same on linux and you have to download the kernel source, install the developer tools, download the drivers source if not included in the kernel, then compile the kernel and install it. Then compile and install drivers and install the modules that are created. Oh and you have to do this all over again each time a newer kernel is updated through the auto update system.

Now Ubuntu got this right by doing this for us with the nvidia drivers each time the kernel is updated. But they don't with any other drivers out there.

But what is preventing an easy to install wizard from being formed for any needed driver that is not included is because Linus refuses to create a stable ABI for kernel modules. So all that you need to do in the command line is because of this. I think the only reason being that it's done for political reasons to force companies to open source their drivers.

But the problem with doing that is that some companies refuse to do it and so you end up with the community creating the drivers by reverse engineering the hardware, which don't end up being as good. Or you have companies that do what nvidia did and just create their own stable abi in their modules that you get the source but that then access their proprietary binary bits to get the hardware to work. So you're no closer to getting access to their source code that matters. The funny thing is that nvidia has the best video card drivers on linux. All the other ones proprietary or open source suck. The point being proven by the team at firefox only enabling the opengl parts of firefox 4 being available to linux users who run the nvidia proprietary drivers. The other ones all caused Xorg to crash horribly and they couldn't risk it.

So in windows I can install drivers if they're not included. On linux I must wait for the kernel to be updated to support my hardware. That's the difference and the reason why I prefer windows on the desktop and linux on servers. If I have to do anything in the command line for a desktop OS, it fails.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[cbhacking]

Um, no you won't. Not with a recent version of Windows. Vista and up pull all their drivers automatically from the Internet - either as part of Windows Update, or by popping up a message saying "Please click here to download your driver from the manufacturer's website." The actual install process, from "place disk in drive and boot" to "log in to a ready system," takes about 20 minutes on modern hardware, or possibly a bit longer if a really slow Internet connection is taking a while to download the absurdly large video driver. There's usually one more reboot needed after this, to install patches, but it can still finish well inside of 30 minutes with a decent connection.

I use both Windows and Linux. I install both from scratch, using the official developer media (not "restore" discs). In fact, I remove OEM copies of Windows whenever possible even from computers I don't own (i.e. somebody complains to me that their system is slow). Linux takes far longer to get to a state I consider functional (not *fully* functional - for example, I have a TV tuner card which flat out does not work in Linux - but usable for all my day-to-day needs). This is true whether setting it up for myself or for somebody else (one reason I'm less likely to suggest that friends try Linux these days is that I'll typically spend 6-8 hours over the next few days helping them make it work correctly - a process which usually takes an hour and at worst two with Windows 7).

Yes, I've done this a lot.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[frps25]

So, you mean like when you install Service Pack 1 on Windows seven and the system completely crashes and you have to reinstall the whole thing? that has happened at least 4 times in this past two weeks. My Archlinux on the other hand, which is rolling release and is supposed to be unstable because of its very nature is rock solid and most of the time simply firing a "pacman -Syu" gets the system updated and working even better with cutting edge features I know Windows has his strong points, but believe me, once you start using Linux as the only OS and REALLY taking it serious you realize that windows is not THAT great is people usually think

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try again with windows XP. Granted it is very old but I'm guessing that is what the GP was talking about

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux at home (Ubuntu), my notebook (Kubuntu), netbook, my wife's notebook, our micro-business and we get things done all the time. Some of my colleagues (I'm a MD) use Ubuntu too. Malware and virus absence is one of the main reasons we don't use Windows (4 years now!). We are no linux fanatics. It works in every system we tried. No friend of us is looking back either. Thank you FOSS guys, keep the good job.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[jwhitener]

Every time a thread like this comes up, we hear anecdotal accounts of many different situations. Has anyone ever found or compiled actual stats about what works the best across the widest spread of computer setups? I'm sitting here at work typing on my Ubuntu box, but I'd be willing to wager that overall, windows installs easier on a wider range of hardware, and that video, audio, and other multimedia/gaming things work better in windows.

My anecdotal experience: Having built ~15 pc's for my home and having wiped and reapplied a new OS on ~10 work computers over the course of ~15 years, I have only had one problem with Windows not recognizing a device (scanner). At home, having tried gentoo a couple times, ubuntu a couple times, and then at work having tried (and eventually started using) Ubuntu, there were far more problems with the linux installs. Mainly multi-monitor/video and audio issues.

That said, I, nor my company, have ever gone out of their way to determine compatibility with linux before purchasing a desktop. It is likely that my lopsided experience is due to hardware vendors selling windows compatible hardware more predominantly and by default.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The problem is that people will often start blaming at this point, when they hear these statements. They'll say, "It's nvidia's fault for not doing X" or "it's your fault because you didn't do Y" or "it's the upstream maintainer's fault because he didn't do Z". Which is, unfortunately, completely missing the point: when you are using a system to get a task done, fault does not matter.

Yes, it does. If it's NVidia's fault, then bitching to your distro's packagers about it is as useless as complaining to my waitress that my car broke down on my way to the restaurant: it may serve to take out my own frustrations, but it'll do nothing to solve the problem at hand on addition to causing an unrelated person unnecessary grief.

No, it's more like complaining to the waitress that your eggs are runny and your toast is burnt -- she's not the one who made them, but she did deliver them to you.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really no longer true with Windows 7, which has great automatic driver installation on freshly formatted machines (although to be fair, it needs to at least have a working ethernet driver or you won't be able to install anything, unlike Linux which usually has ethernet+wifi drivers built in)

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Xyrus]

Nonsense. Windows works because they spend a lot of time making sure that it works across the widest range of hardware and software possible. I've done many installs on many different machines and hardware setups and the only installations problems I've encounter have been a result of dead or dying hardware.

Linux has gotten a lot better over the years, but I still wouldn't just hand an install CD/DVD to a general user and expect no issues, especially if they were installing on a laptop. Fortunately, most people who use Linux aren't general users and are tech savvy enough to solve their own problems. For general users I hand them a live CD/DVD and have them play with it, and if it appears everything is working (sound/video/network/etc) then go ahead and install it.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[shutdown -p now]

Windows alone does not works, a new laptop or desktop with Windows and every driver needed and applications installed just works.

I've built 2 new PCs and purchased 3 new laptops in the last two years, and all of them had their stock OS (Vista or Win7 Home) wiped and replaced with Windows 7. In neither of those cases I even had to use the driver disk that came with hardware - just run the OS installer, and it already had WiFi working by the time install completed; and then I'd get it online, and it would download drivers for everything else it needed (via Windows Update).

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian stable. It's not cutting edge, but it Just Works.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail. I installed Windows 7 x64 on 3 machines with no problems.

Who marked this fucking idiot "insightful?"

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you didn't try installing the 3D accelerated graphics with the Windows 7 64 bit laptop... Dell wouldn't support that for me, nor do the video card manufacturers oddly enough.

I had to do that with my work laptop and it failed miserably. Linux on the other hand, worked. 3D and all. I spent countless hours trying to sort through that on windows and failed!

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[the_womble]

That task might be browsing the web, editing a document, writing code, watching a video, debugging, etc.

I do all of those on Linux with no problems. I did have one video that was playing out of sync, but it played out of sync of Windows as well.

Let go through your complaints:

operating system,

What is wrong with it?

development tool chain

This does not affect the average desktop user. It is also a matter of opinion as lots of developers like developing for Linux.

pc games

Yes, you cannot play Windows gamers on LInux, LInux has a limited choice of games available. Linux is not the best OS for gamers. Most people are not gamers The average users idea of a computer game is Farmville or a card game.

the amazingly badly designed FIOS TV interface

I do not even know what this is,.

I also find that the desktops are experimenting with increasingly weird crap

Most of which the average user does not notice. All they user the desktop for is to start programs, switch between them, and lock the screen.

but for the forseeable future, Linux just isn't there.

I feel exactly the same when I use Windows one someone else's PC. I usually think "how can people put up with all this crap".

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want a desktop system that stays out of your way,

Like Windows?
Out of every 10 boots into Windows, on at least one of them the USB system is frozen and doesn't work - never happens on Linux.
I bought a Sound Blaster (2nd hand) - there are no drivers for old Sound Blasters for Windows 7 - the card works perfectly on Linux.
Linux doesn't minimise full screen apps to tell me that Ad Aware has crashed and shut down again.
Linux doesn't need Anti-Virus updates and scans.
Linux doesn't need analysing and defragmenting.
All the University resources I needed were accessible using Linux/OpenOffice - classmates were in trouble with Office versions and laden with bills for "specially priced student software".

Yup, Windows really gets out of your way whereas Linux is just a pain to use.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[TheLink]

Guild Wars works for me. It's not fast - but that's not surprising for most laptop 3D.

