Slashdot Mirror
Old Arguments May Cost Linux the Desktop
itwbennett writes "The old Linux arguments that pit one tool against another — Evolution vs. Thunderbird, LibreOffice vs. OpenOffice, and GNOME3 vs. Unity vs. KDE vs. everything else — may cost Linux its shot at the desktop, opines blogger Brian Proffitt. 'We can compare LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org to Office till the cows come home,' says Proffitt. 'But what happens when Google Docs gets truly robust enough for business and high-end document production? Or Prezi gets enough mindshare to start an upwards trajectory of user numbers?' It should be the case that increasing reliance on cloud software will make it easier for businesses to choose Linux, but for that to happen, Linux communities need to stop fighting the old fights, says Proffitt."
Is LibreOffice vs. OpenOffice an old argument? It's hardly a year old...
...is more important than monoculture, in my humble opinion.
If only 1 percent of computer users use Linux, then I will argue they are the Top 1 percent ;)
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Linux does not have a shot at the desktop and never will. That is some /. nerd fantasy.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
So, let me get this straight: "Linux On the Desktop" is doomed because, when 'cloud applications' come into the fore, there will still be nerds with strong opinions about native applications?
Isn't that exactly backward?
If "The Cloud" rises up and devours natives software, nobody will give a fuck about any application on the Linux desktop, except for the browser(the state of which is fine) and none of the suits will care about the raging emacs/vi crusades, so long as they can get their almost-thin-clients booted into gmail as cheaply as possible...
The hypothetical rise of in-browser stuff renders battles about the relative value of assorted linux-native applications irrelevant, that's sort of the whole point.
Once people shift to using cloud-based software, the very reason for people to use Linux on the desktop (software freedom) is lost in any case. It will be a case of getting past the post after the race is over.
I'm done caring about the "year of the desktop debate". I use Windows 7 for gaming and I use Linux for everything else. If that puts me in a 1% camp, then so be it.
In other news this week:
Call Of Duty vs Battlefield - who could possibly choose? Certainly nobody could ever like both! :'(
Brown bread vs white - when will the madness end?
Blondes vs brunettes vs redheads - the human race is falling apart!
Peanut butter vs jelly - the only choice at breakfast time is to cry
Coffee vs tea - the hot beverage industry will implode if we don't just CHOOSE ONE gods-damn-it!
which is totally what she said
how does arguing which is better in the presence of of online alternatives cost Linux the desktop?
It might not cost Linux the desktop, but it might cost Linux the laptop. Mobile broadband to use Google Docs or Prezi while riding a bus is still priced as a luxury service.
1. This article blindly assumes that "linux on everybody's desktop" is a goal. It may be for some people, but if I had to put money on it, I'd say that 95% of linux users don't really give a damn. Linux will always be useful for them, irrespective of whether grandma can buy a desktop with linux pre-installed.
2. Linux already IS on the desktop for millions of people. It's been on my desktop for 14 years. It may not be on grandma's desktop, but again, why would I care? I use linux because it's the best tool for what I do (and also the most fun and interesting for me) not because I'm on some kind of world-domination crusade.
Nobody asked this guy to speak for them, myself included. So I kindly suggest that he piss off.
That all the arguing in the community is what is holding Linux back is itself a tired old argument.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
It may not be on grandma's desktop, but again, why would I care?
Developers of specialized software lack the resources to support every platform. They choose which platforms to support based on which could make the most money for them. And right now, Windows and Mac OS X have much clearer economies of scale than GNU/Linux. So if GNU/Linux isn't widespread, it won't draw a large selection of specialized software, especially in those markets that free software has historically had trouble serving.
It won't cost Linux the desktop for the same reason why having to choose between Google Talk, AIM and MSN doesn't do that to the Windows desktop: those things aren't really significant and not new either.
Evolution vs Thunderbird doesn't matter, as they're pretty much equivalent for most purposes. Besides, a lot of people use gmail and don't really care about either. Then it's not like Thunderbird doesn't run on Windows, creating exactly the same choice.
Libre Office vs OpenOffice doesn't really matter at this point in time either, as the differences are tiny, and the file format is standard anyway. Long term there'll probably be a clear winner. I'm betting for Libre Office because that's what Ubuntu is shipping right now, and Oracle is a hulking behemoth.
But, there's a bigger thing here, and it's that all such discussions are ultimately pointless. The OSS world is fluid and distributed. No matter how much somebody might pontificate at great length about the need for unity, nobody is obligated to care.
Libre Office for instance, appeared for a good reason, and I doubt very much the developers that work on it will suddenly "see the light" and go back to trying to submit patches to Oracle, just because some guy wrote an article saying it "might cost Linux the desktop". I'd say that most developers don't really care. At least when I contribute patches to Linux software I don't do it because of some world domination long term goal.
I think what is needed is open standards. So long I can use whatever I like to do my work, why would I need to care about what the rest of the world uses?
Linux, and open source in general, will never be that popular, simply because of cognitive load. It's software designed by engineers, with no clear understanding of style or ergonomics.
To use a car example, it's like a car with high torque and excellent gas mileage, but ugly to look at and the instruments are labelled differently and in the back seat.
Many companies hire artists and usability experts to look at the final product and make tweaks and recommendations. Some even take the trouble to engage focus groups of customers to find out what features are confusing, what aspects are uncomfortable, what looks ugly. They take this information and change their product for the better.
For the most part, the success of Apple products is for this reason: the iPod was not the first MP3 player on the market, but it's usability and aesthetic appeal and robustness made it highly popular.
Open source, on the other hand, is usually done by a single engineer putting in most of the effort. The results usually have the following pattern:
1) Documentation: Writing documentation is boring. Put up a wiki and let the users fill in the details.
2) Aesthetic looks: This is not important. Give the user a panel to change the environment to suit their tastes.
3) Compatibility: Not important. "Search for text" is different in every application, it's impossible for your fingers to memorize the action.
4) Simplicity: More features is better! Try viewing the man page for "ls" some time. Or preferences in VLC.
5) Descriptives: Don't choose descriptive names for anything. Instead of "Internet Explorer", "Paint Shop Pro" and "Media Player", use terms like "Gimp, Firefox, and VLC".
This last is one reason why old folks have a tough time using the new technology. They have to learn a completely new language: Every random word that they *thought* they knew ("pidgin", "handbrake", "calibre") means something different in the new system.
Gimme a break.
The top five or so open source projects try to deal with these issues, but the overwhelming majority are robust, strong, functional, and totally enigmatic.
Where are the open source tech writers? The ones who take that part of the problem and work alongside the engineers to ensure quality documentation? Where are the open source ergonomic experts, the usability analysts, the aesthetic artists? Who ever does usability studies, or consistency between apps?
Until the engineers get a clue, open source projects will never be more than a closet of hobbyist projects.
Making good software is more than robust coding.
Crap. Linux, not Linus. Typing to type while eating lunch. Why oh why can't we have a fucking edit button.
to gradually improve things in gnome, i was happy because that was actually the first time i have seen that things - even small things where continuously getting better (talking about 2007-2009). In the end they really had me stopping using the terminal, something which was absurd a few years back.
But now that they decided to go the (steep) way of pushing gnome in one direction which keeps and makes it usable, but rolling out their own shit (Yes, i mean it - 11.04 made me think about switching back) and weirdly enough did not adress the obviously missing parts (e.g. pdf commenting is possible only in okular, openoffice would need a closer look by somebody who integrates it), i am extremely pessimistic.
http://xkcd.com/934/
But you know, there are a lot of people who are disagreeing with the article, but I generally agree. At first the "fighting" was productive. It served a purpose as it created a competitive environment in which various projects could mature. I don't think that's the case any longer. Now we are seeing different drives behind projects and now we are seeing a lot of "change for the sake of change" and version number escalation clearly meant to make people think there's a huge difference between (for example) Firefox 4.x and Firefox 5.x.
And if various projects can't manage to work together for a common cause or goal, then it is highly unlikely there will be much acceptance of Linux in the Enterprise for desktop use. Why should they when there are so many flavors and styles out there? We're not just talking about theming, but also various internals as well.
One thing that is horribly wrong with Linux today is that a useful software package is nearly impossible to create which works on ALL of the current distributions. That's a tremendous and obvious block right there.
The last time I spoke words like these, someone use the word "shill" to describe me. I am a hard-core Linux user. I favor RedHat based Linuxes (though I'm not pleased with F15 at all... mostly GNOME3's fault) and the only Windows anything I use are in VMs that are called up on an as-needed basis. So it's not like I don't love or use Linux and definitely not like I'm not a user and don't know what I'm talking about. I've been at this since the beginning of RedHat 4.0 and have watched it grow and improve since that time. I'm no shill. But I can definitely see where things are going wrong and they are. The community must change and especially mature.
Which is not what the question was at all. I don't care.
On top of that as indie game studios now often support linux, I am not sure you are correct.
Have you used windows, osx, gnome,unity, or kde?
They are not copying at all.
Gnome2 was it's own take on application menu and taskbar, kde 4 was a complete reimagining of the traditional desktop. Unity is it's own think, though I guess it has a dock bar (like windows and osx). Kde has an application menu,like gnome2 or windows. Gnome3 has a very unique interface. Unity has an application dashboard which is fairly unique.
They really aren't copies at all.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
For Linux to ever have a shot on the desktop, it would have to stop being Linux. Namely it would have to get some standards beyond the kernel. It would have to become a system where a lot more was standardized and you could rely on features, packages, UIs, etc being in all distributions. To desktop users, an OS isn't a kernel, it is a rich experience that comprises, well, everything you find on a Windows or MacOS disc. Until that happens, it'll never be an OS people want to use on the desktop because people don't want choice, they want consistency. That doesn't mean it couldn't still be flexible, just that it would have mandatory features and defaults.
Along those lines it would have to do away with having source be something a user had any idea existed. No distributing programs as source, no recompiling the kernel to make something work, all binary all the time for users. Again, wouldn't mean it would have to get rid of source, just that the user experience couldn't include it. That would have to be all nice guided installers that are fast and easy.