The problem I had actually wasn't with getting 3D drivers (IIRC I just had to google for them, there's some site devoted to ATI drivers for laptops, I think you'd find it with a google for: ati drivers laptop ).

The prob I had was with the touchpad drivers. In the end I used one from Toshiba! It has the option to automatically turn off the touchpad whenever I have my mouse plugged in. Only prob I still have is if I plug my mobile broadband stuff in, it thinks that's a mouse or something and still turns off the touchpad...

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[TheLink]

I haven't had probs installing Windows XP slipstreamed with SP2 or SP3 on recent PCs ("whitebox" FTW ).

Dell says my work laptop is compatible with XP and Vista 32 bit (and doesn't say Windows 7 64 ;) ). From some random sampling seems most Dell Vostros support Windows XP. So if you want to use XP, buy a Vostro or Latitude. Check: http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/osmatrix/index

As for the original XP, old versions of Linux have had problems with SATA. So why would anyone be surprised if there are problems installing the original XP?

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[theNAM666]

You have just demonstrated the need for the phrase "anecdote is not evidence."

Hurrah for you. Your laptop was fine. Dell didn't do anything stupid-- like, say, fail to support certain SigmaTel devices properly, rendering them incompatible with Skype 5.x .

Change the example to a wide variety of situations, such as many a two-year-old Sony laptop, and you're in another world of pain installing Windows from MS media instead of the manufacturer's.

Managing Windows updates on these beasts is at best "a pain," because you have to go back to the outdated and insecure manufacter's release, and install updates in order. Getting Sony's special OS widgets and things like keyboard controls (audio, media, brightness) to work again, is more of an arcane art, as it requires installing drivers and control files in the right order, at the right time-- that order only having been revealed by a 12-year-old virgin boy in Bangalori, who spent three weeks figuring it out, and posted the solution in Hindi on a porn site dedicated to having sex with goats in the middle of the Ganges.

You got Windows running on a single laptop with no problems? Fine. Plenty of people get Ubuntu running on their laptop, with no problem. You've said nothing.

Why the HELL do people mod this crap up?

Oh-- I forgot. A higher percentage of UIDs over 500K, are using Windoze than Linux!

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

So, you make a comment that Linux constantly breaks and Windows doesn't. Someone responds with exactly the same story, but with Windows being the broken OS and Linux being stable. So, your response is to tell them that their experience isn't valid?

No, my response is to tell them that their experience doesn't alter the actual perceptions of people; and can be counterproductive as it means we're not discussing how to fix the issues -- but rather whether the issues even exist at all.

I've learned one thing in developing software that's widely deployed, it's that if one person is having a specific kind of experience -- he's not the only one. So yes, there are others who have had no real problems with Linux; but conversely there are others like me.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Belial6]

Everything you say still applies to Windows, and makes your stanced that for some reason Linux needs to be held to some higher standard hypocritical. The other poster had problems with windows, and there is one thing that you have learned in developing sofware that's widely deployed, it's that if one person is having a specific kind of experience -- he's not the only one.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit with the cliches. In case you don't realize it, enough anecdotes = evidence.

You may ignore a statistical study with just one sample. But you don't ignore samples just because you're getting them one by one.

Unless you're an idiot or have some agenda.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Bent Spoke]

The analogy doesn't hold: a waitress gets paid...

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing Windows XP from CD requires downloading and installing sound drivers, video drivers, and chipset drivers.

Installing Ubuntu only requires clicking a button and waiting to install video drivers.

On the other hand, once I've done all of that, on XP I have a totally working machine. On Ubuntu, the sound is a bit funny and the graphics are missing several features.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Which is why I try to avoid analogies. They're seldom perfect; but mine was closer to the mark than GPs.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I re-read this, and my original context. I think that I didn't succeed in getting my point across.

Yes, fault matters when it comes to fixing the issue. But the context I meant the comment in was from the perspective of someone sitting down to get a task done: to him blame is irrelevant, because he's just looking to get his work done -- and time spent trying to figure out why broke what and where is not relevant to getting this work done. He's not using the software to help improve the ecosystem, he's using it because he needs to check email (or whatever task is at hand).

That's kind of against the spirit of what OSS is all about, it seems to me; but that type of user is the user that Linux is increasingly pitched to as a viable alternative OS.

Re:Windows is popular because it works.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That touches on another frustrating point - bug reporting.

I installed the latest KDE beta last week. Looking pretty good (except for the notifications system - what kind of crack is being smoked there? It's really neat looking but *why* would someone expect to have to go to the system tray to track progress of a file download? Also, dolphin still dies when you try to do massive data transfers. But I digress...) but I did run into a few crashes.

Being the good OSS citizen, I took advantage of the nicely (almost) integrated bug reporting -- much like other popular OS and applications, it prompted me with a dialog [that had too many words on it, but that's OK] to send in an error report. I said sure, I'll do that - I even downloaded the debug binaries (it was easy to do and nicely integrated: +1 KDE) so that I could provide a good stack trace.

So after I do all that, I go to submit the bug. Great! the software tells me. Now just go ahead and log in here, and you can submit!

Wait, I says. Login? To submit a bug? I read the fine print and it tells me that I simply *must* log in, in case the developers need to contact me.

Okay, stop here. I've been developing software for more years than I care to think about. When someone reports an issue consisting entirely of their description of the problem then yes - it helps to have their information. On the other hand: if the description is good, contacting them often not necessary- at least not if you're a halfway competent developer. And if the description is so bad as to be useless, then chances are talking to them won't help much anyway.

But that's not the situation here. Here, the user is providing a stack trace - and presumably a a full or partial memory dump, as well as a description of what they were doing. What kind of developer does NOT want that? If for no other reason than statistical analysis (oh, look, a lot of reports coming in for module X -- let's do some analysis and see if we can figure out why that's happening). Further, what kind of developer can't at least find a point of failure with that basic info, even if not necessarily the root cause?

Apparently, the answer to at least the first half of that question is "the KDE developers". (For an example of those who do want it, AND make excellent use of it in spite of the incredible handicap of not being able to contact the users: Mozilla)

They could even have said "in case we need to contact you, please provide your email address here". That is FAR better than requiring the user to create an entirely new account (and doubtless get spammed with every comment or status change on the bug that he submitted in order to help out the team, NOT necessarily because he wanted to see it fixed immediately.)

Don't even get me started on how - in a fit of kindness and generosity - I tried to register for an account and was greeted with some obscure error message. At that point I gave up.

The message getting sent to users: Oh, sure, we'll take your bug reports. If you do it on OUR terms. Otherwise, piss off - because we don't really want your help anyway.

If you want people to use your software and you want to receive bug reports (and most especially crash reports) -- make it EASY for people. Don't through unnecessary hurdles in their path. And if you don't want to receive reports -- don't bother building in the reporting feature. Make it something that people have to enable specifically - or hell, on first install walk them through voluntarily creating a reporting account. If they don't, turn off the reporting because it's just another annoying nag screen that gets in the way.

Hmm. I may have to turn this into a blog post.

This is why consoles sell ...

[UnknownSoldier]

.. I don't have to far around with trying to find/install having the latest DirectX or GPU drivers because they fixed a bug that the latest game exposed.

Well, at least they used too ... until game developers realized they could "patch" on day-0. :-( So much for quality assurance / control. QA is ignored because management needs a game out THIS quarter.

--} Thinks just work out of the box. {-- I wish the customer experience was the forefront of ALL technology -- sadly it is all-too-often tossed aside at the expense of profits & ship date.

Is there ANY real news here?

[King_TJ]

I mean, what would you have expected De Icaza to say his preferred OS was? Yeah, the fact he said it was Linux didn't exactly shock me....

But his other statement is equally "non news". Yep, "proprietary systems" (commercial OS offerings) are far better at supporting random hardware. Linux will NEVER really win that particular battle, because too many companies release a new product (such as a video card) where the driver software is just as critical a component as the chips soldered onto the board at giving the advertised video performance. The video performance is what people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for. Otherwise, everyone would just be happy with whatever on-board video was provided with their motherboard, or whichever card was the cheapest. When you as a video card maker are in this situation? You're going to be struggling enough to make it perform reliably, as-intended, with just ONE operating system. The motivation to go through all that work again for a free OS like Linux just isn't really there. #1, Linux won't have the number of 3D game titles that actually make good use of such a card. But #2, you don't want to risk releasing the source code to those proprietary drivers that make that new card go, because doing so would be like inviting all your competitors into your factories to take video and photographs, or make copies of all your engineers' design notes. So any Linux drivers provided will have to be binaries only, leading to a lot of hassles providing ones that work with various distros and Linux releases. And don't forget #3 - when you re-release the SAME card with re-worked drivers for Mac OS X, you get to sell the thing at close to full retail price for far longer than you'll ever fetch that price with the Windows crowd. Do you think the Linux community would pay those prices for a "Linux edition" of a given Windows graphics card, just because good Linux drivers were offered? (Maybe a few die-hards would, but just as many would get indignant about having to pay inflated prices for a card with drivers they don't even get the source to.)

Re:Is there ANY real news here?

[dkleinsc]

The basic thing I'm noticing is that for a guy who in his history of GNOME describes himself as a "free software entusiast" [sic], he seems awfully disinterested in making Gnome better, or if the Gnome devs don't like his ideas forking off something of his own.

The other fascinating point I see in your second statement is that it's not the open source world's fault that the latest and greatest high-performance video and audio cards aren't supported as well as they are on Windows. Microsoft, Apple, etc have very little to do with that level of support - it's Intel, ATI, NVidia, etc that are doing the hard work to make their stuff work on Windows, and just don't care about the Linux market.

On the flip side, unless you're doing high performance gaming, you really don't need to care about having the latest and greatest hardware. And one thing Linux does very very well is support older hardware.

Re:Is there ANY real news here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the Linux community would make up its mind.

First, we're told that we should only use hardware that's known to be compatible; and that OF COURSE we should expect things not to work if we use non-compatible hardware.

Then we're told that Linux supports "just about every toaster, cpu, refrigerator, and other hardware device known to man."

In my experience, Linux's support for numerous hardware components has been atrocious. It's what prompted me to revert to Windows the first 3 times I tried using Fedora on a fairly standard HP system. But I hear this "it supports all kinds of old hardware" meme repeated constantly here, even when it appears to not be the case at all.

Re:Is there ANY real news here?

[Anonymous Coward]

But his other statement is equally "non news". Yep, "proprietary systems" (commercial OS offerings) are far better at supporting random hardware.

I'm sorry, whatever else you said might be correct (didn't read further), but this is most certinly not true. OSx is a "proprietary system" and a commercial OS offering, and their support for random hardware, I think you will admit, is much worse than Linux'.

In fact, I believe that Linux support for random hardware is better than any MS OS. The exception seems to be graphic cards and wireless.

And the only reason why MS beats Linux when it comes to graphic cards and wireless isn't because something MS does right, it's simply because the hardware manufactures target the largest OS. ie being a "proprietary system" and a commercial OS offering doesn't automatically lead to better hardware support.

Re:Is there ANY real news here?

[tuppe666]

I suspect you are being disingenuous. The days of buying hardware from a list printed on the inlay of your Linux Distribution are long gone. The expectation is everything will work. Having used Linux for a long time is the move towards universal hardware support has been incredible. I took a hard drive out of an laptop and put it in a new Revo and it just worked Hdmi Video/Audio out I was astonished. Does Linux work on a variety of different devices course it does "Android"/"Supercomputers" does it work well on old hardware absolutely GCC/Application Improvements/Unix Design/Well Managed Kernel. Now is it possible poor hardware support has driven you back to Windows., but its interesting that the two items mentioned in this thread by name a quick Google exposed its support for Years, and the other I use daily and the drivers for the 5 year old device were only available on Windows in the past 6 Months. That and have you noticed nobody mentions Wireless being a problem anymore.

Re:Is there ANY real news here?

[Grishnakh]

In my experience, Linux's support for numerous hardware components has been excellent, with a few notable exceptions: 3D graphics cards, and Wi-Fi hardware. Everywhere else, Linux support is unparalleled. In fact, it's much better than Windows: with Windows, installing the OS is usually a giant PITA because you have to spend so much time downloading and installing drivers from various mfgr websites (and you have to hope they have a driver for your OS version; if it's slightly older hardware, they probably won't bother). With Linux, you just install the OS from DVD and that's it: all the needed drivers are included, and automatically configured for you. It "just works"; no searching around mfgr websites needed.

Exactly what hardware did you find support lacking on?

Of course, as I said, there are two notable exceptions: 3D graphics, and Wi-Fi. With 3D graphics, Intel drivers are supposed to be fine, but Nvidia and AMD are present, but a little more trouble to get working because they're not well integrated. With Wi-Fi, some drivers either don't exist, or you have to use some proprietary driver and a linking package called "ndisdriver", which again is messy and problematic. With both, this is because the mfgrs don't want to release their driver code as open-source, and this doesn't play well with the kernel which demands everything be open-source.

The only other place I can think of that might have driver problems is with low-end inkjet printers, where the driver does all the real work. However, if you're using a low-end "winprinter", you're a moron and you should be happy to just use Windows or MacOS and overpay for everything, since you have no trouble spending $50-100 per month on new ink cartridges for a $30 printer.

By nerds for nerds ...

[perpenso]

Understanding the needs of desktop users is perpetually hampered by a large component of Linux culture. The "by nerds for nerds" attitude. Historically this was a great asset when targeting the server and unix workstation markets, users in these areas were typically nerds. However going after the public in general (the mythical year of the Linux desktop) requires a different attitude. To be specific one Linux distribution would need a different attitude, not all of the Linux distributions. Having different distributions focus on radically different communities would seem to be the way to go.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the attitude you're looking for is the attitude of at least Ubuntu and openSUSE, among others.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[trollertron3000]

You see this come in to play with de Icaza himself. Just look above in the comments. He's a "sell out" even though he probably has written more software for Linux than anyone here. So here he is trying to make Linux better and he's been cast as an outsider because he wants to make it mainstream and now works for a company that took money to make that happen. These guys must eat ideology cereal or something.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[jedidiah]

The problem with Miguel was his insistence on embracing Microsoft standards and assimilating them into Linux.

Regardless of how much of a "Linux Bishop" a guy is, some things are just stupid. He deserves all the crap he gets.

If you like total blind obedience, I suggest joining some sort of Catholic religious community.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[jedidiah]

Precisely. Which is why it does some "desktop user" type things much better than payware alternatives.

However, some people would rather just repeat FUD from the 90s and ignore the current state of things.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Blakey Rat]

It's impossible he did it because he truly believes that .net is a superior development environment?

Linux is supposed to be open, yes? What's *wrong* with taking something Microsoft invented and using it in Linux? As long as that thing is good, and as long as Microsoft is ok with it.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[trollertron3000]

Wow you saw through my soul and read my like a book. Do you play poker? You should read people for a living. Luls.

It never fails here on slashdot, someone comments nicely and then at the end they call me an asshole in a roundabout way. Cool beans. Have a nice day.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[bmo]

>Linux is supposed to be open, yes? What's *wrong* with taking something Microsoft invented and using it in Linux?

According to Microsoft, EVERYTHING.

Microsoft does not play well with its competitors. It doesn't even play well with its partners. Where the hell have you been for the past 20 years? Eh?

Seriously. Did you not notice any of the threats from Microsoft about patents over the last decade? Did you not notice Microsoft funding its lawsuit-by-proxy against IBM through SCO?

Incorporating Microsoft IP into Linux is the most dangerous thing anyone could do to Linux and Miguel has been shoving it in as hard as he possibly can with Mono.. And Miguel wants us to believe it's all rainbows, unicorns, and blue skies dealing with Microsoft.

No. Not in a million years. Microsoft cannot be trusted. Ever. To trust Microsoft as a competitor means you are denying history and just being stupid. The lions always go after the weak ones. You can't ever be weak in front of Microsoft. Not even as a partner.

You are either grossly naive or truly disingenuous and a troll. You pick.

--
BMO

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[bmo]

>It never fails here on slashdot, someone comments nicely and then at the end they call me an asshole in a roundabout way

Says TROLLertron3000

I call shenanigans.

--
BMO

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[bmo]

There are a few traitors when it comes to Linux and Open Source in general. I'd put Florian Mueller in the same bucket as Miguel, although Florian is quite a bit more transparent about it.

--
BMO

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[bmo]

>The "by nerds for nerds" attitude

Oh hey everybody, he's using an argument from the 1990s!

Tell me, what is so nerdy about Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, or Pardus (to blatantly plug that distro)? You don't ever have to drop to a command line anymore if you really don't want to. What the hell more do you want? Sex? You're going to have to find your own.

--
BMO

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Nemyst]

Most of the .NET spec has been published under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise... which is irrevocable. The only unclear parts are ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms. Microsoft has no way of backing off that promise now, so Mono is safe.

Thank you for informing yourself before posting.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's hunt down some traitors.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Hooya]

What's wrong? You answered it yourself:

> and as long as Microsoft is ok with it.

We don't need anyone to be ok with anything (technical) we would like to do - especially since there's no telling if they're still going to be ok when what we do actually becomes a success and starts to threaten their business.

It's not just my knee-jerk reaction. It's history. But if you didn't know that by now, you're never going to know it.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[trollertron3000]

But I'm more direct, I'll just call you an asshole. No need for fluffing it up.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[perpenso]

Precisely. Which is why it does some "desktop user" type things much better than payware alternatives. However, some people would rather just repeat FUD from the 90s and ignore the current state of things.

What FUD? No one said a user friendly distribution did not exist.

Also it is erroneous to believe that the "by nerds for nerds" attitude is something from the 90s. Such an attitude is alive and well today. For example consider the attacks on distributions when they do something for user convenience that is not philosophically pure. Consider the venom when a distribution delivers/installs binary-only code, say a driver. Consider the desire by some to guide those new to linux to the most philosophically pure distribution despite the possible difficulties involved. I'd say many in the Linux community still guide newcomers according to their personal agendas rather than what is simplest for the newcomer.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Draek]

As long as that thing is good, and as long as Microsoft is ok with it.

Or as long as we don't have to ask Microsoft about it.

Most of .NET is an open standard, and while the remaining parts *are* a patent minefield, last I checked Mono was gonna keep both of them separate for those unfortunate enough to live in a country that allows software patents, and IIRC they weren't the most interesting parts of the framework anyways.

Besides, even if we did have problems with patented software, we should be throwing the entirety of the FFMpeg project to the trashbin first, as that's covered by patents owned by about half the industry rather than just Microsoft.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Ubuntu? I say we all stop complaining about what Canonical does and just abandon Ubuntu to the noobs. Let Canonical deal with supporting them. And concentrate on improving the other distros.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[tuppe666]

I think the worry with Mono is using Microsoft IP(sic) is perhaps not a good choice...see that little Oracle and Google thing happening with Java, only with a CEO talking about "protecting IP of shareholders", and bullying Phone Manufacturers to produce a Sinking Windows Phone 7 and getting them to pay an Android Tax to use a dirty fix on a Quick and Dirty Filesytem. That and he creates troll posts to point out he is working on getting Mono on iPad. All in all I'm happy for him and Banshee/Tomboy are great, but I have no illusions that Microsoft can and will pull the rug as and when. If it serves their interest to do so.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[bmo]

And what happens when someone implements part of .net (ado and asp) that is not part of the promise?

Eh? Do you mono cheerleaders ever think about that? No, you skip right over that as if it doesn't matter.

It matters.

Mono is a poisoned apple. Do *not* bite into it.

--
BMO

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Anonymous Coward]

de Icaza has made what appears, from a brief examination of history, to be a massively stupid mistake - he trusts Microsoft.
Given MS's prior behaviour and longwinded plots to "do in" competitors, their sudden "we love Open Source" spiel is to be suspected.

All of this maybe just paranoia, but, if it's not, then de Icaza is handing Gnome to microsoft on a plate.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...

[Grishnakh]

You don't need FFmpeg to create a Linux desktop. It's a totally optional module that's easily left out, or downloaded later, and only needed for viewing (or creating) videos. It's just like MP3 support; it's not necessary for a working desktop system, though it's easy to add a script to allow the user to download it, along with a warning that it may be illegal for them if they live in an oppressive, fascist country. .NET support is different, because they're trying to make a lot of very critical components in Mono. When too much stuff is dependent on Mono, and MS decides to file patent lawsuits, distros using Mono will basically have to shut down, or completely change course (like dumping Gnome altogether and switching to KDE). If the MPEG patent holders decide to bully Linux distros about FFmpeg, that's easy to get around: just don't include it. No one's going to notice, and as I said earlier, it's easy to add a function allowing a user to download it from an offshore repository. Remember, it's only a fraction of users that have to worry about this patent mess anyway, ones living in the USA. Users living in free countries don't have this problem.

Desktop Linux is seriously underrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been running Linux (Gentoo) exclusively at home and at work on all my computers for about six years. It works beautifully all of the time.

I listen sympathetically to my colleagues' problems with viruses, bloatware and forced upgrades, but I have long since lost the ability to empathise. My productivity, frankly, dwarfs what I achieved with Windows, and I fail to see the grounds for common complaints about Linux, such as multimedia support. Linux has multimedia subsystems (like JACK) and programs (mplayer) which easily outstrip anything on a proprietary OS.

I understand that people feel tied to other operating systems because of specific pieces of software or vendor lock-in schemes. But all I can say is that it actually takes very little effort to extract oneself from these, and it's more than worth it.

Linux will dominate the desktop one day.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Some day Linux will dominate the desktop market. That is when the desktops constitute less than 4% of all computing platforms.

Re:Linux will dominate the desktop one day.

[the linux geek]

They already do. You realize that until recently, something like 60% of all processors sold were 8-bit microcontrollers, right? User-visible "computers" are a niche.

But let me guess... you're an Android fanboy.

Re:Linux will dominate the desktop one day.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter. Smartphones already outsells PCs. On the African continent, there will be 800M smartphone only users by 2015. They wont be running Windows.

Re:Linux will dominate the desktop one day.

[tuppe666]

Who the hell isn't an Android fan. I have personally been in Awe of Android. Every week you see Activation Daily, Little graphs showing Market share. You read an article about Android you know it will contain the words "Explosive Growth" . From a company Vilified by the Media. It has incredibly good phones in every price bracket/form factor. It is updated every six months. Has stunning first party Applications, and massive Library of third-party Applications, which in itself is growing at an astonishing pace.

I think it's more likely...

[brennanw]

... that certain components (for example, audio) take a long time to figure out how to make work, and end users tend to get impatient about such things. That doesn't mean no progress is being made, or even that good progress isn't being made.

I've used Linux since about 2000-2001, and I'm not really an expert. From my perspective, Linux of today is leaps and bounds over what it was then in terms of user friendliness, configurability, etc. And in terms of multimedia, well... it's somewhat usable but not there yet. But it gets closer constantly. That doesn't mean it isn't frustrating, and I still cuss out pulseaudio (and eventually uninstall it) every time I try to get it to do things that seem intuitively obvious to me... but each time I've used it I notice improvements, and I'm pretty confident that one day it will just work... at which point there will be something ELSE that everyone complains about.

Because Linux developers don't have direct access to proprietary information, progress on proprietary-heavy aspects of an operating system (like audio, and video, etc.) is unfortunately slower than other areas. Nothing can get around that other than companies open sourcing their drivers and putting patents in the public domain (which is a longer way of saying "nothing can get around that.") But the progress is still both remarkable and laudable. Though I still reserve the right to cuss out the parts of Linux that don't work when I want them to. It's nothing personal, guys, it's just a pain in the ass.

Re:I think it's more likely...

[tuppe666]

I love Linux, Your post doesn't ring true. Multimedia on Linux is an area has been better on Linux for a long time. In fact the framework that these sit on gstreamer/ffmpeg and are used by the likes of VLC on Windows.

Linux Developers Do Have access to proprietary information, Linus Prides himself that most of the kernel is produced by paid employees of HARDWARE COMPANIES.

Linux had problems, but these arn't them.

linux windows but windows gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Miguel, but the subject says it all.

Perhaps you should give kde 3.5.x a whirl and find out what an actual pleasant UI is like.

Your intuitive BS isn't, and your minimalist theory's aren't, because i have to dork with stupid configuration files too much.

So gnome == failure.

Why, I wonder.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

But he notes that proprietary systems have advantages — such as video and audio systems that rarely break. 'I spent so many years battling with Linux and something new is broken every time,' he says. 'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'"

Is it because the open source community fails to get its "act" together? Or the audio and video codecs are encumbered with so many dubious patents and intellectual property claims. And the closed source vendors are using that to create walled gardens?

Re:Why, I wonder.

[onefriedrice]

But he notes that proprietary systems have advantages — such as video and audio systems that rarely break. 'I spent so many years battling with Linux and something new is broken every time,' he says. 'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'"

Is it because the open source community fails to get its "act" together? Or the audio and video codecs are encumbered with so many dubious patents and intellectual property claims. And the closed source vendors are using that to create walled gardens?

Except codecs are rarely (if ever) the problem with open source audio/video; we have long had all of the popular codecs available to us, patents notwithstanding. The drivers are what suck, not to mention (in the case of Linux) basically the entire audio stack from ALSA to PulseAudio.

Re:Why, I wonder.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is because the open source community fails to get its "act" together. If you ever tried to get your head around the idea of how audio works on linux, you'd get a headache quickly. So instead I'll just link you to here:

http://www.techradar.com/news/audio/linux-audio-explained-685419

Notice how there is competing standards? Why can't they just use one standard? Well they tried to with ALSA, but it has a terrible design. But because it has the best license, they tried to adapt that. There was another one that worked on unix, linux, and bsd but was rejected because of it's license. Despite it being technically superior. It's now under the gpl but it's still rejected. So we're stuck with ALSA which has a bad architecture and hard to understand and configure text files. But because programmers judge the competency of sound on the linux desktop, to them it's fine despite being pain in the ass annoying for end users. And people wonder why linux isn't being taken up in droves on the desktop.

The most often answer I get when asked why some linux users use linux on the desktop is because of philosophical reasons, never technical. And they're willing to put up problems with it even though it makes it harder to use.

But I'm damn glad that we're moving away from Xorg and X windows system to Wayland. Sometimes it's good to start over when the current code is so hard and so convoluted to work with that you can't get a good stable system out of it. Let's hope getting multiple monitors to work is much easier with wayland then it was with Xorg.

Re:Why, I wonder.

[Grishnakh]

I disagree. Of drivers, the only ones that suck are 1) 3D video drivers (namely Nvidia and ATI; Intel's are supposedly just fine as they're fully open-sourced), and 2) Wi-Fi drivers for certain (but not all) chipsets. Just about everything else is fine to excellent, although the sound stuff does seem to have some issues (though I personally haven't had any trouble at all with my Intel HDA audio and Kubuntu).

Of course, those two (or 2.5) categories are pretty important ones, but there's a lot of other categories of drivers out there which don't have any problems. Most people installing a new Linux distro on just about any computer won't have any trouble at all, unless they have a PCIe 3D video card and want to 3D drivers for it. And, unlike trying to install Windows on the same hardware, they won't have to do any work at all with drivers, as it's all automatic. With Windows, they'll have to hunt around the manufacturers' websites for drivers and install them individually, and hope that the mfgr has drivers for their version of Windows. (If they're using Win7, they probably won't be able to get drivers for any older hardware.)

I have to wonder

[ThatsNotPudding]

if he had to get final approval from his boss Mr. Ballmer prior to submission.

Re:I have to wonder

[kthreadd]

Huh? Last time I checked (1 minute ago at Wikipedia) the boss at Novell is Ronald Hovsepian.

Ubuntu?

[tthomas48]

Perhaps if he used Ubuntu, the distribution aimed at making sure the audio and video stuff works for end users he wouldn't have this problem as much? I only have video problems with Ubuntu when I'm installing alphas. Otherwise Ubuntu has gotten really good at just working. When I compare the people I've interacted withs experiences installing Windows 7 vs. installing Ubuntu. It's pretty much a wash. They both pretty much work most of the time.

Re:Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You may be lucky, but scheduled releases like Ubuntu's "every six months" model are driven by project managers, not by actual states of readiness. Ubuntu breaks stuff with every new release, because they don't give themselves enough time for user acceptance testing. When your deadline is more important than your readiness for release, your project is doomed.

Re:Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

surely you meant 'if he had used Mint, the distribution aimed at making sure the audio and video stuff works for end users'

Re:Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Ubuntu is obviously doomed.

It isn't better on closed systems.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't better on closed systems. It's that on closed systems you either have Zero chance of working (and it was your fault buying a Windows graphics card for your Apple Mac, or whatever), or it falls over and it's the problem of the supplier giving you a bad driver.

When it fails on Linux, it's never the fault of the buyer not checking compatability, neither is it ever the fault of the manufacturer for not writing a driver that works well.

It's then the fault of Linux.

"The motivation to go through all that work again for a free OS like Linux just isn't really there. "

So release the information to write a driver.

"#2, you don't want to risk releasing the source code to those proprietary drivers that make that new card go"

So release the information to write a driver.

"Do you think the Linux community would pay those prices for a "Linux edition" of a given Windows graphics card, just because good Linux drivers were offered? "

So release the information to write a driver.

A fab for a modern GPU costs billions. You aren't going to give a competitor who can't afford a few hundred thousand to look directly at the hardware and trace the GPU construction by giving them the information about the software driver.

It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[hduff]

Continuing his role as shill and apologist for Microsoft, Miguel once again misdirects the crticism and blame on the FOSS community.

Having video and audio systems that rarely break is a function of having the specs of the hardware to write stable drivers. This is not the fault of the FOSS community who have done great work in reverse-engineering many hardware specs without manufacturer support.

Miguel is wrong. Again.

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[ohnocitizen]

And people like you in the FOSS community are missing the point, again. I'm a user. I don't care whose fault it is. I just want my webcam to work, and not have to scour the internet to find out why I get only choppy video at crappy resolutions in Linux, but HD smooth video in Windows. Finding smug little "well it works for me" replies just makes me want to give up. And when Ubuntu freezes on me utterly, all those claims about Linux's much acclaimed stability just seem hollow - a screen freeze is like a BSOD for the budget conscious. I've been using Linux as my desktop for the last decade, I'm no newbie. But why waste my time debugging basic functionality when I can spend a hundred bucks and just have a PC that works?

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[randallman]

I've got 855GM Integrated Graphics on my laptop. It has always worked well on Windows and never on Linux despite the drivers being open sourced and the hardware specs being available. I'm using Lucid, but it's still a problem today See Lucidi8xxFreezes for a list of the workarounds.

The truth is that even with hardware specs, it takes people with both the required skill and motivation to make things work and keep them working.

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, its not the community, but one has to see the attraction to adding proprietary extensions to commodity hardware.

This or that sound card will work, but, which one is better? Which one should I buy?

Flashier adverts? Celebrity endorsements? Standards compliance? What triggers the buy impulse?

Selection can be tough when the playing field is level. We're talking commodity hardware here.

For me, standard compliant devices should be less costly, which is not a manufacturers prime directive.

Vendors want a more expensive product, a premium product to squeeze more from a unit sale.

Why not make money from a standard compliant device and win $$ by volume?

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, as long as I can remember, I've heard this b.s. spouted. "It's not Linux's fault that nVidia and ATI won't release specs to support their hardware." "nVidia and ATI obviously are too stupid to see that openness and free software are the way of the future, and that if they'd just embrace it, they'd have a huge new market to sell to."

If there's such a huge market demanding Linux drivers for this hardware, then why the fuck, in the 20 years since Linux was released to the world, has nobody managed to build a competitor that will produce decent, open, free graphics hardware?

Either the market for "open" graphics and audio isn't as big and lucrative as you like to pretend (VERY likely) or the open source world is filled with lazy people who would rather not actually do the work themselves, but would rather simply force other people to provide a foundation for their accomplishments. Which is it?

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[BlortHorc]

Miguel is wrong. Again.

Sing it

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, standard compliant devices should be less costly, which is not a manufacturers prime directive.

You obviously don't understand how "standards compliance" works then. You need to pay for testing and engineering to a specification. It's much easier to simply write some code, and then say "Whatever it does, that's how it's supposed to work." When you need to do a full review and certification that something complies with a defined standard, that makes the development of the product that much more expensive.

Every "certified to be Standard XXXXXX compliant!" sentence on the packaging adds to the expense of producing the hardware.

Why not make money from a standard compliant device and win $$ by volume?

Why not create a competitor that does exactly this, and take away nVidia's & ATI's market share? I mean, if it's so trivial to simply create standards-compliant hardware, you should be able to do it MUCH cheaper than the existing companies, sell yours for a fraction of their costs, making your millions on volume sold... right?

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[FxChiP]

You know, as long as I can remember, I've heard this b.s. spouted. "It's not Linux's fault that nVidia and ATI won't release specs to support their hardware." "nVidia and ATI obviously are too stupid to see that openness and free software are the way of the future, and that if they'd just embrace it, they'd have a huge new market to sell to."

If there's such a huge market demanding Linux drivers for this hardware, then why the fuck, in the 20 years since Linux was released to the world, has nobody managed to build a competitor that will produce decent, open, free graphics hardware?

Either the market for "open" graphics and audio isn't as big and lucrative as you like to pretend (VERY likely) or the open source world is filled with lazy people who would rather not actually do the work themselves, but would rather simply force other people to provide a foundation for their accomplishments. Which is it?

1.) It's really *not* Linux's fault if a vendor doesn't release hardware specifications, and you still have no right to blame it for not supporting hardware that no one knows how to code support for because the vendor didn't release the specs! If you want to blame someone, blame the vendor, even though there is no obligation for them to release specifications. The whole idea behind that "b.s." is to create consumer pressure on the vendors to the point where they *do* release specs and get better support for their device for it.
2.) There are no competitors providing open, free, decent graphics hardware for these reasons:
a.) There's a huge number of patents and IP involved with graphics hardware that prohibits 'duplication' of certain capabilities by an up-and-coming graphics vendor. The legal fees alone to simply figure out whether a feature can or cannot be implemented would be staggering.
b.) Even if the legal fees were out of the way, the task of actually building such a card is fairly daunting to people who simply don't have the cashflow to begin with to produce such things. ESPECIALLY if you're aiming for compliance to any number of video/graphics specifications (OpenGL, etc.) and versions out there.
c.) To compete in the video marketplace, they would also have to write and release Windows drivers, which for various licensing reasons they may not be able to release source code for.

Basically it comes down to the process of making such a card being too large and difficult for most people, even in the open source community, to accomplish without outside help.

And, of course, the companies seem to figure Linux can be ignored -- except that the big two graphics companies, nVidia and ATI, are both releasing drivers (and ATI *has* open sourced a fair bit of their stuff, releasing specifications for the rest).

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[tuppe666]

Does your Laptop really work well with Windows7/Vista on an 855GM chipset!? no it doesn't Its simply not true. Lets face it its an old chipset that is not supported http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-030907.htm in fact its the oldest chipset mentioned. Does it work on Linux, by your own admission it does with the workaround as easy as editing your xorg.conf. What is true though is Intel dropped the ball when they introduce KMS/UMS, in fact these drivers introducing regressions while adding needed features after finally getting involved in Linux. I am glad they did; intel drivers were pretty poor, and have been moving and shaking since hell notice mobody mentions config files now x.org doesn't need one. Work is still continuing on i8xx drivers so people will not experience problems in future although none are perfect. There are workarounds available, and no its not an answer.

That said i8xx on intel/pulseaudio/compiz are all examples of how not to introduce large numbers of users to revolutionary changes, but these are the exceptions not the norm, and have brought major benfits, as painful as the transition as been for some. What is not true is this chipset works on windows and not on Linux in fact it works on Linux and not on windows

Re:It's NOT the Open Source Community, Miguel

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

It *is* Linux's (and the open source community's) fault that they have sat on their hands for 20 years, bitching about the policies of nVidia and ATI, while doing NOTHING to produce their own alternative chipsets, because "it's hard and difficult for most people." If nvidia & ati had said the same thing, we wouldn't *have* their graphics cards today. There is absolutely NOTHING preventing you from creating a company whose mission is to provide an open alternative, raise funding, and produce a product.

It *is* Linux's (and the open source community's) fault that, in an industry which is DOMINATED by programmers and engineers - you know, the people who actually MAKE the drivers and the hardware and the software that uses them - that they have done such a piss-poor job of public relations that nobody wants to work with them. The people who actually make this hardware have a lot of influence - some of the guys who were programming them 20 years ago are now the VPs, SVPs, and EVPs of these companies. And yet FOSS has failed to capitalize on that.

But don't let it stop you from your little pity party. We all know that writing an open source UNIX kernel is too large and difficult for most people. Might as well forget about Linux. Writing an open source web server is too large and difficult for most people. Might as well forget about Apache. Writing a smartphone operating system is too large and difficult for most people. Might as well forget about Android.

Re:Breakage

[melikamp]

For example my brother's Ubuntu 9.1 laptop still doesn't play flash videos (except youtube), and I can't figure out why.

Duh, Flash is the poster child of proprietary technology: you are not supposed to "figure out" anything about it. People who bitch about video and sound in Linux should stop blaming the community and direct their anger at those who are directly responsible for the poor state of affairs: hardware manufacturers and content providers.

Three reasons I've been unable to switch to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Linux, especially Ubuntu, but there are three major things keeping me from ever being able to switch.

1. Upgrading Nightmares - Each time I've made the switch and have gone to upgrade something has left my system completely unusable. The last attempt (upgrading from 10.04 to 10.10) left my GRUB just... broken. Even after a basic 'clean install'. I was able to fix it after four hours of research but can the normal user even think of that? I'm just glad I have all my data off the main partition.

2. Performance - There is simply no way I can get the gaming performance out of Linux as I can on Windows 7 or OSX. I'm supposed to use OpenGL? Are you kidding me? Even native games run slow to their Windows and OSX counterparts.

3. Print Industry - I work in the print industry, and yet I can't get a single application to support proper CMYK output without using a hack and slash WINE solution (See performance.) For that matter I might as well just use Windows or OSX. I realize this last one doesn't effect everyone but there are things that The GIMP simply can't do.

On top of all that it's really hard to pass off these goofy opensource mascots and product names (cartoon devils and Ubutnu: Goofy Gizzard aint cutting it.) to my colleagues.

Re:Breakage

[tomhudson]

Flash is the poster child of proprietary technology

Flash and flex are completely open source. Download the sdk from adobe, and you can write flash and flex programs with nothing more than vi and a shell to run the compiler.

What's NOT opensourced is Adobe's tools. Not the same thing. You don't need a clicky-pointy interface to make flash swf files.

ORLY

[Anonymous Coward]

'We as an open source community, we don't seem to get our act together when it comes to understanding the needs of end users on the desktop.'

Solution: remove the minimize and maximize button!

Re:Breakage

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>People who bitch about video and sound in Linux should stop blaming the community and direct their anger at those who are directly responsible for the poor state of affairs: hardware manufacturers and content providers.
>>>

A distinction irrelevant to the user. All they know is that Video and Sound works in Windows and Mac OS but not Linux or Amiga or other OSes. Therefore they avoid the ones that don't work.

Re:Breakage

[Karlt1]

Duh, Flash is the poster child of proprietary technology: you are not supposed to "figure out" anything about it. People who bitch about video and sound in Linux should stop blaming the community and direct their anger at those who are directly responsible for the poor state of affairs: hardware manufacturers and content providers.

I'm confused. I thought that Flash was the greatest thing in the world?

Oh my bad, this article isn't about Android versus Apple.

Re:Three reasons I've been unable to switch to Lin

[Hatta]

1) Use Debian.

2) Never seen this with any OpenGL software.

3) Tried Scribus?

Re:Breakage

[sa666_666]

Have him send me an email about Stella; perhaps I can help getting it working (note that I develop and maintain Stella in Kubuntu Linux).

Windows is easy to install

[MikeRT]

Try taking any random PC, wiping the disk and installing Windows on it from an official Microsoft install CD and you'll find it at least as hard to get working as Linux.

No, you'll find Linux is now as easy to get up and running as Windows. It wasn't until recently that installing Linux became a minimal hassle process.

In the past 6 months, I've installed OS X, CentOS, Ubuntu, Windows XP and Windows 7 on various machines at home and at work. OS X was the only "dead simple" installation process. It's so simple that if you booted the machine onto the CD for each person, you could use it as a voting test. After that, Windows 7 was the easiest. I selected the drive, clicked format, clicked next and the only 3 things I remember it asking were for me to create a user, tell it which wireless network to use and decide on automatic updates. Ubuntu, CentOS and Windows XP were about evenly tied.

Re:Windows is easy to install

[Belial6]

My son did a fresh install of Ubuntu a week after his 2nd birthday. No he could not read yet, but he could recognize 'Next'. He failed at installing XP at that time due to the need to be able to read. At the point that a 2 year old child can install an OS, worrying about whether it is 'difficult' or not is just silly. Anyone that has even the slightest inclanation to do so can install any of the current major OSes.

The same can mostly be said of UI. Sure there are tweaks that can make stuff a little more usable. Yes, Windows 7 and OSX have made the task bar a little less usable, but the basic UI was solved decades ago. The same child that installed Linux at 2 was happily using Linux (and occasionally windows) from start up to proper shudown a few weeks after his first birthday. It took about 5 minutes to show him how to use the mouse, and after he played for an hour or so, another 5 minutes to show him how to use the start button and how to shut down properly.

Re:Breakage

[rwa2]

Heh, in true /. spirit, I DNRTFA, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about the mess of audio layers.

I mean, it's actually pretty simple, right? You have the ALSA driver running on the bare metal, then the PulseAudio daemon giving you individual mixing channels per app, except for Flash which doesn't use PulseAudio and needs to be processed as an exception to go directly to the ALSA interface instead so that the AV sync sort of works, maybe, but only if you're on a 32 bit system or installed 32-bit flash on a 32-bit browser running in a 64-bit host. But flash is pretty silly anyway, things look much better if you just pause the flash window in your browser and run "vlc /tmp/Flash*", then video acceleration and fullscreen work beautifully. And if you want to run the occasional KDE app, you might need to start the aRTs daemon as well, and if you want to run some "professional level" apps, then there's some procedure you can follow to get jackd working as well with your preemptive scheduling low latency kernel. And games usually need to patch into one of the interfaces or another with openAL or SDL or some other audio library.

Anyway, fun times, if you're into that sort of thing!

business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

And as expected many of the posts declare that de Icaza is a Microsoft shill and miss to address the points he makes - because throwing mud is the only argument you need. Nicely done, slashdot. I knew I could count on you.

Re:Three reasons I've been unable to switch to Lin

[Anonymous Coward]

There is simply no way I can get the gaming performance out of Linux as I can on ... OSX. I'm supposed to use OpenGL? Are you kidding me?.

son, prepare your anus. you are about to be corrected so hard you will bleed

On Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

On the article: I wouldn't call Linux enthusiasts as having "embraced" flash. I'd call it more of a "reluctantly acceptance" at best - seriously, Flash is terrible on the best of days (seeing as how I have to run the 32-bit version through NSPluginWrapper because the 64 bit version runs too slow to be useful, and refresh the page multiple times to get it to load properly.

Hardware: Really depends....

[DrYak]

Yep, "proprietary systems" (commercial OS offerings) are far better at supporting random hardware. Linux will NEVER really win that particular battle, because too many companies release a new product (such as a video card) where the driver software is just as critical a component as the chips soldered onto the board at giving the advertised video performance.

In my past experience ( ~15 years of penguin usage ), the situation isn't so black and white.
What you say is typical for graphic cards : there are only a couple of big companies in the market, churning new hardware and software on a regular basis, and putting lot of resources to make suitable drivers for windows.
On Linux you're left with either sub-par open-source drivers (which some time have to be reverse engineered [Nouveau], although some company have started to release infos or even actively support the development of drivers [Intel & AMD]) or with B.L.O.Bs which may be slightly outdated or buggy (Nvidia doesn't support latest Xorg technologies, ATI used to be pretty shitty before AMD's acquisition).

BUT...

Then there's all the rest. All the cheap devices. All the asian nonames using weird variation of lesser big-brand chips.
Network card, webcams, scanners, low-cost & onbaord sound, etc.
The first weeks, windows support is the greatest, because the obscure asian company has created some drivers for it (although the drivers are buggy and pose problems down the line after a few weeks of Windows usage).
Then Linux slowly catches up, and the last months quite easily. As said, most of the obscure hardware just uses weird variation of the same few dead-cheap chips. As Linux is opensource, a lot of code share can be done, lots of common feature can be abstracted, etc. For most of the gizmos, adding a new gadget, is simply writting a thing layer which then re-uses the same basics as other drivers talking to similar but slightly different variation of the chip.
If a new generation of Linux kernel is out, the driver code is easily ported.

Meanwhile, each time a new version of windows is out, you can pretty much throw away most of your USB gadgets, and only keep your GFX card (and maybe soundcard. If you're lucky. It still nearly impossible to find good decent non buggy drivers for pre X-Fi cards from Creative). Because most of the time, the original no-name asian brand has completely dropped support for this piece. Or even went belly up and doesn't exist anymore.

Case in point :
- HP5400c colour scanner. Works with SANE since ages. Was never updated beyond WinXP for Windows.
- Several on-board sound chips (like some Realtek and VIA AC'97 which were popular on first generation Ahtlon 64 mo-bos). Like flawlessly under Linux, because they are just slighlty unusual variant of the same basic design. Under windows ? Sorry, the latest drivers you'll find are for Windows XP.
- Pre-X-Fi creative cards, like Audigy and SB Live! Work with all features under Linux (including HWMix). Vista/Seven drivers are broken, community drivers are XP only, it took some brazillan guy to patch and repack something vaguely useful.
etc.

In short ? If it's not a Radeon or GeForce, chance are that your piece of hardware will better survive to a Linux version upgrade as to a Windows upgrade.
If you want to give a second life to some hardware (as a simple server, or whatever). you're better of either using Linux or stay with an old version of Windows.

you don't want to risk releasing the source code to those proprietary drivers that make that new card go, because doing so would be like inviting all your competitors into your factories to take video and photographs, or make copies of all your engineers' design notes.

Not exactly. As reported by companies which are more open about the process and like helping the OSS movement (like AMD), the main problem aren't competitors (they use slightly different approaches and the drivers are 200% optimised for sp

Re:Hardware: Really depends....

[Grishnakh]

Then there's all the rest. All the cheap devices. All the asian nonames using weird variation of lesser big-brand chips.
Network card, webcams, scanners, low-cost & onbaord sound, etc.
The first weeks, windows support is the greatest, because the obscure asian company has created some drivers for it (although the drivers are buggy and pose problems down the line after a few weeks of Windows usage).
Then Linux slowly catches up, and the last months quite easily. As said, most of the obscure hardware just uses weird variation of the same few dead-cheap chips. As Linux is opensource, a lot of code share can be done, lots of common feature can be abstracted, etc. For most of the gizmos, adding a new gadget, is simply writting a thing layer which then re-uses the same basics as other drivers talking to similar but slightly different variation of the chip.

Actually, I don't think this is quite correct. These Asian companies don't make slightly-different versions of hardware using the same chips, they make identical versions of hardware, outright copying the chip manufacturers' reference designs. It's not just cheap gadgets either, you can see it in video cards too; they're all pretty much identical, except for their heatsink/fan assemblies. That's why it doesn't matter to your Nvidia driver whether your medium-end or high-end video card is a PNY, Gigabyte, or MSI, because they're all identical. From what I've seen in the industry as a software engineer, high-volume OEMs don't like to do their own designs, they want their vendors (the chip mfgrs) to do it all for them. Doing their own design can cause them problems vs using a known-good reference design, and it costs them more, so they just copy the reference design and make their own pretty packaging for it.

De Caza = Hyprocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Miguel de Caza, isn't this the guy who sweared M$ DotNet was the greatest technology ever ? Talk about some shitty guy, what does he know about the Mac kernel anyway ? He'd better fix the crap named Gnome before pointing to other, better tech.

The Terrorists Win?

[Qwertie]

"If you are not planning on getting an iPad 2 on Friday at 5 p.m., the terrorists win." So said open source icon Miguel de Icaza on his Twitter feed this week, and he wasn't joking.

Um, I think he was joking.

I don't think this is really true

[sean.peters]

I own several computers - among them is a Macbook Pro. I needed to be able to run a few Windows programs on it, and I just wanted to play around with Ubuntu, so I installed them both (Win 7, Ubuntu 9.10) in virtual machines (VirtualBox FTW!). The process is exactly like installing onto a bare hard disk. Both installations were pretty easy, and both required some amount of time to download and install updates. Neither one required any significant amount of searching for drivers. Maybe the situation would be different installing Windows on a physical box... but I've done that in years past too, and didn't really have any problems there either.

Bottom line: those folks who think their monitor is the computer and IE is the internet would have trouble with either install. Those with skills more advanced than that probably could handle either install.

Re:linux windows but windows gnome

[Tetsujin]

Sorry Miguel, but the subject says it all.

Perhaps you should give kde 3.5.x a whirl and find out what an actual pleasant UI is like.

<shrug> I switched from KDE to Gnome and I love it. I'm not real clear what KDE has to offer that's better...

Re:Three reasons I've been unable to switch to Lin

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X exclusively uses OpenGL idiot.

Either LOL or cry

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

This coming from a man who has spent most of his career improving desktop and developer usability for users of open source software.

Really? Migeul? Are you sure you didn't google the wrong bio?

Man is a a-grade numty-head.

I am over listening to his nonsense, only confusion is why the GNOME devs have not done the same thing.

Microsoft Plant

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was long since established this guy was a Microsoft plant designed to inject patent time bombs like C# (Mono) and Silverlight (Moonight). Give him a week and he'll announce solving all the media issues with a Microsoft compatible Mono implementation of Direct Sound or maybe another layer of abstraction but this time time written in an implementation of VB written in C# which can only be compiled in Visual Studio through Wine.

Re:Microsoft Plant

[Mandorus]

It is only "established" in the eyes of ideologues like you.

No It doesn't

[tuppe666]

It has two ALSA+Pulseaudio, and they work very well together...NOW. The only reason I say now is the transition from OSS to ALSA was painful for many, but that was years ago now, and Pulseaudio which adds features, you can see the advantages everywhere, sound mixing being the one people use, although its functionality you could get already. Again Pulseaudio was thrust on a world that didn't want or need it, and more importantly broke what was working before, with everyone pointing fingers at everyone else, but again this is mature technology now, massive forum threads of users reverting ALSA to legacy OSS, or removing Pulseaudio to get sound are at an end. Your more likely to get posts about sound being muted in alsa/pulsaudio through upgrading than anything else, and it shouldn't do that. That is not to say people don't still have problems with certain cards, but I suspect Linux audio has had its reputation damaged by these transitions, unfortunately these major changes should have been held as an example of how not to launch revolutionary software on its users, but similar mistakes were made with Intel KMS and Compiz and its likely to happen again with Unity/Gnome 3.

Re:No It doesn't

[MrHanky]

Pulseaudio is of course a good example, but new stuff comes up all the time. A new version of X.org breaking the binary drivers, a window manager using OpenGL extensions not properly implemented by certain drivers (I believe this was the case with kwin 4.5 and radeon), due to poor communication between projects. You notice more of this when running a rolling release distro like Arch or Debian Sid and tracking bleeding edge drivers, of course. Things related to X have been particularly bad the last few years. Hopefully it will change when everything has been moved to Gallium3d, but until then the situation is a bit messy.

Re:No It doesn't

[bzipitidoo]

There's more piddly breakage. I run Arch Linux, and recent updates have been giving me fits. Sound quit working because the update process removed all the users from the audio group. Not too big a deal to fix, but it's annoying to have to run down a problem like that. Worse is the way every kernel update mangles proprietary graphics driver installations. After a kernel update, I've adopted the simple method of reinstalling the kernel, with "pacman -S kernel26", done from the text screen naturally, as X can't come up. But the winner was the failure of kernel modules to load after a recent update. This was especially annoying on those computers with USB keyboards and mice. No USB driver, no keyboard. Couldn't ssh into the box remotely, as there was no networking either-- that was another module that didn't load. I booted the installation media to gain access so I could fix things.

Re:linux windows but windows gnome

[AvitarX]

Agreed,

I love Gnome's look with two thin panels. Stuff to see in the top-right, launch top-left, and stuff to click regularly on the bottom.

The newest KDE 4 is usable though (no crashes, compositing is smooth, Notifications are only slightly annoying), and I love having two folders on my desktop.

Also, a pretty big fan of the fuzzy clock, but that's not really a KDE specific thing I don't think.

M$ shill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't DeIcaza hired by M$ to push pro M$ views and trash Linux, under the guise of being a Linux supporter?

Wasn't he a key player in that Sliverlight fiasco?

Price

[sourcerror]

What if buying the propietary software is cheaper than paying for support. I have several offices run on Xp and Openoffice/Thunderbird, as the cheapest, least troublesome combination.

Ubuntu a target of criticism around here lately ..

[perpenso]

>The "by nerds for nerds" attitude

Oh hey everybody, he's using an argument from the 1990s! Tell me, what is so nerdy about Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, or Pardus (to blatantly plug that distro)? You don't ever have to drop to a command line anymore if you really don't want to.

I realize the beginning of the post got you panties in a bunch but perhaps you should have kept reading:

"To be specific one Linux distribution would need a different attitude, not all of the Linux distributions. Having different distributions focus on radically different communities would seem to be the way to go."

If you had kept reading perhaps you might have realized we are in agreement more than you currently believe. Where do I say such a user friendly distribution does not exist? What I claim to exist is an intolerant attitude towards those who want such a distribution. Have you not noticed how Ubuntu seems to a target of criticism around here lately, for daring to do things that enhance convenience but are not philosophically pure to some?

The "by nerds for nerds" attitude is not something from the 90s, it is alive and well today and its adherents should get over it. Point newbs towards the friendliest distribution despite its lack of FSF purity. Once the newbs get up to speed then perhaps introduce them to other distributions.

An apt comparison

[Infonaut]

Yeah, the title reads like "Adolf Hitler On Tolerance and Equal Opportunities".

Yes, because Microsoft is killing millions and MdI is collaborating with them on a nuclear weapon. This is not a discussion about different approaches to creating and distributing software.

Don't complain about poor mainstream adoption

[Infonaut]

I thought the discussion was about mainstream adoption of open source software.

... writing silly GUIs for things that don't need it and others like you that insist on having everything done for you tells me you'd rather be having a different discussion altogether. OSS will continue to be marvelous for geeks and ignored by end users if you believe you're building the software solely for yourself. It's perfectly valid to build software for yourself and for those like you, but you can't expect that people unlike you will start using OSS.

Re:Don't complain about poor mainstream adoption

[Microlith]

I thought the discussion was about mainstream adoption of open source software.

It's about wondering why people don't work on problems that don't interest them. So unless you're giving them a reason to be interested, they'll probably ignore it.

OSS will continue to be marvelous for geeks and ignored by end users if you believe you're building the software solely for yourself. It's perfectly valid to build software for yourself and for those like you, but you can't expect that people unlike you will start using OSS.

That's fine. It's silly to waste time battling against Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop when there's far more interesting spaces to win. But obviously if this realm is of huge interest, then surely someone would be willing to start a project and fund developers in the creation of these "easy to use" interfaces.

No, all I hear are people bitching that others don't give their free time to solve problems they don't care about.

Re:Breakage

[Cajun Hell]

Linux is GREAT when it works, but can be a real PITA when it doesn't.

So you're saying it's exactly the same as every other OS?

Re:Breakage

[Anonymous Coward]

Commodore, stop trying to make yourself look like a martyr with trollpuppets.

Coordinated open-source funding

[Compaqt]

>What will they do? Buy the proprietary tool, every one of them. It doesn't matter that they'll pay 10,000$ total instead of 1000$ because they're not coordinated.

Good analysis of the economic problem. And being uncoordinated, it's (usually) in people's interest to pay the small proprietary fee.

But: does the emergence of coordination systems like Chipin change that economic incentive? (There's also another site like Chipin that only pays out your pledge when you reach the goal, but I forgot what it was.)

So go buy a certified linux laptop

[dirkdodgers]

It's pretty simple. Hardware vendors make sure their hardware works with Windows. Most hardware vendors don't care whether it's easy for people to make their consumer hardware work on Linux.

So what do you do? You do exactly what Windows consumers do. You buy your system from a system builder, only one that certifies their systems for Linux, i.e. you pay money for someone to make sure that your flavor of Linux works on your hardware, so that you don't have to do it yourself. These aren't old systems. They are current gen systems.

I don't have any affiliation with any of these vendors but it was easy to find them:
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
http://www.system76.com/
http://www.emperorlinux.com/

Windows Works because it works

[theNAM666]

This comment brought to you by the Bill-Gates-Department-of-Circular-Tautology-Department.

Re:By nerds for nerds ...ideology cereal

[theNAM666]

Don't happen to know where I can get another box, do you? I'm running low and afraid my precious bodily fluids may be exposed to foreign corruption.

Re:Ubuntu a target of criticism around here lately

[bmo]

That attitude is only alive and well in a vocal minority, and I go out of my way to shout at such people "YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE COMMUNITY" as loud as I can.

The other 90 percent of the Linux community is just ducky with Ubuntu, Redhat, and SuSE, all "noob friendly" distributions.

It's only when you get into the Arch and Gentoo fanatics that you wind up scraping the bottom of the barrel. They seem to attract a disproportionate amount of trolls.

I tell people "learning how to build a linux distribution from scratch only teaches you how to build a distro. It doesn't teach you how to use the tools of that distro"

Which is true and I will go to my grave defending that argument.

But to paint the community with the broad brush of having a "for nerds only" attitude is unfair and uncalled for. And using Slashdot as a basis for that argument is ill-informed at best because the only people who come here are nerds, almost by definition.

--
BMO

Re:Breakage

[melikamp]

A distinction irrelevant to the user.

May be so, and then it's the users' own attitude that is biting them in the ass, not any flaw of GNU/Linux or Free software in general. If users gave a shit, they would have by now a Free Web video player. As it stands, they have a malware launchpad a.k.a. Flash, which is, let's face it, a piece of shit for performance. It's funny how the proprietary video zealots cannot shut up about the virtually non-existent difference between x264 and Theora, but no one ever brings up how Adobe's own Flash chokes and tears on a modern quad core, and generally manages to rape your CPU while playing a 320x200 video.

All I am saying, really: bitching about the quality of Free software is rather pointless. It's already better than anything proprietary, but it lacks mindshare and support. So we need to educate consumers about the software, or they will continue taking their cues from ads. And once there is enough demand for FLOSS solutions, then will see manufacturers supporting them in earnest.

Re:Three reasons I've been unable to switch to Lin

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but your #2 comment is just dumb and wrong. As another poster pointed out, OS X uses OpenGL, not DirectX which is a MS-only API. Furthermore, DX and OpenGL are just programming APIs. While we can certainly debate the merits of each one (apparently Carmack now thinks DX is better in its latest incarnation), they're nothing more than APIs to the underlying video hardware. There's no significant difference in performance between the two, provided you have programs written natively to that API. However, it's pretty hard to compare that, since there's no programs where they have otherwise-equal DX and OpenGL versions; usually it's just one or the other, or one is an afterthought. If you'd like to write your own benchmark program for each one, keeping everything possible identical, except the API calls, you should find no significant difference in performance between the two.

You don't get support. You get install from clean

[Anonymous Coward]

If you PC goes wrong, unless you're paying a LOT, you're going to get "your computer has software on it that is changed from the sold version. Please go back to your stock configuration and see if it still fails. If it still fails, we'll assume it's your hardware (if we're software) or software (if we're hardware)."