These things aren't important to servers, and completely unimportant to embedded devices, hence Linux has done well there. However they are what people need on the desktop.
Notice that the end-user facing Linux that has had the most success by far is Android and it does precisely those things. It gives users and developers a consistent environment and set of tools that are guaranteed to be there, since they are a part of what Android is. It provides easy, binary-only installs for users so they just click on what they want and get it.
That's what Linux as a whole would have to do to have a chance of capturing a significant share of the desktop market. So long as the answer to problems remains "Oh just use a different distro, that one doesn't have feature X and Y," or "Recompile your kernel with these options to make that work," it'll be the sort of thing that there isn't widespread interest in.
You assume that Linux is developing in a vacuum, and it magically got good enough to be on your desktop. But that's not how it happened.
Linux got good enough quickly enough that various critical players assumed it would soon (or at least eventually) be a viable desktop alternative. So they began to support it. You probably wouldn't be using Linux on your desktop (at least not exclusively) were there no nVidia drivers, various HP printer drivers, Broadcom (yes, a late comer) and, yes, Flash support available for it. But what you willfully refuse to see is that all of those things became available because their vendors assumed they'd get some advantage from providing them.
There's a whole rash of things that never became available (Quicken, games, etc), because their vendors didn't see the advantage of Linux support, or were holding back to wait for critical mass, or wanted to jump in, but were stymied by the need to choose a platform on top of Linux (GNOME, KDE, etc) to target.
If it becomes obvious that critical mass will never come, those last players may never jump in. And the first group may jump out (no nVidia drivers for new classes of cards, etc). Hell, even Firefox support on Linux is lagging Windows these days. So you can argue all you want that 'choice is good' and 'I can use Linux, so why should I care', but you can only use linux because other people have cared in the past. Wake up. World domination is not the goal - viability is, and that goal can slip through your fingers even though you are happy with your Linux setup today.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Linux has hardware support for things 20 years old that almost no one needs on a modern computer. Windows 7/Vista has support for almost every piece of hardware being sold today -- Linux does not.
Linux == servers
Linux == desktops
Linux == webcams
Linux == TVs
Linux == Blu-Ray players
Linux == phones
Linux == anywhere that people want a free, secure OS
Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"
However, I believe this more accurately sums up one of the big problems with linux: ...
Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Half of the passengers however decide that they dont like the #10 bolts used to fasten the chair down and that since Linux is all about choice they're going to improve the bolts. So they whip out their tap and die sets and proceed to 'do things their way'. They then proceed to tell everyone around them how good their bolts are. Half of the plane doesn't care because 'it's just a goddamn bolt' and the other half insists on doing it their own way because 'they can'. They then split up into 50 camps each with a slightly different bolt thread or length. The plane can't take off until all the chairs are fastened, so the plane never actually leaves the terminal. All the other airlines' passengers laugh as they take off because LinuxAir travelers insist on debating the same stupid shit over and over and over and over
Try using software with multiple scroll-boxes, in windows you need to click, then scroll. In linux you just hover and scroll, then move to the next one. You really don't realize how much of a PITA that click is until you've used linux for a while, then had to use a windows box.
Other "small" but SERIOUSLY useful things include
"highlight, then middle click" for copy/paste (no keyboard),
alt+MMB for re-sizing (no grabbing the corner)
alt+LMB for moving a window (my GOD that is useful!)
virtual terminals (WAY better than that "task manager" pos)
ssh: vnc is crap and always will be for remote application use
I could go on, but you get the idea. The big things in linux are amazing, but it's the little things (that have existed for over a DECADE) that really piss you off when you are forced to use a non-linux system for even 5 minutes.
Do we really need to repeat this AGAIN? The *ONLY* reason windows appears to have better driver support is because the manufacturer/retailer spends all the time getting the drivers for you. Tell you what, buy a computer (with some windows version on it, such as windows 7), then wipe the harddrive and install linux plus windows (a *different* version than what came with it, such as Vista or XP). Now see which one takes longer to get FULLY working with drivers.
Every time I have done this, windows took SIGNIFICANTLY longer, linux usually just "worked".
Oh, and the only reason Mac seems to work so well is that there is extremely limited hardware available for it.
As for keeping some old software, we tried this but our IT people refused to allow it "because it could not be supported". WTF??? we were not asking for "support".
I can see you've never worked in IT.
Protip: There's no such thing as an employee using a piece of software to do corporate business-critical data handling that "doesn't need support". Oh sure, they'll all swear they won't ever need support, when they buy/borrow/smuggle in Elephant Brand Cheapo Data Splicer Time Limited 30 Day Trial Edition (Siberian Language Localisation) Cracked By Hackerzb0y13, but when it comes to the day before yearly financial reports are due, suddenly it'll be "Oh by the way, can you please recover my budget spreadsheet files so I can do my presentation at eleven? I think my computer has a virus, because it's coming up "file unreadable, retry ignore?"".
If you work for a company, your software needs support. Trust me on this.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC