Why Linux Can't 'Sell' On the Desktop

New submitter VoyagerRadio writes "Recently I found myself struggling with a question I should easily have been able to answer: Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system? It's a fair question, and asked often of Linux, but I'm finding it to be a question I can no longer answer with the conviction necessary to 'sell' the platform. In fact, I kind of feel like a car salesman who realizes he no longer believes in the product he's been pitching. It's not that I don't find Linux worthy; I simply don't understand how it's ever going to succeed on the desktop with voluntary marketing efforts. What do Linux users need to do to replicate the marketing efforts of Apple and Microsoft and other corporate operating system vendors? To me, it seems you don't sell Linux at all because there isn't supposed to be one dominant distribution that stands out from the rest. Without a specific product to put on the shelf to sell, what in the world do you focus your efforts on selling? An idea?"

Comments

heh

[stoolpigeon]

What do Linux users need to do to replicate the marketing efforts of Apple and Microsoft and other corporate operating system vendors?
 
Spend millions of dollars on advertising and even more in subsidies to hardware manufacturers (or like Apple make your own hardware.) But I have no idea why anyone would want to do that. Though I confess, I don't really care if Linux gets the kind of broad use that Windows has or even OSX. I used to worry about it, because I had a fear that if not enough people used Linux it might go away. But now Linux is so incredibly successful on the server and phone that I'm not worried about that any more.
 
I really hate Apple - their whole approach but more and more I find myself telling people, "Hey, if you can afford it try out Apple." It seems to work well for normals. They appear to have less issues than the normals running Windows. Frankly, I don't get it, but then again - I don't care. I just want people to be able to do what they want so they can leave me alone so I can focus on doing what I want - which means using Linux. I'm glad I'm not dependent on winning over people that are willing pay extra for devices that are locked down physically and ideologically. (Nobody needs to get their panties in a bunch defending Apple to me. I've heard all the reason people like their stuff. It's not that I don't understand - I just don't agree. I find their products to be aesthetically pleasing as long as I don't actually have to use them.)
 
And of course MS had to break the law to get the install numbers they had. I'm not willing to go that route either for Linux.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we have done it completely wrong for a long time. Asking people to please use a platform is counter productive. Telling them they can't have it could be a better solution.

Re:heh

[Chrisq]

What do Linux users need to do to replicate the marketing efforts of Apple and Microsoft and other corporate operating system vendors? Spend millions of dollars on advertising and even more in subsidies to hardware manufacturers (or like Apple make your own hardware.)

Don't forget the smear campaigns and FUD about other operating systems, threats to sue end users over patent infringement, etc.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Also, I don't think I would want Linux distro's to go through the changes it would require to make it feasible for every end user, it would ruin it's niche. I have seen this happen to Ubuntu the last few changes, and it's a step in the wrong direction IMHO.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

That's funny. I need to start quickly shutting off the monitors on my desk whenever someone walks into my office.

Them: What'cha doin?
Me: Nothing. Nothing at all.
Them: Why'd you turn off your computer?
Me: Well, actually I just turned off.. Never mind. Well I use this special operating system, I'm not even supposed to talk about it.
Them: Operating System?
Me: The software it runs, like Windows or Mac
Them: Really? Who made it secret?
Me: It's just an unspoken rule. It's rather expensive and very limited in who is allowed to use it.
Them: Wow. What would it take for me to get it?

Re:heh

[gbjbaanb]

I'm glad I'm not dependent on winning over people that are willing pay extra for devices that are locked down physically and ideologically

unfortunately this applies to Linux more than any other OS. Which graphics card drivers do you use? If you don't care and use the proprietary ones from the card maker, fine. If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open, then you're just as bad as Apple is with their locked-down-only stuff.

Re:heh

[WrongSizeGlass]

So, the first run of Linux adoption is don't talk about Linux adoption? ;-)

Re:heh

[IceNinjaNine]

The first rule of Linux is that you do not talk about Linux.

The second rule of Linux is that YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT LINUX.

... two geeks walking past each other in the hallway with a knowing nod and a calluses on their fingers from their Happy Hacking keyboards...

Re:heh

[beelsebob]

It's much much much more simple than that. Be usable, have a massive pile of good applications.

Re:heh

[kevleyski]

If it was pre-installed on new laptops and seemlessly auto ran a VM for applications (e.g. Games, Viso, project) that have no real substitute then people would just use it. Perhaps create a bunch of make my Linux machine like this one (e.g. Office desktop, gaming VM, web server, or give me everything...) Also repos like rpmfusion need to turned on as standard, perhaps some sort of paypal/yum appstore with a flawless sytem woud be good. Auto install stuff like the missing plugin options like codecs rather than ask pointless questions (less options is the Apple way and is really popular, too many options is just intimidating, and most likely buggy, but make sure there is a way geeks can still set the options) Better dependency checks when kernel is updated and kernel modules need recompiling (e.g. AMD/NVIDIA, why does it have to _always_ break on minor updates, stop changing the headers guys) Faster close window for the 3rd time kills the process (e.g. xorg leads both KDE and Gnome frequent lock up due to shared resources) Qt vs GTK+ debarckle, just choose one and stick with it. Stuff like that.

Gamer often left behind even though hardware and software capable... support for DirectX or a DirectX to OpenGL

Re:heh

[kevleyski]

Yep this is badly missing on the Mac too, yes there's time machine, but it won't uninstall or put back dependency libraries for example. Might have a go a writing one, yum transactions you can rollback...

Re:heh

[smpoole7]

> If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open ...

Haven't checked further down in the thread, but I confidently predict that I'll hit a flame war over this very thing, once I scroll down far enough. Call me a prophet. :)

Free Software purists require that Linux must Make A Statement(tm) and Prove A Point(sm). If it also happens to work just as well, hey, that's a bonus. But to some of us, that's actually kinda-sorta important.

Related topic: when I switched to Linux (c. 2000), I always installed Acrobat because most of my equipment manuals are in PDF form. The folks in Linux fora online would scold me, but at the time, all free alternatives STUNK. They were AWFUL. They could display a page and, if you held your mouth just right, they might even print them correctly. But only Acrobat would allow me to zoom, search, print the zoomed portion, bookmark sections and do the other things I needed to do.

So ... I used Acrobat. The Bearded Priests of the Free Software Revolution(tm) hated me for it, and accused me of "enabling" continued bad behavior from closed source companies. I tuned them out as background noise. Hey, I was using Linux -- on purpose -- and whenever I could reasonably do so, I chose FOSS alternatives -- on purpose. If I didn't meet their standards of ideological purity, well, too bad.

Now, thank the Lord, there are alternatives that work well enough (I use Okular). But for years, that wasn't the case.

Go ask the software and hardware vendors why they don't target Linux and they'll give you plenty of reasons. Hint: it's NOT market share. There are small software shops that LOVE writing apps for niche markets. But one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target.

They'll release a package, only to have the next update kill it, and they'll get a flood of support calls (which cost them money). The answer from the Free Software Purists(tm) will inevitably be, "well, if you'd release everything and let us build from source, you wouldn't have that problem."

They're not going to do that. Whether it's right or wrong, that's just a fact and it's time to accept it. They're NOT GOING TO DO THAT. Instead, they'll just continue to target Windows or Mac or (nowadays) Android.

Re:heh

[realityimpaired]

Which graphics card drivers do you use? If you don't care and use the proprietary ones from the card maker, fine. If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open, then you're just as bad as Apple is with their locked-down-only stuff.

Actually, I don't care which graphics driver I use, because I haven't had to install a graphics driver on Linux in years. Since gaming is a wash on Linux anyway, and Intel graphics can easily handle stuff like compositing, I don't see the point in installing an after-market graphics card on my Linux systems.

And while it may not be gaming, specifically, that is the crux of the problem: proprietary software that only supports platform X. Both Windows and Mac have their share of software like that, and people are stuck with vendor lock-in. *that* is really what's keeping people from installing Linux wholescale... until you stop needing to run Application Y, there's not a lot you can do about it.

Re:heh

[digitig]

First get a product that is as good as Microsoft's and Apple's for that particular job. I think Linux is the go-to OS of choice for back ends, but geeks tend to overlook just how hard it is to get Linux working. Every Linux installation I've done there have been problems getting it to work with the hardware that have involved typing arcane incantations into obscure configuration files. Geeks will do that; Joe User won't. And I still haven't got sound or wi-fi working properly on my current Ubuntu installation (nobody on the Ubuntu forums can work out the problems, and all the hardware is listed as supported and works fine when I boot Windows). Not an issue for a backend, but a killer on the desktop. It's not marketing that Linux needs for the desktop, at least not marketing to users -- marketing to hardware manufacturers to persuade them to support it would be a different matter.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

I'm going to have to disagree. That will get you a following but not on the scale of Apple or MS. I don't think they'd market like they do if they didn't see results. The same with defending their intellectual property.

In the early days of the PC there were multiple platforms that met your description (for their time) and most of them didn't make it. I don't think it was simply a matter of them not being usable or lacking applications.

Those things of course are important, I am not saying you can succeed without them to some extent - but to get adoption on a global scale it takes some additional work.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

I've said it above - but more directly to your point about Linux being difficult - we could argue that all day. I have had a real bear trying to do some rather straightforward things on MS and Apple. The fact that so many friends are calling on me to help fix their problems on such a regular basis (and none of them are running Linux) proves to me that they are not so easy.

So I think it goes well beyond that - to marketing and business practices.

  But in my mind, this discussion about if Linux is as 'easy' as MS and Apple is a waste of time as we'll be throwing around anecdotes and such without really settling anything. So I'd rather avoid that and ask, "Is Windows the dominant OS based purely on usability?" If you really believe that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re:heh

[EzInKy]

If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open, then you're just as bad as Apple is with their locked-down-only stuff.

You are as bad as those who want to lock you down if you get upset when someone tries to lock you down? Is that like getting your "panties in a wad" against those who want to enslave you when you are against slavery? What kind of logic is that?

Re:heh

[robi5]

Don't spend millions on advertising; spend them to create a desktop experience of reasonable quality, and a decent office package. For office applications, the quality threshold is either the MS Office level with full compatibility (this is not given now), OR an office package that's way superior to the MS Office package (this latter seems to be easier and more meaningful, but OpenOffice/LibreOffice et al are POS uninspired, unconvincing copycats of decent but uninspired clones of 70's and 80's products). Also, stop the fragmentation; let there be one major Linux desktop. In general, do what Apple does.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

If I'm parsing that correctly (and I'm not totally sure) what are these features that Linux is missing? I move between both regularly and I'm struggling to come up with a list of my own.

Re:heh

[lorinc]

It's much much much more simple than that. Be usable, have a massive pile of good applications.

much more simpler: get your OS pre-installed on millions on computer worldwide thanks to aggressive partnership with constructors.

I guess if you have some tens of billions to spend on that project, it would work just as well.

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

My experience is that Windows is missing lots of features. No SSH support; no support for filesystems other than NTFS and FAT; no low level disk tools (dd); poor NFS support; doesn't come with a decent text editor.... I could carry on, but you get the idea.

Re:heh

[mulaz]

If Ubuntu can do it, so can you!

Tip: try searching for "linux" on ubuntu.com

Re:heh

[DdJ]

That "or (nowadays) Android" coupled with the kernel 3.3 news gives me some optimism for the future.

I'm really looking forward to, say, Debian or Ubuntu just bundling Dalvik and a large portion of the Android stack. I'm looking forward to the day when one of my alternatives to Office on the Linux desktop is actually the Android version of "Documents to Go", running full screen "Lion"-style or "Windows 8 Metro"-style.

(Likewise, I'm looking forward to CyanogeMod bundling large portions of Debian or Ubuntu, where it makes sense to do so, so I can maybe run Eclipse or at least Emacs on my Nook Color, with the full surrounding ecosystem that those environments expect.)

(Full disclosure: from about 1994 to 2000 I used Linux heavily everywhere, but today I only use it on my servers, using MacOS on the desktop/laptop. Also, I have an Android tablet -- a hacked Nook Color with CM7.1 on it -- but most of my mobile work today is on iOS. The reason is usability, coupled with enthusiasm for Objective-C left over from my NeXTstep days. But a merged Android and Linux might bring me back "into the fold", so to speak... though I still consider myself "in the fold", because Linux is my OS of choice for all my servers as it has been since the mid 1990s.)

Re:heh

[characterZer0]

As are as the users are concerned:

• Photoshop
• Acrobat
• Sharepoint
• Call of Duty
• Quicken
• Turbotax
• Support for their lousy $50 printer/copier

Re:heh

[MickyTheIdiot]

Linux us NOT missing features. This is the same B.S. we heard constantly with MacOS in the days before OS X came out. There wasn't features (or software) missing then and there isn't now for either MacOS or Linux.

What it is missing is simply the user base to get past the tipping point where the even the worst and laziest developers and companies have to take notice because enough people squeal when you do something idiotic like put PHP code in your web page that blocks a non-Windows browser. As a Linux desktop user I still have to deal with this (though not nearly as much as I used to) when all that has to be done is to make the site work with WebKit and/or Firefox. Simple.

The second biggest category are just companies that are haters, and I have to believe Adobe falls into this area. They have the expertise in house to port the Adobe suite to Linux and Unix but they just won't do it. You can see by their other offerings that they have the ability to do it but they just won't, whether it is because of bean counting or because of OS religious hate. I also think MS probably bends their ear about it because there are plenty of developers that would leave MS behind forever (those that can't afford to go the Macintosh already) if Adobe ported their various tools to Linux.

Having said that there is a legitimate OS alternative for just about every Adobe tool now except for the super-high-end items (and yes, if you get off your butt and learn it Gimp will do just about everything PS will do save some of the newest of the new items Adobe has come up with. PS is in its place because it made itself the standard and that is what people learned. It's a great application, but 99% of the users won't use the power embedded in it).

Re:heh

[CastrTroy]

I think that for the most part, people tell you how to get things working using the config files because that's the way that is known to work, regardless of which distribution, or particular version of the distribution you are using. While there may be a way to do things through the UI, the people who answer on forums tend to be knowledgeable enough to know that at the end of the day, fixing something in the config file is often the best and quickest solution. A lot quicker than trying to remember the exact menu to go into on the specific distribution and version you happen to be using.

On a similar note, I find Ubuntu to be lacking in tools for administration, and find that there was a lot of time where I know of other distributions (Mandriva, at the time) that could easily configure the same things through the UI where Ubuntu could not. Ubuntu was much easier for the things it could do, and more things seemed to just work out of the box, but those that didn't work were a major pain to get working.

Personally, I don't run Linux at the moment on actual hardware. All my Linux needs are for "back-end" stuff and for that I just run in on VM, because in that limited virtual hardware world, it runs pretty flawlessly.

Re:heh

[rmstar]

To the mods: while aggressive, the parent post is correct and accurate. Do you think modding people down who tell the truth, plain and simple, is appropriate?

The "moving target" argument was a real howler.

Re:heh

[VolciMaster]

My experience is that Windows is missing lots of features. No SSH support; no support for filesystems other than NTFS and FAT; no low level disk tools (dd); poor NFS support; doesn't come with a decent text editor.... I could carry on, but you get the idea.

fwiw, most people just do not care about what filesystem they run on. It doesn't matter to the vast majority of end-users. For that matter, it doesn't matter to an awful lot of the server world, either - if it really did, Window Server would not have the footprint in enterprise computing that it does.

While I'd love to have something like ssh for Windows standard, the fact of the matter is that Windows is a GUI environment, and ssh access to that just doesn't make sense - especially when compared to RDP (which, btw, is quite secure).

Re:heh

[spacepimp]

Kudos on the Macross signature.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to include the clueless. They're not the haters, but they're clueless and constantly advocate Windows because that's what they know. I find that many Windows advocates in business do not realize how pervasive Linux is on the internet or in other business. It's a big surprise to many of these people when I tell them that IIS is third after Apache or nginx. They also tend to believe that because ASP.NET doesn't run on Linux or OSX, neither do PHP or Java. It's a circle of ignorance.

Re:heh

[CastrTroy]

There is no possibility of writing an office suite completely compatible with MS Office. Especially with MS Word. The Doc format cannot be duplicated except by using the code written my Microsoft. Even their new XML based file format is a complete mess.

Re:heh

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Spend millions of dollars on advertising and even more in subsidies to hardware manufacturers (or like Apple make your own hardware.) But I have no idea why anyone would want to do that.

We seem to be quick to blame others for Linux inability to make significant in roads in the desktop market. I'm sure the lack of a unified desktop and the sudden urge to fuck up the ones we have (Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4) may have something to do with it. The lack of apps that consumers want is another issue.

Of course Linux has come a long way. The Linux we have today is *much* more polished than the Linux distributions that I started with.

Re:heh

[MacGyver2210]

If this is your first time on Linux...you have to compile your own Kernel.

Re:heh

[jythie]

Linux is great if your are compiling from source or installing from rpm/deb, but everything is so heavily versioned that writing apps that 'just work' is nearly impossible across any significant range of versions. Developing binary packages for Linux is an exercise in frustration and I can not blame companies from not wanting to invest in doing it. The distribution and kernel developers have stated many times that they do not really think backward compatibility of binaries is something that should be focused on so they don't.

I use and love linux, but I have no delusions about its deficicines from a developer/user standpoint.

Re:heh

[elecmahm]

I'm in a dilemma over this very situation myself -- I run linux-only (not even windows VMs or dual-booting at this point) on my desktops at work and at home and also on my laptop; it's been 2...3? years since I switched. I'm getting ready to replace my aging laptop and am mulling over the best route to go. I know I don't want windows -- I find windows frustrating to use anymore because it's so restrictive and many things seem asinine. I've very seriously considered Apple; maybe buying a macbook used or something to curb the costs; it would be really nice to run a couple apps that I am familiar with (Reason, InDesign) that I cannot get to run correctly in Wine (yet!). But living in Apple world is a lot of nickel and diming, and the stuff is expensive. Not to mention my ethical disagreements with their business. Linux is the clear choice for me. I feel free-r and overall happier. It has apps that I like, I can run nearly all the programs I need to (I'm playing Skyrim through for the second time right now), and it's just really nice that I can get excited about new versions without having to worry about the transition or paying for it or anything. The open-source aspect is cool, and I respect it, but it's not the major selling point for me, use-wise. I am happier, overall, with my computing experience since switching to only linux.

Re:heh

[Rogerborg]

Bingo. I've just put Mint on the wife's machine, and it nearly worked out of the box. But from her point of that, that means that it doesn't work, it doesn't get a free pass just for trying so hard.

Granted, it is all sorted and working now, but she needed Geek support.

Re:heh

[imakemusic]

I have had a real bear trying to do some rather straightforward things on MS and Apple.

I've had a real centipede giving me technical support. They weren't great at troubleshooting but their words-per-minute was amazing.

Re:heh

[elecmahm]

Linux is also not "just for programmers" or "great if you're a techie", either. My mom, my late grandparents, a good amount of my extended family -- they all use linux. They used to use windows. The amount of support required to maintain the system (like when something breaks, or they want new hardware) has been *NO DIFFERENT* since they changed over.

People perpetuating that myth are both (a) people that have not used linux seriously for nearly 20 years and (b) trolling.

Re:heh

[mwvdlee]

Just tell them that Linux is only for people who are really good with computers and every idiot will want it.
Then sell them support contracts.

Re:heh

[TheRaven64]

How does this translate for most people? I've not used Windows for some years, but this is what I remember:

No SSH support;

PuTTY seems to work fine. It's not bundled, but it is free.

no support for filesystems other than NTFS and FAT;

Except exFAT, UDF and ISO9660. You know, the filesystems that people are actually likely to find on removable media. I love ZFS as much as the next FreeBSD user and cheap snapshots do make a huge difference, but most of the time people only care about filesystems when they come across a disk or flash card with that filesystem. Here, the most likely ones are the ones I listed and of these Windows and OS X are the only ones that support exFAT, which is the standard format for SDHC cards (even though it's patented and not publicly documented), although there is a vaguely-working FUSE exFAT implementation.

no low level disk tools (dd);

How often do you actually need to use dd as a typical user?

poor NFS support;

But great CIFS support, and I've seen a lot more CIFS deployments than NFS.

doesn't come with a decent text editor

Gvim works fine on Windows, and there's a port of EMACS too - both are free. Most users, however, are more likely to care about MS Word, which does run on Windows.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

I stick to mammals for my technical support needs. Insects give me the creeps.

Re:heh

[smash]

Now, I'm no huge fan of Windows, but...

No ssh required with powershell, RDP > VNC, NTFS and FAT are usable anywhere (and there's an ext2 driver for Windows anyway), few people other than greybeards run NFS for desktop use (Windows has SMB anyway which is FAR easier to configure), and Notepad++ is a free download away.

Windows has its faults, but to trade driver support for virtually all hardware in existence, a huge software library (including games and business applications that the rest of the world use) for a decent built in text editor and some low level disk utils is a bit of a stretch. I mean the only desktop shortcoming you list is lack of a decent text editor, and there are plenty of free (both beer/libre) ones available. On the contrary, can Linux run Photoshop? Ableton Live? Hmm...

The lack of your criticisms of actual desktop related Windows shortcomings is pretty telling - by their omission you're actually reinforcing the fact that there is little reason to run Linux as a desktop user, unless that's what you're used to. And if you are, then that's fine.

Re:heh

[Big Hairy Ian]

Hmm are you sure? Photoshop V2 - V5 Supported under Wine with some issues for version 3 Acrobat Supported under Wine Sharepoint It's a website!!! or were you planning to host it on a desktop????? Call of Duty Supported under Wine (Can I get a job where they work???) Quicken Supported under Wine!! Turbotax Reasonably supported under Wine. Support for their lousy $50 printer/copier Tell them to pretend its an Eposom FX 80 like we all did back in the old days

Re:heh

[TheRaven64]

have a massive pile of good applications

Most users really only care about a dozen (or fewer) applications. You don't need to have a massive pile of applications to be successful, you just have to have the ones users actually want. And that, it turns out, is much harder than just having lots...

Re:heh

[TheSpoom]

Force em to use Gentoo like I did. That'll sort the men from the boys (or the women from the girls, if you're optimistic).

Re:heh

[smash]

Free Software purists require that Linux must Make A Statement(tm) and Prove A Point(sm). If it also happens to work just as well, hey, that's a bonus. But to some of us, that's actually kinda-sorta important.

Yup. And I'm willing to pay for it. Pre-OS X, I had Linux and was far happier than I was on Windows 3.1 or 95. Windows 2000 came around, was stable enough, but I missed Unix. Switched to OS X a few years ago and haven't looked back. Everything works, I have plenty of commercial and free apps, and I have the unix shell if i want it.

Re:heh

[jones_supa]

My experience is that Windows is missing lots of features. No SSH support; no support for filesystems other than NTFS and FAT; no low level disk tools (dd); poor NFS support; doesn't come with a decent text editor.... I could carry on, but you get the idea.

It's interesting how Windows carries a lot from the same bag of clunky applications that were in Windows 95. Are they still very cautious of being too competetive by including "too good" tools?

Re:heh

[morgauxo]

Acrobat - So? There are several pdf readers for Linux, even a couple of good ones. That's a couple more good ones than Windows has. As for writing PDF files few Windows users I know do that but those that do just use the print to pdf feature of Acrobat. That comes free in Linux. I suppose if you are editing a pdf Linux is a little limited but who does that? Normal people just make a document in a word processor and only turn it into a pdf at the end.

Re:heh

[Stewie241]

Don't forget Netflix.

Re:heh

[smash]

Linux isn't really hard to get working these days. The trick is keeping it (and all your existing apps!) working from release to release, and working around the problems where the software simply does not exist for your task at hand. Some BETA app that crashes a lot, has a crummy UI and/or is missing features but is working towards providing functionality you need today isn't really good enough.

Re:heh

[morgauxo]

I gave up on binary packages years ago and switched to Gentoo. You might think it would be a lot of work and time to do everything by source but it isn't so bad. I just do everything in screen with the priority niced down so I can still use the computer while it is working. Don't get me wrong, I don't see compiling everything from source as a way to sell the Linux Desktop to the norms! But it does make for a better desktop experience for those who are going to use Linux anyway. More things just work.

Re:heh

[Svartalf]

Well, I guess doing that very thing for two indie titles and now commercial interests make me guilty of doing rocket-science.

This is another old rusty saw people trot out- mainly because they don't know how to manage what I did; and it's rather quite simple really.

Re:heh

[morgauxo]

"Windows is a GUI environment" - which is why I just don't get that people use it as a server!

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

Probably not. Most desktop users would probably want to use PDFs and spreadsheets or write a letter. AFAIK those are not things that come with Windows (yes, you can installl them, but why are you expecting people to go to random websites to install software - that's not particularly easy for most users).

Re:heh

[morgauxo]

"one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target" - ding ding ding we have a winner

Re:heh

[Moryath]

You just demonstrated why almost nobody wants Linux: linux advocates are assholes like you who tell everyone not using Linux that they are "clueless." Or "too stupid to own a computer." Or some other sort of put-down.

The reality is that to get people to switch to Linux, most of the common arguments of the Linux crowd are fucking retarded themselves. Such as the first two:
#1 - " Free yourself from the Microsoft Tax!!! Build your own Machine!!! " - Most of the the buying public DOES NOT WANT to "build their own machine. They see the computer (inaccurately, but it's how they see it) as a fucking appliance. They think of computers as "I plug it in and it just runs and I get my stuff." This is why Apple's "it just works" campaign was so successful and Microsoft's ads tout "ease of use" as well.

#2 - " But Linux can do so much more... " - Actually, the problem is that out of the initial install it does so much less of what your average user wants it to do. Sure, there's plenty of "free software" out there, but someone a few comments above pointed out a list of software that Linux simply does not have a port for. The list of software not ported to Linux is pretty fucking long, and trying to get Wine/Cedega running and then run the software under that is just as much a pain in the ass. "Setting up Linux and getting comfy in it" takes a new user a hell of a long while. Which leads into my final point...

#3 - You don't understand the actual cost of switching. You say "hey we are giving away this thing and it's all FREE YAY." Fine and dandy. You dismiss the "total cost" idea as FUD. I dismiss your accusations of FUD as Fucking Retarded because I can quantify all the things involved in actually convincing someone to switch. Here is what you are convincing someone to do in order to switch:

1 - Learn how to interact with a new OS. And let's be honest here, most of the programmers in the Linux world are NOT professional GUI designers. Linux desktops, KDE/Gnome, are NOT nice on the eyes and they are not very happy to play around in. Here's one area I have to give Apple some props in: their OSX interface puts some damn pretty and friendly makeup on the pig that was the old FreeBSD interface.

2 - Learn how to interact with all the new programs they will have to use to "replace" the ones from their old Windows environment. This includes figuring out what the fuck they are called, in which of many disparate distribution groups or online package managers they're held with incredibly poorly written Engrish package descriptions, and then learning the interface for each of them because the last thing Linux programmers ever want to do is use a standard, consistent interface experience.

3 - Learn how to navigate an entirely new file structure. This is not trivial by any means. Windows and OSX both at least treat logical drives in a sane manner and clearly delineate what is housed where; /dev/sda1/sdb2/ and so on and so forth are a fucking travesty and confuse the ever-loving fuck out of new Linux users.

4 - Accept that a lot of old, favorite programs just don't exist and don't have substitutes on Linux. Ouch.

5 - Find out what of their hardware is "supported but not really" under Linux. Such as a perfectly good, perfectly working HDTV tuner card that I had in a windows-based HTPC a few years back. Had a friend who's a linux-head insist I should switch it over to Mythbuntu because it "works so much better" and "supports everything" and "uses so much less resources." Whoops. No support for my HDTV tuner card, no support for my stock ATi graphics board in the unit. Now imagine that for the non-techie you are trying to convince to switch that it's their sound card that won't work, or their joystick, or their printer. They're not going to buy new hardware, they're going to say "fuck you" and go back to Windows or OSX.

None of this is a trivial issue or a non-cost. And that's the real "cost of switching" you have to overcome to convince people to switch to Linux.

Re:heh

[morgauxo]

somebody still uses rpms?

Re:heh

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't use windows anymore, but when I did:

No SSH support;

I used PuTTY

no support for filesystems other than NTFS and FAT

Actually I don't see a need for a desktop to have a multitude of file systems installed especially when NTFS seems to be up to the task. But there are FUSE type programs available for Windows like Dokan.

no low level disk tools (dd); poor NFS support; doesn't come with a decent text editor.... I could carry on, but you get the idea.

Actually low level disk tools more sophisticated than dd originated in the DOS/Windows environment. It had a much larger market for small hard drives and the increased need to fix them ;P. I could go on and counter each one of your points (and I don't use Windows) but you get the point that we can nitpick any OS to death.

Re:heh

[Sez Zero]

It's much much much more simple than that. Be usable, have a massive pile of good applications.

No, it has to be more than that. Hey, use Linux. Ok, so I can get the same thing I have and know now, but I have to learn how all these new programs work?

Some people call it a "killer app", but Linux on the desktop really needs something that makes people want to switch. Apple had all those iPhones and iPads that drove people to OS X. What does Linux have that will make normal people switch?

Hint: software freedom is not the answer to the above.

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

Yes, you can use Putty, but my point is that it doesn't come with Windows. You can also install Cygwin to add an ssh server, but I don't consider that to be part of Windows.

My experience with WinXP is that the support for UDF and ISO9660 is non-existent. I believe that there's some support for them in Windows 7, but I don't know how easy it is to copy a dvd in Windows 7 or if it's possible withouot extra software.

To be honest, I wasn't including extra software as part of the Windows OS - I was comparing what you get when you install Windows vs what you get when you install e.g. Ubuntu. As such, MS Word is not part of Windows - you usually pay extra for it.

Re:heh

[TheLink]

OK:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:ubuntu.com+linux#q=site:ubuntu.com+linux&hl=en&tbo=1&output=search&source=lnt&tbs=li:1&fp=367a43a0f858fe9
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.ubuntu.com+linux#q=site:www.ubuntu.com+linux&hl=en&tbo=1&output=search&source=lnt&tbs=li:1

Re:heh

[gbjbaanb]

its the same logic that says unfettered capitalism is just as bad as unfettered communism.

In one, the state decides what you can or can't do.
In the other, opposite extreme, everyone's so free to do whatever they want, that the big corporations end up telling you what you can or can't do.

See the difference? opposite extreme positions and still extreme. Neither are good. You need to temper them with some pragmatic exemptions, like personal freedoms for the communists or regulation for the capitalist.

Re:heh

[Ihmhi]

We could use that exact logic to attract the hipster crowd.

"OSX? Windows? Nah, those are too mainstream for me. Oh, what do I use? Linux. You've probably never heard of it before, though. It's really underground."

And thus, by hitting the hipster buzz word trifecta ("mainstream", "you've never heard of it", and "underground"), we will get millions of trendy Starbucks loiterers to use it out of spite.

Re:heh

[Blakey Rat]

When's the last time you used an Adobe tool? They can't build them for Windows or OS X now without huge flaws, obvious bugs, strange quirky behavior-- why do you think they'd be able to port to Linux?

Adobe software has been going downhill for 5 years at an incredible rate. The only thing saving their Photoshop monopoly at the moment is a lack of effective competition, it's certainly not anything Adobe's doing to keep it.

Re:heh

[allenw]

Here's one area I have to give Apple some props in: their OSX interface puts some damn pretty and friendly makeup on the pig that was the old FreeBSD interface

Small correction:

s/Apple/NeXT/
s/FreeBSD/BSD/

What Apple's acquisition did was give the NeXT team money to update OpenStep for a next generation of hardware and throw marketing dollars at it to put it in front of people. Don't get me wrong: Apple's work post-acquisition on updating the interface was fantastic, but let's give credit where credit is due.

Re:heh

[serviscope_minor]

but everything is so heavily versioned that writing apps that 'just work' is nearly impossible across any significant range of versions.

So, you should do what the other operating systems do.

If the library isn't exceptionally stable (e.g. libc, libm), then you ship all the .so dependencies with your program, or statically link.

It's not hard. It's why you can download firefox or chrome or opera or libreoffice or a whole bunch of other OSS and commercial software for generic linux and have them work with no dependency issues.

You have to do exactly the same on Windows and OSX, but since those systems are rather sparse in terms of having anything of any use installed, you have no expectation that useful things will be installed on the target machines, so you already know that you have to carry round all dependencies with you.

It's only an exercise in frustration on Linux because the normal case is so easy compared to the other systems (oh hey, everything I want is already installed! woohoo!). On the other systems, you have already have to put up with the pain and suffering so you don't think about it.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Them: What'cha doin?
Me: Nothing. Nothing at all.
(Turns off monitor hastily)

Them: Watchin porn, huh?

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

Granted, I'm not a typical desktop user. Maybe I should have gone for things like spreadsheet software, PDF reader etc. You can add them, but they don't come with Windows. Also, where's the software repository so that I can install software from a known "good" source and have updates to all my software applied with just a couple of clicks?

I've actually found driver support in Windows to be extremely flaky. I've had old hardware refuse to work under Windows 7 as the only driver available is a 32bit WinXP one. I've heard stories of scanners and printers not working in Windows 7 - I don't know if they're true or not.

My experience of loading WinXP onto laptops is typically painful - load the OS, then search the manufacturer website for the relevant network driver/AHCI storage driver. Put the drivers onto a usb storage key or DVD and then attempt to install them. Reboot, get a blue screen as I've forgotten to switch the BIOS back into AHCI mode etc.

My experience of loading Ubuntu onto laptops is typically easy - boot from USB or CD, install the OS and everything is working. Sometimes (if the wireless chipset requires a proprietary driver) I've had to use a LAN cable to connect to the internet and run the "Additional Drivers" program to fix wireless, but that's easy enough.

My view is that I don't care what OS other people run as long as we're all using standards that don't care what OS we run.

Re:heh

[TheLink]

One question is: why is OS X so much more successful than "Desktop Linux"?

Companies and people have been trying to get Linux on the desktop for ages. Over a shorter period of time OS X has gained so much more desktop marketshare than Linux has.

Re:heh

[Moryath]

Yes, but "under the hood" OSX is just FreeBSD with a fancy GUI attached.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

too true.

Re:heh

[Voogen]

It isn't as bad as you think as Windows Server becomes less and less purely graphical with each new version. Windows Server 2008 was substantially scriptable via PowerShell. And crucially it can be configured in what Microsoft calls "Server Core", which basically means no GUI. Admittedly this wasn't a huge success as many applications still expected a GUI to exist. Microsoft is fixing this with Windows Server 8 though!... I hope :)

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

Putty isn't really "part of" Windows (nor is Cygwin) although I've used it and it's a good piece of software. You might not see the need for other file systems, but why shouldn't Windows at least support reading from different filesystems? To my mind, filesystem support should be part of the OS.

We can nitpick any OS to death, and it's fun to do as well ;)

Re:heh

[hairyfeet]

I'm sure I'll get cursed for pointing out the emperor's winkie is flapping in the breeze but I'll be happy to answer that, its the "busted shitters" that frankly ruin Linux. oh Linux is a nice IDEA, kinda like how communism with everyone taking care of everyone else for the betterment of all is a nice idea, it just doesn't really work in practice.

For examples there is the docs that are at best an arcane list of CLI commands with fuck all explanation of what they are or at worst a "to do" placeholder, there is Pulseaudio which even the strongest Linux advocate will get the shivers just thinking about, there is the broken driver model which causes things that don't SEEM to be connected to seriously fuck each other up, which seems to hit pulse worse than most but wireless gets shat on frequently as well, there is the insane release schedule which obviously gives the developers ZERO time for regression testing or QA, not that they are gonna do that shit for free anyway, there are the bugs that have been around for years and will obviously NEVER be fixed, please see any distro bug trackers for quite a few, there is the badly inconsistent UI which I would argue is caused by developers just being itch scratchers since they aren't getting paid and therefor don't have to give a fuck what you think, therefor some programs behave like Windows, with Win hotkeys and Win layouts, many rip off Mac horribly which is fucking sad because OSX is a APPLICATION BASED NOT WINDOWS BASED therefor ripping it off for an OS based on Windows (the document format not the OS) makes no fucking sense, and finally there is the old school Unix conventions just to throw the occasional curveball, and finally there is the leaning on CLI as a crutch, whereas in OSX or Win 7 one could remove the CLI completely and have a 100% functional OS that I would argue more than 95% of the population would never even notice CLI was removed with Linux thanks to its actually being a server OS and NOT a desktop OS at heart if you remove CLI you've completely destroyed the OS and many distros won't even boot.

Now cue the nutjobs who will swear I'm secretly a M$ Ninja robot built by Cyberdyne and plugged into a computer under Redmond, coming off as nothing more than total losers when the simple fact is you can't change reality and numbers don't lie. To get Linux up to the same level as OSX and Windows will require north of 100 million dollars because NOBODY and I do mean NOBODY is gonna take on the above problems i named, because it will take years of boring as fuck lousy shitty work that nobody willl do for free which is the essence of the busted shitter dilemma. You see you can get humans to create for free, because we like to do this, what you can NOT get humans to do is come fix that turd filled busted overflowing crapper stinking up the joint for nothing and for every creative job that needs doing you have 100 that are the equivalent of the guy that cleans up the puke at the Chuck E Cheese.

Apple and MSFT have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to get their own busted shitters fixed, which is why you can take a bog standard desktop, install XP/Vista/7 RTM, update it through all those patches and service packs and have ALL the drivers 100% functional. Its not magic, its millions of dollars spent on regression testing and working with OEMs and first party drivers and a shitload of hard nasty thankless work that ends up with something people take for granted. With Linux because of all those busted shitters the support costs will bankrupt you which is why we retailers won't carry your product. I have several XP machines that have been in the field for over 8 years bug free, in fact the machine I'm typing this on is a circa 2004 AMD Sempron still running the default XP install that I kept when a customer traded it in because it was so low powered and quiet it made for a great nettop. Compare this to Linux where I've tried LTS to LTS, LTS to regular, and regular to regular and have YET to

Re:heh

[UncleRage]

No, no, no. Don't mention that OS X has a shell.

OS X is complete and utter crap, you hear me? There's no bash or csh or ksh or anything like that! You can't ssh into a remote box and work from your Mac in an OTB situation, nor can you remote into your Mac and screen a session.

There's no vim, emacs or even nano (for someone wetting their feet); there's only TextEdit and you can only save to .iexclusivetextdocumentformat! Why without tab autocompletion, (semi)sane directory structure think of how impossible it is for someone worth their technical salt to find their way around! Just imagine a photograph of Mardi Gras, that's the exact kind of chaos that comes to my mind whenever I consider needing to edit /etc/hosts or tail /var/log/system.log on a Mac!

You cannot, absolutely cannot compile anything; you hear me? If it isn't able to be installed from Apple's walled garden, then it doesn't exist. No ability to build gcc, no ports installer, no way to install and invoke frotz, mp3blaster and htop in a three way, multi-panelled terminal session so that people think I'm doing something important when I'm really just trying to get that god damned fish into my ear while listening to 8 bit centric podcasts!

The Mac is clearly nothing but a n00b machine that costs too much!

good lord I'm off topic. I really need to cut down my caffeine.

Re:heh

[cavreader]

One of the biggest drawbacks of switching over to a desktop Linux platform is that companies have custom internal applications would need to be changed. I worked with a company who requested I change an existing application that would run in the Linux environment and I did so but after 8 months they ran into some of their other applications that they couldn't alter because of the time and cost so they backed out of the entire attempt to change platforms. They would also need to either re-train of obtain new people with the skill sets needed for developing in a desktop Linux environment. Also if the company you work for is using another desktop such as Windows or OSX they will use the same desktop OS at home because that is what they are used to.

Re:heh

[kenh]

It's price,

The little equation most Linux advocates seem to want to avoid is the effect "crapware" subsidies have on the price of the average home PC. On low-end machines for the home (running Win 7 Home) the so-called Windows Tax (cost of the OS license) is offset, for the most part by subsidies from software vendors that load up your hard drive with special offers, trial versions, etc. With "crapware" essentially wiping out the Windows Tax, what you are left with is the cost of the hardware, and small linux system builders don't have the volume to get their hardware costs down to where the big OEMs get theirs.

You can argue that Linux system builders typically use better hardware, and they charge a reasonable premium for that better hardware, but home users simply don't appreciate the "better" system that costs a more. Many home users replace their machines every couple years, so payng more for a technically better product doesn't make sense, because the cheaper system probably won't fail until after it has outlived it's useful life to them.

A few years ago the NY Times had an article about people doing forklift upgrades of their home PCs because getting rid of viruses was a tremendous pain and a very usable replacement machine that was likely faster/demonstrably better than the machine they had could be gotten for $300-400, With the local geek squad wanting $100 or so to "clean" or "restore" your infected 3 year old machine, a $300-400 upgrade starts to make sense,

Re:heh

[Ruie]

My experience is that Windows is missing lots of features. No SSH support; no support for filesystems other than NTFS and FAT; no low level disk tools (dd); poor NFS support; doesn't come with a decent text editor.... I could carry on, but you get the idea.

You forgot the most important items: compiler and debugger..

Re:heh

[smash]

Windows XP came out 10 years ago and has been superseded twice. it is about to be superseded again in the next few months when 8 comes out (which has an app store, built in PDF support, etc). Installing windows these days = pop in disk (or network boot, at work), install base OS and connect to vendor for driver updates. Apple has built in PDF, trusted app store, along with SSH and the unix tools you like. Of course you need the mac hardware dongle, but the hardware is nice anyway...

And I agree, OS choice these days is becoming largely irrelevant. Standard file formats are where its at. Most of the available operating systems are "good enough" and have been for some time now.

Re:heh

[crabboy.com]

When you have a hardware problem on Windows, the hardware vendor(s) will usually work to help you. On Linux, you're usually on your own.

Re:heh

[characterZer0]

Acrobat != Adobe Reader

but who does that?

Whoever created all of the PDFs out there. It was not the PDF fairy.

Re:heh

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Putty isn't really "part of" Windows (nor is Cygwin) although I've used it and it's a good piece of software.

Technically speaking openssl and ssh isn't really "part of" Linux either. It just happens to be packaged as a default install in most (it not all) Linux distributions. So the difference is really the need to download the application. So if you actually needed ssh then it's pretty trivial for you to install it.

Re:heh

[smash]

ahahaha :D

Re:heh

[characterZer0]

Acrobat -- Pdfedit, scribus, flpsed or even good ol' Open Office (Libre, whatever)

Try editing PDF forms with those.

Re:heh

[magamiako1]

It's funny watching Linux users talk about the desktop but not a single one of the people on here has actually ever managed a large enterprise desktop environment.

Things change very, very quickly when you get to this point. Linux cannot even come close to the manageability of a Windows desktop across hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of machines. You can say "Puppet" all you want but I'd love to see you actually implement that in a 10,000 strong scalable, "just works" environment without locking out your remote users because they can't reach the puppet server.

Re:heh

[characterZer0]

Sharepoint without Office is pointless.

Re:heh

[crazyjj]

Telling them they can't have it could be a better solution.

Hey, joke about Eric Cartman marketing all you want, but it can really work. A lot of companies (not mentioning any names here, but I think most of us know) will intentionally short their supplies at launch just so they can say they're sold out or in short supply.

Re:heh

[Moryath]

#1 - OSX acquired a built-in base. They converted existing Mac (OS7, OS8, OS9) users, which depending on how you measured were somewhere between 6 and 8 percent of the market, over to OSX. This included the "Classic Mode" backwards compatibility environment for OS9->OSX conversion, and the Rosetta conversion interface when the PPC->x86 conversion happened. Apple running FreeBSD, unlike most Linux projects, understood that backwards compatibility is fucking important, at least for a long enough period that most users would upgrade/update the applications that otherwise would just break on an OS update.

#2 - They made their interface look goddamn pretty. This is something Microsoft's been struggling to achieve - though Win7 is actually damn good. This is also something Linux distributions have been fucking goddamn terrible at over the years. Admittedly, because Apple controls their own hardware spec, they have a leg up in that they charged a premium price for extremely high-res monitors (Cinema Display, etc) whereas most people experience Windows on much less high-resolution displays from manufacturers like Dell or HP where the "jaggies" can be a lot more noticeable.

#3 - Slick marketing campaigning around the "It Just Works" theme, combined with cross-marketing of other fad devices (iPod, iPhone, and the newest line of iFad tablets) to build a whole brand. Again, Linux has completely fucking failed to build itself as a true BRAND - most phone users with an Android phone don't even realize it's Linux-based, they think Google developed Android entirely on their own thanks to the Android marketing campaign.

Re:heh

[kenh]

Drivers, plain and simple.

As a Windows user I can go into any retailer, pick up almost any piece of hardware and it will just work with my Windows computer, I'm not just talking about obvious computer hardware, but things like MP3 players, phone sync applications, GPS update programs, etc. It all just works.

Sure, much of it also works on Mac, but Linux?

For most people, computers either "just work" or they don't - the "thrill" of hunting down the Linux driver that they can install on their particular version of Linux doesn't appeal to them. The vast majority of computer users use them to solve problems and quite honestly, arguing that they can run a technically superior OS on older hardware for slightly less cost than Windows 7 doesn't appeal to them. When a coworker tells them about Netflix streaming, they want to run it, they don't want to google for WINE settings to trick the software into working, when they buy an iPod, they want to use the Apple iTunes ecosystem, when they want to type up the minutes from their charity meeting they don't delight in using a "good enough for their purposes but still different thatn MS Word" word processor, they want to use the same tools they use at work 8 hours a day.

Once you get past the delight of being different, for the average person being different makes things harder, not easier.

Re:heh

[Moryath]

You mean Apple and Sony, don't you? Just say it, we all know that's who you mean.

Re:heh

[dave420]

How can there possibly be a worthy amount of money to save when using alternative tools means you can't do your job? That's insane logic. Rock solid stability? Please, don't fool yourself. Seriously, that's a joke and hopefully you know it.

Re:heh

[thetoadwarrior]

My macbook isn't locked down. So while it may feel good to rage like an angry nerd over Apple, you're wrong. The mere fact you've made up your mind and don't allow anyone else's opinion to matter just shows you're nothing more than a fanboy. So your opinion is completely invalid.

Re:heh

[aaaaaaargh!]

Hint: it's NOT market share. There are small software shops that LOVE writing apps for niche markets. But one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target.

As someone who has recently developed proprietary software that also runs on Linux I'd say the real reasons (apart from market share, which is relevant) ar enot that Linux is a moving target---it moves much slower than OS X---but simple lack of distribution channels and lack of cross-distribution packaging solutions

Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place, but the packaging/distribution tools I have found either didn't create .deb and .rpm files that were acceptable/installed without warnings on popular distros like Ubuntu or Arch or they were so cryptic that it was hard to even get the simplest example work. Then I checked out distro-specific guidelines for packaging---what a nightmare! Pages after pages of recommendations, hand-written commandline stuff and manifests, version differences, and most of it partly outdated/wiki style. I concluded that it is not possible to create a working cross-platform distribution format without investing about as much time as creating the software in the first place, and in the end just said: "Fuck it, nobody will pay for my app on Linux anyway, so I'll just use it for myself (because I'm a Linux user) and don't distribute it."

The bottomline is that if Linux ever wants to become popular among makers of proprietary software (which almost no distro makers wants anyway), then at least the large distributions would have to agree on a common distribution format for closed software and provide some good GUI package creator that automatically installs icons, system menu entries, etc. as well. Or, this software exists and I missed it...?

Re:heh

[s4m7]

if you get off your butt and learn it Gimp will do just about everything PS will do save some of the newest of the new items Adobe has come up with.

That's fine, if you work in a vaccuum. I, however, have to work with client-supplied PSD files on a frequent basis. These things are badly organized enough as it is, to have whatever semblance of structure is provided by layer groups simply MISSING, well, renders the file unusuable. Layer effects just plain don't work.

Re:heh

[Moryath]

GiMP -> Available on Windows. Also, Paint.Net is available for windows too.
Acrobat -- CutePDF Writer and a slew of other open alternatives. PDFEdit is also on Windows.
Alfresco Labs 3 - barf.

Call of Duty -> Hey, they actually want to play on their PC. You know, with keyboard and mouse, rather than with a gamepad. Guess what, you fail.

Mint -> Web service, usable just fine from Windows.

Turbotax vs Turbotax Online; sorry, but once you get past the 1040EZ, you want the real thing.
Support for printer: glad yours worked. Mine works too but I know many people for whom it'd be a deal breaker.

So far you have yet to offer a good reason to switch off of Windows. Seems every tool you point to, is either available on Windows, or in the case of Call of Duty 3, all you had to offer was derision, which makes you a culty lame-ass.

Re:heh

[BMOC]

Apple doesn't sell technology. They sell widget-fashion. Their stores are not unlike a Louis Vuitton store. When you walk in you see no inventory on shelves. Instead you see demos and highly simplified displays of the product as if they're fine china. Apple promotes iterations of it's product based on an arbitrarily forced obsolescence model, not technology changes. They deliberately withhold obvious features from initial offerings of a product simply to get people to upgrade later.

meh, this has all been said before, and will be said again.

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

I was just going by "is it on the CD?" for judging whether it's included in the OS. However, I would also include "Is it in the standard repository?" as being part of the OS package.

I agree, it's pretty trivial to install putty as long as you have internet access and administrator credentials and are sat in front of the machine in question.

Re:heh

[WaywardGeek]

Now there's some good marketing.

Actually, GNU/Linux is getting crusty and losing it's one time ability of fostering innovation and collaboration. Core pieces like GTK are outdated and a poor platform for building a desktop environment. If you try to contribute, you run into a buzz saw of red tape and gate keepers. If you want to write an app today and publish tomorrow, you need to be on Android or iOS. Debian is run like the Catholic Church, and only the priests have any say. We have no simple way for me to write a cool hack of a little game today, and share it with thousands of Linux enthusiasts tomorrow. That's total BS. LInux should be Linux, not GNU/Linux with all those managed Debian packages on top. We should then build a new distributed system for authoring packages, building them for various platforms, publishing and marketing them. As it is, Linux sucks.

Re:heh

[bigredradio]

Nice pull.

Re:heh

[s4m7]

I don't understand why gaining market share is such a big deal. If Linux is "good enough" for general use now (and I believe it is, since my main workstation is on ubuntu 11.10), why do you care what OS I use?

Re:heh

[ArhcAngel]

Linux us NOT missing features.

It IS missing two very crucial features...Convenience & Trendiness
MAC & PC users in general do not care that they are using MAC OS X or Windows 7. They just care about getting what they want done AND how they look to their peers doing it.

CAR ANALOGY - The average driver does not want a car where the engine or other mechanical parts are showing but the gear head who loves tweaking his ride will go to great lengths to ensure at least some part of his engine sticks out. Also, people will buy a PRIUS or a Smart4two to appear eco-friendly despite there being other makes and models with similar fuel efficiency but less visibility as a fuel efficient driver.

I have used many different Linux distributions since 1985 ( I expect my compile of Gentoo to complete any day now ) and even Ubuntu hasn't really reached the ease of use factor I expect from a desktop OS. Is it more powerful than Windows? Absolutely! Does that matter one iota when I need to read my email or write a report on a word processor? Nope...Apple got it right IMO when they took BSD and tacked their own GUI on it to hide the power and flexibility of the underlying kernel. This is where choice has actually hurt the Linux on the desktop initiative. Add some peripheral support to Android and have it scale to the desktop and you have the killer Linux for the desktop distro. - This is tongue in cheek but not far from what I envision it will take to get Linux adopted as the desktop OS of choice.

Re:heh

[nine-times]

Spend millions of dollars on advertising and even more in subsidies to hardware manufacturers (or like Apple make your own hardware.)

I don't agree that this is the key thing. The much bigger issue continues to be hardware and software support. Can I install Linux on my random computer and trust that it will detect my dual-display video card and wifi card without problems? Can I install Adobe Creative Suite? Can I install Steam games?

Those are the problems that lead even savvy people to use MacOS or Windows. Personally, I really like Macs if only for one simple reason: you can install MacOS on any Mac from the last few years and trust that it will work, without problems. No driver conflicts. No unsupported hardware. I can even copy the contents of that hard drive to another Mac and run the system without any special tricks, and without installing any new drivers.

If Dell or HP could manage something similar with their own Linux distro, I would be interested to try it out.

Re:heh

[Imagix]

If the library isn't exceptionally stable (e.g. libc, libm), then you ship all the .so dependencies with your program, or statically link.

Careful, if you're doing a commercial offering, many of the libraries that you may be linking to are LGPL, and thus you cannot statically link to them. And having to ship the .so's with your executable strikes me as wrong. They're shared objects because they're supposed to be shared.

Re:heh

[Hatta]

Windows and OSX both at least treat logical drives in a sane manner and clearly delineate what is housed where; /dev/sda1/sdb2/ and so on and so forth are a fucking travesty and confuse the ever-loving fuck out of new Linux users.

Really? In windows, how do I tell which disk my E: drive is on? Does it tell you anywhere?

In Linux it's trivial to find out what physical device a path is on. Just type 'mount' to find out what partition is mounted where, and then the device name tells you where that partition is. /dev/sdb2 is the second partition on the device plugged into SATA port 2.

The rest of your post is sensible. Switching to Linux is a lot of work. It's work that pays off immensely, but it's still a lot of work. I don't recommend Linux to anyone who isn't willing to invest themselves in the switch.

Re:heh

[pak9rabid]

The first rule of Linux is that you do not talk about Linux.

The second rule of Linux is that YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT LINUX.

I thought those were the rules behind Usen...uh, nevermind.

Re:heh

[djfreestyler]

Go ask the software and hardware vendors why they don't target Linux and they'll give you plenty of reasons. Hint: it's NOT market share. There are small software shops that LOVE writing apps for niche markets. But one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target.

They'll release a package, only to have the next update kill it, and they'll get a flood of support calls (which cost them money). The answer from the Free Software Purists(tm) will inevitably be, "well, if you'd release everything and let us build from source, you wouldn't have that problem."

On the other hand, looking at it from the side of kernel development, why should kernel development be slowed to support the broken business model of existing companies?

In addition, there are also solutions to this problem, see things like DKMS and the NVidia drivers. Most of the time, switching kernel just requires a recompilation of the kernel module, which is exactly what DKMS handles. Heck, even the Catalyst driver usually deals fine with newer kernels, it is the X server that is the issue there. So this issue is mostly solved.

They're not going to do that. Whether it's right or wrong, that's just a fact and it's time to accept it. They're NOT GOING TO DO THAT. Instead, they'll just continue to target Windows or Mac or (nowadays) Android.

Android uses the Linux kernel. So you are saying that they do not target Linux yet they do?

Re:heh

[Big Hairy Ian]

2007 ok? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/03/17/2235215/microsoft-office-2007-in-linux-with-wine

Re:heh

[madison_hotel]

While I agree with many of your points, I don't think a company (be it Adobe or any other) is capable of 'religious OS hate'. This applies to individuals. If someone were to show them the money, they'd start porting their crap to other platforms before they can say 'This is the year of the Linux desktop'. They don't do it because a great percent of us Linux users stand for FOSS and wouldn't ever in a million gazillion years think of paying for a product like PS. This of course doesn't take into account those who work with it and/or need it.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

What is quite secure? rdp?

http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/03/16/1349205/rdp-proof-of-concept-exploit-triggers-blue-screen-of-death

I guess you have not read the last bits of news then.

Re:heh

[smash]

Not quite. Its Mach with a XNU/unix userpace layer with FreeBSD tools and a GUI on top.

Re:heh

[BlackCreek]

Acrobat - So? There are several pdf readers for Linux, even a couple of good ones. That's a couple more good ones than Windows has. As for writing PDF files few Windows users I know do that but those that do just use the print to pdf feature of Acrobat. That comes free in Linux. I suppose if you are editing a pdf Linux is a little limited but who does that? Normal people just make a document in a word processor and only turn it into a pdf at the end.

People who have to fill government provided PDFs have to 'edit PDFs'. Your government may not need that, but for me I either fill PDF forms (and get to keep a digital copy) or I need to print and fill. Guess which one I prefer?

Re:heh

[justforgetme]

OTOH why try to sell Linux to Joe sixpack in the first place? What helped me get up to speed with linux was the savvy community. Nerds, academics and devs have proven to be a big enough audience for the Linux desktop to progress and flourish. So why watter down the quality of the userbase? Also, Linux manages to fly under the radar in terms of security and legislation because of it's small numbers.

Ok, I'm not really scared about the security issues that could arise (most exploits that happen to be dug up need user idiocy as well to succeed) but I'm pretty sure that companies will start to sue sw like Gnome 3 for having round corners® and other "infringement" in the case Linux gets serious mainstream traction.

Re:heh

[smash]

I'll give you some reasons

• hardware support - the subset of hardware supported is limited to apple hardware, but on said hardware it works, and works extremely well
• hardware abstraction - apple went through a transition from ppc to x86 without an issue because they have a layer of abstraction
• forward looking design, and people working on the non-sexy/hard stuff. display PDF, quartz, core foundation...
• development tools that don't suck. Objective-C is different, but it is good. The enforcement of MVC promotes code-reuse from the beginning, and app development is easy and (fear) reasonably fun
• Apple doesn't change the colour of the bicycle shed every 6 months, and the UI has remained consitent. the APIs for software development have remained consistent.
• the hardware dongle(s) - mac hardware is nice. most apple hardware in general is nice. apple hardware runs OS X

Re:heh

[qbast]

What do you expect? This is typical mindset of fanatical minority - "everybody hates us, because we are so much better".

Re:heh

[Woldry]

If you really think "/dev/sdb2 is the second partition on the device plugged into SATA port 2" counts as "trivial" to the casual computer user, you are taking your technical knowledge for granted. Most casual computer users don't have a clue what a partition is, let alone a SATA port. And actually, in Windows Explorer, the icon for the E: drive usually does give you some visual clues (and often a description) as to what physical device it might be. It's not a perfect system, and it's not always sufficiently informative, but it's usually much more transparent to the casual user.

(FWIW, I'm a Linux user myself, but my bf just doesn't get it, and I'm probably switching back to Windows because I'm tired of fighting Wine to get his Windows-only games to work.)

Re:heh

[BlackCreek]

"one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target" - ding ding ding we have a winner

+1000.

Most FOSS projects are eternally locked into a cycle between effective version 0.3 and 0.6. One they reach 0.6, people decide to rewrite everything, because of a new library, new paradigm, or just new developers who can't be bothered to deal with the old code. Then the actual version is increased, but the effective version goes back to 0.3.

Features are dropped, working stable code is deleted, and the bozos^H^H^H, er, devs start all over while users are left in the rain.

That is why even people who CAN / WOULD bother to download and install a different OS (than the one that came with their computers) are not bothering with Linux.

Re:heh

[smash]

Switching to Linux is a lot of work. It's work that pays off immensely, but it's still a lot of work.

Sometimes it pays off. Having been a Linux user since 1996, I decided that the trouble wasn't worth losing access to applications that I want to run - mostly Audio and Video processing related.

Re:heh

[Moryath]

Who said I was an opponent advocate?

The question is why Linux isn't gaining marketshare. I'm giving an honest answer about how Linux fails to market itself to people.

Re:heh

[smash]

It also means you can't take advantage of security updates to the system's installed shared libraries and need to distribute them yourself. For the end user to re-download for every application that uses them. or you statically link, and they're included in your program's executable, making it bloated. or you just don't bother, and develop for less insane platforms.

Re:heh

[Moryath]

Plenty. Ever fought with a linux distro that continually reassigned three SATA hard drives randomly to /sda, /sdb, and /sdc in maddening fashion every time it was power cycled, breaking scripts all over the place? They don't (or at least didn't back then) make it easy to lock them down.

Re:heh

[ColdWetDog]

You do realize that MS Word isn't really compatible with MS Word? Docs made in an older version often don't open flawlessly on newer versions - especially if anything 'funny' is going on - like an outline or endnotes or other useful features that one might tempt one to use a full fledged word processor over Notepad. Older versions won't open docx files unless they've been upgraded to do so - manually.

Re:heh

[justforgetme]

With you on that one, Adobe has only one thing going for them ATM and that is software dependence. So many graphics artists, photographers and web designers (if you can call them that) are knee deep in Adobe's (proprietary) workflow system. They are effectively locked in because it would take a long time to find suitable alternatives and learn the new production process.

Adobe's software was great in late 2008. From then on nothing really that impressing has happened. About a year ago I had found some videos of a guy speed painting in a FOSS setup and the results were beautiful. This just goes to show that Linux is a realistic alternative, now, for the graphics artist; and I'm not talking just GIMP & Inkscape. There is other software out there too, mostly forks of one or the other but with added functionality for specific jobs.

Still my main concern remains, if more non-Nerd people come into the community it may hurt Linux.

Re:heh

[Soluzar]

You're right, Linux isn't missing anything. In fact, Windows is missing tons - namely the massive repository for free software

You're really not looking hard enough if you believe that. There's a vast wealth of software available at no cost on Windows. Perhaps not all of it would be counted as 'free software' by RMS or the DFSG, but it doesn't cost money. Some of it is even the same software typically used on Linux systems, available as a port.

Other than my games, and my OS, I'm struggling to think of any software on this computer I actually paid money for. It's pretty fully loaded with useful and/or fun applications.

Re:heh

[TexVex]

One of the Great Lies of the Free Market is that if everyone has an equal shot, everyone will prosper.

The point of a free market is that all participants compete on an even footing. The point of it is fairness. Free markets do not guarantee anyone success. A market system that guarantees a certain economic outcome is by definition not a free market.

Both Windows and Linux can manage most people's computer needs about equally well.

Yes, and a motorcycle can manage nearly anyone's transportation needs as well as an automobile. But, if one has a license to drive an automobile, that skill does not convey even enough knowledge about how to start the engine of the motorcycle, much less drive it.

Re:heh

[phantomfive]

especially when compared to RDP (which, btw, is quite secure).

It wasn't secure last week, why do you think it is now?

Re:heh

[LingNoi]

Not really sure what you're talking about with regards to backwards compatibility. I can run old linux apps without problems. There's plenty of old closed source linux games that run just fine or with minor a bit of fiddling, the kind of fiddling you'd have to do on other platforms.

Even if it was true, it still makes no sense because OSX gets away with it all the time. Developers would have a much harder time with snow leopard and lion coming out then a new version of ubuntu and that's not some crack at OSX, it just shows that it's as big of an issue that you're making it out to be.

Re:heh

[Khazunga]

I call FUD on your comment. You have two paths at your disposal:

a) Statically link every library that may be problematic, or dynamically link against libraries shipped with software. It's the same Windows as OSX apps do; or

b) Use the distribution package managers, something that is incredibly missing from Windows and OSX. State your dependencies. Granted, you'll have to support two different package formats (.deb and .rpm) and two to three distributions (debian, redhat and maybe suse). Nothing that complicated, and a task for which there is lots of supporting software

You are complaining that option b) is a pain. I disagree, but even if I'd grant you that point, you overlook the presence of option a) for release. I can't fathom how having a new avenue for releasing software can be construed as bad.

Re:heh

[justforgetme]

Well, OS X didn't actually do "something". It just rode the ascent of apple's hardware into
the mainstream. By all means I'm not saying that it isn't a good OS, much better than the
last thing they used to power their devices but still you cannot compare OS X to other
OS solutions without counting in the fact that apple doesn't want you to run anything else.

It's just like the ascent of Mircosoft in the 80s, IBMs machines came pre installed with
DOS, IBM got fucked by the PC, Microsoft kept the monopoly because they had the
interface that everybody wanted.

Bundling to a hw success is pretty much the story of OS monopolies.

Re:heh

[Zamphatta]

Multimedia falls significantly short for the average user. Most of the people I know, need a computer that can edit their digital video decently, so I can't recommend Linux to them. Before anyone says Openshot or Cinelerra, try working with .mov 1080p or 720p off your digital camera's in those programs and exporting the video as an mp4 with a h.264 codec. It don't work. Openshot exports a fine video, but no sound. The bug was reported on that... mmm... 2 or 3 years ago, but it hasn't been fixed. Cinelerra, doesn't seem to want to import the video file correctly. So that's a no go too. Out of people like (geeks who love tech), most people aren't going to use Linux if it can't do the simple stuff they need for their daily life and they're not going to go buy a new digital camera or smartphone just so they can use Linux. Even for myself, I have to boot into Windows when I want to do legitimate video editing.

Re:heh

[nschubach]

I bought a $50 laser printer (Brother) a few years ago that works perfectly fine in Debian. I also filed my taxes on TurboTax(.com) last year and opened up a Sharepoint site just yesterday. I've had no issues opening PDFs, or composing them. So, Quicken, Photoshop, and Call of Duty?

Re:heh

[cpu6502]

>>>Linux us NOT missing features. This is the same B.S. we heard constantly with MacOS in the days before OS X came out. There wasn't features (or software) missing then
>>>

Classic Macs upto 2000 didn't have preemptive multitasking, a feature that had been around for a long, long time (Commodore Amiga 1985). Instead they had cooperative multitasking such that when program crashed, it entered an infinite loop, which brought down the whole OS (frozen). It was one of the most frustrating things of the old OS 7, 8, 9 Macs I worked upon. (On my Amiga the CPU would halt the crashed program, so I force it to disappear, and the OS would continue onward.) So yes the Mac was missing a feature and a major one at that.

Re:heh

[nschubach]

To be perfectly fair, Mac users always talk about "Time Machine" which is enabled mainly by the file system... so, while they don't talk about the file system directly, they are using a feature set.

Quick Google search "RDP Vulnerability": http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/rdp-exploit-watch-5-million-rdp-endpoints-found-on-internet/10937 (admittedly, I skimmed it.)

Re:heh

[LingNoi]

Sometimes it's a case of the goal posts simply moving, and has nothing to do with the free software purists. Nvidia, traditionally has had great drivers on Linux but now they have a new technology called optimus and they won't make linux drivers for it, for whatever their reasons are. So now a lot of people are back to where they started shitty driver support.

Re:heh

[MickyTheIdiot]

good point, but obsolete... at least with the debian distros (your distro may vary).

Re:heh

[serviscope_minor]

Careful, if you're doing a commercial offering, many of the libraries that you may be linking to are LGPL, and thus you cannot statically link to them.

Many of them are, but shipping .so's with it is fine.

And having to ship the .so's with your executable strikes me as wrong. They're shared objects because they're supposed to be shared.

Remember the grandparent post was about the difficulty of shipping Linux executables. It's exactly the same as Windows in this regard shipping a bunch of DLLs with each program. My point wasn't necessarily that it was the "right" way in some fundemental way, but more that it's exactly the same as the supposedly easier systems.

Re:heh

[MickyTheIdiot]

I actually work with a large Linux installed base. We use cfengine and it's actually more manageable IMHO than anything AC.

Re:heh

[Missing.Matter]

Comparing fresh install operating systems is only relevant to the user who doesn't install any programs... so no one.

Re:heh

[serviscope_minor]

It also means you can't take advantage of security updates to the system's installed shared libraries and need to distribute them yourself. For the end user to re-download for every application that uses them. or you statically link, and they're included in your program's executable, making it bloated. or you just don't bother, and develop for less insane platforms.

And, this is different from every other pltform how?

I swear, some people (including you) are insane and unrealistic about Linux, expecting it to be far, far better than every single other operating system and then complaining bitterly when it is only exactly the same in some facets.

On Windows and OSX, every application is (a) bloated because they have to ship all the dependencies and (b) has to either run some stupid auto-updater or be manually updated to get security fixes.

Normally, Linux is far, far better in this regard because OSS lends itself to proper integrated package managers which make life simpler.

If you don't want to go the OSS route, you have to so exactly the same things as Window and OSX.

Re:heh

[MickyTheIdiot]

I think you should re-read the comment. I didn't posit any fanatic point of view. I think they have a shewed view of linux. Period. Nothing to do with think Linux is better. It's my preference and I think it works better than it is given credit for. That doesn't sound fanatical to me.

Re:heh

[LingNoi]

There already is, you can force packages to be a certain version and lock packages to a certain version.

You can do this in Debian systems by opening synaptic and selecting an installed package then going to the package menu in the top of the window.

Re:heh

[MickyTheIdiot]

I don't personally have the RMS point of view. I have no problem with commercial software (with caveats of course, I think software patents are wrong and I think locking up file formats is wrong, etc). There are some small areas of the economy that would never get software if everything was open source because open source require a huge number of users to work (which is why it works so well with Apache, Linux, etc). However, I think the open source model works better.

Not every person that this FOSS is better think the way RMS does. I am happy with both.

Re:heh

[Dixie_Flatline]

It's fairly simple, really: the primary concern of Apple and by extension, OS X, is to make money.

This driving factor means that they look at the whole experience completely differently. They go out of their way to make it easy to switch. They'll even let you set up an appointment at one of their stores so you can bring your old machine in and have someone help you migrate all your data and find solutions to your problems. Quite a lot of the process can be done with one transfer cable and a lot of step-by-step, easy to follow instructions with pictures and clear text.

Even from the moment you open the box, things are laid out in a way that encourages you to touch them, get used to them and study them. This is not a mistake. The design effort put into the boxes alone is staggering. It's said that when Apple's first computer with a mouse shipped, one of the first things you had to do was remove the mouse from the packaging in a way that forced you to look at and get used to the device. Nobody had used a mouse before, and so it was alien, but Apple (Jobs, really) insisted that it be packaged in such a way that it wouldn't be intimidating the first time it was actually in use because the owner had already sort of figured it out before it even got plugged in. Hell, the handle on the top of the original iMac was there to encourage people to form a literal attachment to the device. You may think that sounds hokey, but people respond to this sort of thing. The iMac was a friendly, colourful device with a handle that you could easily come to grips with. Contrast this with the beige PCs of the day, cumbersome and hard to wield, boxy and hard to find a place for.

Then once you're actually sitting in front of the computer, the UI is big and friendly, and encourages you to click on things. When applications launch, they do so in a bouncy, friendly way. You know something is happening. The programs work when you click on them; there are no cryptic messages or complicated setup. Apple's own software is laid out on the default dock, and they present the first user experience, which is, of course, polished to hell. There's no bloatware. Installing something means putting it on your computer. Uninstalling something means deleting it. All your applications go in the 'Applications' folder.

That said, I'd like to point out that it feels slightly more cluttered and complicated than it used to; I feel that Apple is losing sight of a few things here and there. The experience isn't, and has never been, perfect. The important take-away point is that they want to connect with the user. The whole front face to the OS is that attempt. They do better on the desktop because their goal is to be better on the desktop.

By contrast, I feel like Linux is there to Get Things Done. I don't use it (or FreeBSD) anymore, but I did, and I liked them. I got a lot of work done, ran my own mail server, etc., etc. But that's not friendly. It's like asking why most people hire a contractor to put up drywall. The contractor is a much friendlier interface. You pay someone, the work happens, and then it's done; the implementation details are largely unimportant to you. But if you're the kind of person that can get things done, you can go and get the tools to do it yourself. That will always be the less popular option, because not everyone wants to understand how to install their own drywall. Not everyone wants to understand anything at all about their computer; not everyone CAN.

Re:heh

[AliasMarlowe]

Linux is great if your are compiling from source or installing from rpm/deb

But rpm and deb cover by far the majority of installations, and a bash script for binary installation will cover the rest. I use commercial (purchased) software on Linux, and it comes in rpm, deb, and bin forms with a bash script. Examples: Mathematica, Corel AfterShot Pro (and Bibble 5 Pro). Why so few paid-for packages? Because most of my needs are covered by free and libre software (GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, Libre Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, etc.).

So your statement should be "Linux is great if you are installing from rpm/deb/bin". Which means, for me, that Linux is great, and a hell of a better bargain[*] than Windows or OSX!

[*] The better security model - what, not much need for anti-virus? - is yet another bonus. However, due to incorrigible paranoia I have still installed various script-blockers as well as AVG and use a comprehensive list of exclusions for iptables on all the systems at home.

Re:heh

[X0563511]

Ubuntu does not do it: see? ("About 4,290,000 results (0.16 seconds) ")

Re:heh

[glodime]

Network effects can add a positive value to any individual in the network.

Re:heh

[X0563511]

Why stop there?

Re:heh

[Hatta]

Are you sharing a computer? That sounds awful. I spend most of my computing time on Linux, just feet away from my girlfriend who runs Windows. This solves lots of problems.

Re:heh

[XsCode]

The question wasn't "what programs are exclusive to Linux", it was "what are these features that Linux is missing?".

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

It's a useful baseline though, as you can guarantee that every user of that OS will be able to make use of that feature. How else would you compare them?

Re:heh

[ILongForDarkness]

A lot of the same arguments can be used for the Mac platform in my opinion though. Admin functions can be locked down even without having a password required at boot, things open the way you left it when you shut down, very simple user interface for most things.Old hardware: not so much, but you are essentially guaranteed capability with the OS from the same era as your machine since the hardware and OS vendor are the same. You got to put up with the vendor arbitrarily deciding that your few year old machine doesn't get the new OS though.

AV should be everywhere. Heck a virus writer just has to hack your browser and they can get most things that interest them since you likely browse the internet to your work, bank etc. The "but linux will ask me first before someone messes me up" thing doesn't really cut it. Most users will install things on their computers that they download. Something that seems trivial like: "oh you need this codec to view this file" and they'll say: "oh yeah that makes sense" and allow the install. They have no idea what the code in the app is, they have no way of knowing if there is a virus payload or not, that is why you need AV. The average user is not anywhere's near cautious enough, and even us technical dorks aren't because we are more likely to want to experiment with different things and install stuff we get for free constantly. Even if the source is available we don't have the time to review every line of code that when then compile from scratch to make sure that what we install is actually the code that is up in the CVS repository etc. In short AV protects us from ourselves :-) At best the "linux doesn't get viruses" means that the subset of uber-geeks that tend to be the current market for linux are knowledgeable enough about computers and computer vulnerabilities to properly manage their systems. That will by definition not be the case for the non-uber-geek crowd.

Re:heh

[lindi]

"Applications->System Tools->Disk Utility" is not too bad nowadays.

Re:heh

[cp.tar]

And having seen Windows 8, I can flat-out guarantee usability will be the least of Linux’s concerns in the coming few years.

Re:heh

[ILongForDarkness]

My understanding is to get the full use out of Sharepoint you need to be using MS Office and other products. The management of versions and such and integration of Office, MS project into the Sharepoint system is huge/pretty much the justification for the system. Otherwise you'd just have a subversion repository or something for your docs but than your revision control/sharing site would be pretty stupid in terms of its understanding of the innards of the documents and what it means (as well as likely a more cludgy integration).

Having to run an emulator to run a piece of software sucks IMO. If you are running an emulator to do your work you might as well be running the real thing. Than you have no issues with, oh crap the latest patch breaks it under wine. If your software is going to break it might as well break because it is broken for everyone, and any work arounds will work for you, versus using some custom hack and hoping it keeps working when the app moves to a new version of .Net or whatever.

Re:heh

[madison_hotel]

I don't have any problems with commercial software either. I wouldn't personally pay for Adobe PS because I don't need it, but this doesn't mean everybody else is in my situation. The point I was trying to make was that neither Adobe nor any other company keeps from porting its commercial software to Linux because of "OS religious hate", as if it was opposite RMS; I believe it's just a market decision. They don't want 'more users': they want more people who'll pay to use their software. And as such, they must believe that the cost of porting their software is greater than the profit they can get from users in the target platform.

Re:heh

[sjames]

So switches and routers are supporting RDP these days? Which ones? When did MS add tunneling arbitratry ports and SOCKS to RDP?

Re:heh

[Microlith]

I'm really looking forward to, say, Debian or Ubuntu just bundling Dalvik and a large portion of the Android stack.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to burning all the existing software we have to the ground in favor of handing control over our platform to Google.

(Likewise, I'm looking forward to CyanogeMod bundling large portions of Debian or Ubuntu, where it makes sense to do so, so I can maybe run Eclipse or at least Emacs on my Nook Color, with the full surrounding ecosystem that those environments expect.)

Which won't happen so long as Android is the dominant OS on the platform and remains 100% incompatible with the wider Linux world.

If that happened, Google would manage to throw the open source/free software communities into even greater disarray than Microsoft could ever hope to, especially if they decide to up and close the source again, seeing as how they have no public upstream and do nothing whatsoever in the open.

Re:heh

[Jawcracker Fuzz]

Hmmmm, Linux since 1985 huh? I've had Windows XP running since 1985 with no malware or reboots. I've never even had to compile anything either. It's so easy.

Re:heh

[Americano]

They have the expertise in house to port the Adobe suite to Linux and Unix but they just won't do it. You can see by their other offerings that they have the ability to do it but they just won't, whether it is because of bean counting or because of OS religious hate.

Or it could be that "getting the world to adopt Linux" is not one of their holy precepts, and instead, they target the platform(s) where users of their software predominantly work, because that's where they make their money.

If porting to Linux & supporting Linux costs them an additional 10 million dollars the first year (hire a few new developers, qa, ops; buy new servers for build/test of your new platform; staff a couple tech support resources who are knowledgeable in Linux; update documentation; you get the idea), then they'd need to sell about 18,000 copies of Acrobat X Professional (MSRP = $570 according to Amazon) to Linux users just to break even. Are there 18,000 people who would shell out for the software? I suspect the answer to that is "no, no way, not on your life." And that's why they don't support Linux. Not because they "hate it," not because they have some anti-Linux zealotry going on - it simply is a money-losing proposition for them. And expecting somebody else to run their business at a loss to suit your preference in operating systems is rather foolish.

People will not say, "Gee why don't I abandon my existing, perfectly usable infrastructure running Windows (with all the stuff I need running on it) just so I can buy a copy of Adobe Acrobat, and have to relearn how to use all my tools or substitutes on a completely foreign platform." It's simply not enough to say "we're just as good, mostly," or "Linux: because you can do most of the things you do now on Windows over here too!" If there's no compelling reason to change, why would you expect anybody to change? "Software Freedom" has a practical value of zero for people who don't have the expertise and knowledge to modify or inspect their own source code, so that's really not a competitive advantage.

Re:heh

[ILongForDarkness]

The problem with alternative apps like acrobat->gimp is that ultimately software is a tool (and so are some users ;-)). If you are a graphics guy with 10+ years experience using an app, you are very very quick at doing hundreds of different things with the software. Through in gimp, sure you might be able to do all the things that you can do in photoshop but there will be a huge learning curve. If you are billing 100+ per hour for your time and some stupid "free" app cuts your productivity in half for a few weeks that is a problem.

Heck the nuisance factor of having to learn something new is a problem for a lot of people that aren't overly interested in tech for tech sake. I had users that were upset that an okay button moved from the left to the right on a form after an upgrade. lmagine how much it would piss you off if someone told you you can't use your favorite shell, or programming language for no technical. You might enjoy learning something new, but it would piss you off because you'd go from an expert to a beginner again and have to relearn simple tasks. Now imagine how much more that would piss people off that don't even like computers in the first place but just use them as a tool.

The better argument I think is to teach people from scratch on the new systems. Run linux in elementary schools. Kids would likely be "bilingual" since they'd likely have a Mac or Win box at home. So they might be unbiased one way or another. But taking people from one OS to another even if just a version upgrade is huge since the productivity losses are likely larger than the cost of the software, and even if it is not you just simply might not have more time to dedicate with learning how to use your computer ie. might have a life that doesn't involve a computer screen, or a business to run that doesn't pay you for learning how to do things you already know ... again.

Re:heh

[sjames]

Static link, include the .so with your package, or ship object files and link as part of the install process. TA-DA!

Re:heh

[Americano]

expecting it to be far, far better than every single other operating system and then complaining bitterly when it is only exactly the same in some facets.

Justify the disruption of swapping platforms, learning a new OS, and adjusting to completely different tools in lots of cases, only to have the experience be "exactly the same in some (even most) facets" once I've done all that?

You're asking users to sacrifice something known, stable, and familiar, and in return, you offer nothing but "mostly the same hassles you already have, just with a different GUI bolted on top."

For the people to whom "software freedom" is important, Linux is great. The extensibility & flexibility - if you know what you're doing - is excellent. For the people who don't, can't, or won't take advantage of that flexibility and extensibility, Linux offers little in the way of compelling features that would lead people to want to migrate to it as their primary platform.

Re:heh

[DogDude]

"You have to do exactly the same on Windows"

Not true. I can write an app using Visual Studio 6.0 (14 years old), and be pretty darned confident that there's enough backwards compatibility written into the core dll's that I can use my app easily on any Windows OS made in the past 20 years.

Re:heh

[serviscope_minor]

Justify the disruption of swapping platforms, learning a new OS, and adjusting to completely different tools in lots of cases, only to have the experience be "exactly the same in some (even most) facets" once I've done all that?

Huh what? We're talking about a rather specific point of development.

The claim was that Linux was much harder to develop for than Windows and OSX because of libraries. I pointed out that this was entirely false, because in this facet the platforms are exactly the same.

You've now moved the goalposts to an entirely different and unrelated point.

Re:heh

[Microlith]

Lack of support for other filesystems is what leads us directly down the path of Microsoft's FAT lawsuits and the forcing of exFAT on SDXC cards. MS has the ability to dictate what heavily patented things they own will be adopted by updated technologies. We could have had a more stable and damage resistant, possibly unpatented filesystem for SDXC, but MS won't have that. And due to their monopoly, they can guarantee that such options will never be considered.

So yes, it's a deficiency. A deliberate one that MS uses to manipulate the market to the disadvantage of everyone else.

Re:heh

[Tsingi]

I'm a Linux developer.

I have a windows box for one thing (not counting company email, Outlook totally sucks.)

AutoCAD. Linux is woefully deficient in the CAD department. I have many tools that deal with cad data, quite a few I that have written myself, but nothing to compare with AutoCAD.

As far as Linux on the desktop is concerned, I don't really care whether or not everyone uses it. However, I care that it is developed, and I care that software patents and commercial OS's are crippling to the advancement of computer science in general. Think how much more advanced we would be if the industry were more open about sharing innovations.

Re:heh

[KevCo]

While I'd love to have something like ssh for Windows standard, the fact of the matter is that Windows is a GUI environment, and ssh access to that just doesn't make sense - especially when compared to RDP (which, btw, is quite secure).

Actually I regularly use psexec to launch a command shell on remote windows systems. There are plenty of things that can be fixed remotely from a command line without interrupting users like an RDP session would. I would very much like to have both an ssh server and client included as part of windows by default.

Re:heh

[XsCode]

That's clever seeing as XP wasn't released until October 25, 2001.

Re:heh

[Bedouin X]

I don't disagree with your broader point, but TurboTax Online is pretty freaking sweet. It will get you waaaay beyond 1040EZ.

Re:heh

[e70838]

Windows installation is generally easy, but when problems occur, they are generally minor and difficult to solve, sometimes impossible to solve (because of closed source). Often, people live with them.
Linux installation is not very difficult, but when problems occur, they are generally major and must be solved by an experimented user. Once the computer is installed, you do not need to be a power user.

Re:heh

[serviscope_minor]

Not true. I can write an app using Visual Studio 6.0 (14 years old), and be pretty darned confident that there's enough backwards compatibility written into the core dll's that I can use my app easily on any Windows OS made in the past 20 years.

And this is different from Linux how?

If you link against the core libs (things like libc, libm, libX11, lbGL) it will basically work on any machine anywhere up to a fairly respectable age.

How do you think OpenOffice, firefox, etc work? Do they magically not work on all the machines, new and old that they actually work on? What about matlab? Is there some reason that it isn't working despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

No. All of his points are valid. The only thing Windows has going for it, or ever really had going for it, was the perception that it is the monopoly. This means more 3rd party support of various kinds.

Although using the vendor supplied driver is not always the best option.

The main thing is the perception that it "runs everything". This has been fueling WinDOS adoption since Microsoft mean DOS.

Re:heh

[tibit]

Many times Chrome is the simplest pdf reader out there. Very fast, too.

Re:heh

[tibit]

If they would just support RHEL it'd be plenty enough. RHEL Desktop is $49, if you don't care about support you install CentOS, or perhaps Scientific Linux.

Re:heh

[tibit]

If you're targeting a particular distribution that happens to have long term support, like say RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), then you can actually count on all the packages from the distribution being available, if not already installed. Due to RedHat's market penetration, anyone targeting Linux with a commercial product offering would best focus on getting it running under the latest RHEL, perhaps under the previous one as well if feasible (RHEL 6 and RHEL 5 at this time, respecitvely), and only then looking at whatever the next contender is.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

Marketing and boutique stores as well as a halo effect with associated consumer electronics.

The Mac was a platform that was introduced in a Super Bowl commercial.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

The device node for a particular disk drive is pretty f*cking irrelevant.

All I need to know is where in the filesystem it is mounted at. The GUI provides ample opportunities to view this information. There are icons in various places for your drives.

Although chances are that the directory you need will just "pop up automatically" in it's own window.

It won't give you a screen full of options prone to confuse a n00b either, like Vista and Win7 does.

Re:heh

[H0p313ss]

A little casual reading might help you out here.

Re:heh

[tibit]

Because it's a coherent platform that you can develop for. Linux is just a kernel. The closest thing to a stable Linux platform that you can target in commercial development would be RHEL. But the random joe user doesn't know that there are differences, that Linux != Linux -- and why should they? Why should they care that if they have ubuntu LINUX something that's marketed for redhat enterprise LINUX doesn't work. That's what they see, hear, feel, and get upset about. And, as much of a geek as I am, I agree with joe user here. There's also the benefit of an integrated OS + hardware -- with Linux, you can never be sure if the user installed the distro that supports all of the hardware they'll expect to work. It'd be likely a support nightmare for the application developer, something that'd make Windows support nightmares look timid.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

Linux doesn't really have any marketing to speak of, especially in the desktop space.

Re:heh

[amicusNYCL]

What's the point of comparing fresh installs? I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a fresh install for anything, ever. Every time a discussion about Linux is brought up one of the big selling points is the massive repository of free software available, and now you want to switch to comparing fresh installs?

I don't even require that much from my OS, but even so when I installed Windows 7 on my current computer a few months ago there was a small list of software that I immediately downloaded before doing anything else. Since I still have the installers, here's the list:

7zip
nVidia drivers
Chrome
ConTEXT
Filezilla
Firefox
Foxit
Opera
Sublime Text
Thunderbird
TortoiseSVN
Bitstream Vera Sans Mono (font)
Windows Grep

So, 3 browsers, 2 text editors, email client, SVN client, FTP client, and a few utilities. THAT is my fresh install, not what Windows 7 was for a half hour before I installed that. I could have included Putty in that list, but I haven't needed it on this machine yet. I do not see it as a negative that I need to install these programs because they don't come with the OS, I don't expect the OS to have the text editor I want, or the browser I prefer, or even my font of choice.

I do expect the OS to run whatever program I want to run, and in that way it works just fine.

Re:heh

[tibit]

WinXP supports reading UDF and ISO9660 out of the box, so I don't know what you meant :(

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

Nope. I used the available resources (Google) to find out that there was a better way to deal with addressing devices by name.

Re:heh

[DeathFromSomewhere]

I have used many different Linux distributions since 1985

You have been using Linux 6 years before it even existed? Impressive. Clearly your hacker skills are far beyond mine. Could you please tell me what computing will look like in a decade? I have some money to spend on stocks.

Re:heh

[tibit]

Except printers. Printer drivers and printing framework on Windows almost universally suck -- to a point where OS X and recent Linux distros have better printing support than Windows in many, many cases.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

Nope. That just means you're talking to an old timer that doesn't want/need to use newer and less frightening tools.

That's what it really boils down to: fright. It's not really about "usability", it's about users that have been conditioned into thinking that they are helpless and that tech might implode if they look at it wrong.

Although a line of text is a lot easier to deal with in terms of "remote support". An entire description of how to deal with a GUI including pictures incurs a lot more overhead.

Re:heh

[tibit]

That's why you don't write for some nebulous concept of Linux, you write it for a particular distro, chosen for its market penetration, expected viability, and available support. In most cases the first choice is RHEL.

Re:heh

[tibit]

True, but that's by design, expectation and is not a probem. Linux is a kernel that's under active development all the time. It's a moving target by definition. Why would you care only about the kernel if you're writing for an entire operating system (aka distro)? There are distributions that are not moving targets, hey, they even meticuluously maintain binary compatiblity. Who'd have thought of that, ha?

Re:heh

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Photoshop => The Gimp (does 90-95% of what Photoshop does) and its free. Acrobat => Are you talking about Acrobat Reader? Linux has it. No Writer but who cares...Other programs produce PDF output. Sharepoint => ??? Isn't Sharepoint a hosting site? What's that got to do with it? Call of Duty => Play on Wine. Also FPS are so prolific, there are others with native linux support. Quicken => GnuCash does everything I need and its free. Turbotax => Do Turbotax online. Support for their lousy $50 printer/copier => Okay, you've got me there. Linux still lags behind on support for hardware but I personally haven't had many issues.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

> You're asking users to sacrifice something known, stable, and familiar

No. You are sacrificing something known and familiar.

"Stable" can not be taken as a given.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

I have games on Windows that break with new versions.

Apps a a little easier because they don't ask much of the system. I have some really ancient Linux apps that have been migrated from machine to machine over the years quite successfully.

I even have games that I've been able to do that with.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

> There's a vast wealth of software available at no cost on Windows.

Yes and it will be provided on sites that look like adware and malware minefields compared to the Linux alternative. Seeing what Windows users have to go through to get to their gratis softtware gives me much more appreciation for the approach Apple has been taking lately.

"Shark007"

Re:heh

[Dasher42]

How about this: I can switch my motherboard and video card out and not only not buy a new copy of Windows, I don't need to twiddle drivers. I can even remaster onto a live-bootable USB drive and work on it on a completely different machine, long as it's i686 or x86_64. Everything I need is a few clicks away in synaptic or in apt-get from the command line, and once installed, it generally stays that way.

A huge slew of apps are already bundled for free, and if I want to start getting creative codewise, there are a bunch of open source games to hack on, and the toolchain is already bundled up and free.

I didn't get nickeled and dimed to get extra software bundles: I get to try out new things for free as a community participant, not a lousy pirate. Creative participation is right there.

That's why I run a Linux desktop, and keep a Mac notebook for on-the-go music and a sleep mode that works. I quit dual-booting Windows four years ago and feel great.

You're free to decide whether that's for you.

Re:heh

[rev0lt]

Parts of the userland of OSX are from FreeBSD, but the kernel isn't. So it's not just "FreeBSD".

Re:heh

[Oligonicella]

Three emulations and a sloppy workaround. Not exactly an inspiring endorsement.

Why exactly, if I'm purchasing a machine to run those applications, do I need an OS that puts an interference layer betwixt me and my work?

Re:heh

[rev0lt]

I was comparing what you get when you install Windows vs what you get when you install e.g. Ubuntu

But Ubuntu is a "distribution" - a collection of different packages of software. Of course, Linux-based operating systems use the same exact philosophy for the OS itself, but you usually also get "additional software". You could make a "distribution" of Windows for your own use (or for corporate use) with all those software pieces you miss included. Or just go to Ninite and download the EXE and think of it as a "patch".

Re:heh

[Dixie_Flatline]

Slackware forever. :)

Re:heh

[Moryath]

How about this: I can switch my motherboard and video card out
You are already far beyond the capabilities of most of the people you are trying to convince to switch.

I can even remaster onto a live-bootable USB drive and work on it on a completely different machine, long as it's i686 or x86_64.
You are already far beyond the capabilities of most of the people you are trying to convince to switch.

Everything I need is a few clicks away in synaptic or in apt-get from the command line
You have already LOST the people who you are trying to convince to switch.

A huge slew of apps are already bundled for free
Funny, that's what they say about their new HP or Dell too.

and if I want to start getting creative codewise...
You are already far beyond the capabilities of most of the people you are trying to convince to switch.

I get to be a free beta tester for software that will never ever be finished or have most of the bugs fixed, because fixing bugs isn't smexy as a community participant,
FTFY

As you can see, most of your arguments are MEANINGLESS to the types of people you need to convince in order to get them to adopt Linux.

Re:heh

[rev0lt]

Also, where's the software repository so that I can install software from a known "good" source and have updates to all my software applied with just a couple of clicks?

And that is an advantage how? Many professional programs for desktop use are paid, regardless of the operating systems. Do you have them available on that "good" source? Because if all you want is all those freeware apps packaged, you have "sources" like ninite that already provide that for you.

I've actually found driver support in Windows to be extremely flaky. I've had old hardware refuse to work under Windows 7 as the only driver available is a 32bit WinXP one. I've heard stories of scanners and printers not working in Windows 7 - I don't know if they're true or not.

Some hardware has shitty drivers, true. But I've yet to find a piece of hardware that doesn't work on Windows.

My experience of loading WinXP onto laptops is typically painful

So, if you load a 2001 Linux distro on a modern laptop, will you expect it to detect your hardware? Or did you forget to make the recovery CD's?

My view is that I don't care what OS other people run as long as we're all using standards that don't care what OS we run.

That is a bit of whisful thinking. You have "de-facto" standards that aren't open nor free. And the availability of the applications needed for a given task usually dictates operating system choice.

Re:heh

[Deathmoo]

I still can't fathom why we still have Flash player at all considering it's track record. But people keep using it. :( There HAS to be a better way to serve video on the web than this buggy POS that is so frequently hacked.

Re:heh

[icebraining]

"Hardware abstraction" is hardly a reason why Linux distros are less successful. The rest are mostly true, though.

Re:heh

[icebraining]

In other news, the new version of X-Code, despite being marketed for Mac OS X, doesn't work for most Mac OS X users.

Re:heh

[icebraining]

Tried andLinux? No reason you can't eat the cake and have it too.

Re:heh

[jamiesan]

It's name is BeOS! Only in death do we have a name!

Re:heh

[DaveV1.0]

Several reasons.

First, Apple had the built-in market of the Apple Mac acolytes.

Second, OS X had OS 9 compatibility mode to allow people to still use older programs. That means near zero cost to use the newer operating system.

Third, Apple pushed third party developers to port popular existing application over to OS X before it was released. This meant that there were plenty of trusted, supported, third party applications available.

Fourth, Apple put time and effort into creating a good GUI. One never needs to use the CLI. They enforce a look and feel and thus have a consistent interface. And, it is an interface that is easy to learn and use.

Fifth, Apple got a big lift from the introduction of iPod. The iPod really raised the awareness of the Apple brand, including computers. People started actually looking at Apple products and liking what they saw. And, the people who could afford iPods could afford to pay for the name.

Sixth, years ago Apple put Macs in schools by the thousand. The kids who grew up using a Mac in school were just hitting the market when Apple's brand started to become prominent.

It would be possible to make a successful "Desktop Linux". It would just require a bunch of things the community doesn't want to do and either would or do actively fight against, including but not limited to a consistent look and feel, binary drivers, and closed-source, for-profit software.

The number one thing holding back "Desktop Linux" is the Linux community.

Re:heh

[DaveV1.0]

I am guessing that you had an ass-hat problem with pulseaudio. Not that I am disagreeing with you at all. You are right on the mark.

Oh, and for those that couldn't read it with the missing punctuation:

and finally, there is the leaning on CLI as a crutch. Whereas in OSX or Win 7, one could remove the CLI completely and have a 100% functional OS that I would argue more than 95% of the population would never even notice CLI was removed. With Linux, thanks to its actually being a server OS and NOT a desktop OS at heart, if you remove CLI you've completely destroyed the OS and many distros won't even boot.

TFTFY.

Re:heh

[DaveV1.0]

Not to mention Notepad++ is freely available.

Re:heh

[DaveV1.0]

To be honest, I wasn't including extra software as part of the Windows OS

So, you are complaining because Microsoft doesn't include a fuck-ton of free software in their operating system while Ubuntu does, right?

Re:heh

[Electricity Likes Me]

On Windows and OSX, every application is (a) bloated because they have to ship all the dependencies and (b) has to either run some stupid auto-updater or be manually updated to get security fixes.

On (a): nobody cares. This isn't 1990. My laptop has a 750 gb hard drive. By far the biggest user of resources on my computer is graphics assets for applications. Not code libraries. Nobody - and I mean nobody - cares about 5 extra megabytes of libraries installed with every application. In fact in the vast majority of cases they want that feature, since it chokes out the risk of an upgrade introducing new bugs (and Win 7 went to considerable effort to provide that and undo the legacy "shared library" model). Let deduplicating filesystems or whatever take care of "app bloat"

Re:heh

[DaveV1.0]

So, you are saying that it is Microsoft's job to choose third party software for you and host it, right? You are complaining that Microsoft doesn't provide a bunch of software they didn't write and don't care about but Ubuntu does? You do know that SSH is not a part of Linux, right? Nor is there spreadsheet software or PDF reader that is a part of Linux. Those are third-party software application bundled into a distribution and the bundled apps vary between distribution. You know that right? And, you know that Linux is not Ubuntu right? And, that Linux is not the GNU tool set?

Seriously, if you want to play this game, we can and you will lose.

You know who does the equivalent of making Windows distros? Computer and Laptop manufacturers such as Asus, Dell, and HP. And, what does everyone complain about? "That crapware installed on my new laptop that I have to uninstall."

Re:heh

[DaveV1.0]

And, SSH isn't a part of Linux or even GNU/Linux. It is included by Ubuntu as third-party software.

Re:heh

[Electricity Likes Me]

Does someone really need to post a list of SSH exploits which have been fixed?

Re:heh

[wavedeform]

Well, neither has anyone else. Just about everybody uses contract manufacturing.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

No. All of his points are valid.

1) You can configure Windows to log on automatically with no password.

2) The last three Linux distributions that I've used (for Android development) Ubuntu, Kbuntu and Mint have all had at least one update that required a reboot per month, so the reboot argument is bullshit too.

3) Familiarity? One word: UNITY. And if you are going to argue that one can switch back to KDE of Gnome, Windows 7 can be made to look and behave like Classic Windows too.

4) Compatibility: Laughable. I can and do run apps that were written for Windows 3.1 and 05 on Windows 7 today. Try that with Linux without recompiling.

5) Ease of use: Subjective

6) Lagacy Hardware Support: A 486? REALLY?

7) OS Upgrades breaking things: Are you kidding me? I've had new linux kernel releases break Cdrtools due to the ubstable driver ABI. meanwhile the same cdrtools binaries worked on FreeBSD 5-7 machines with no problems. On multiple occasions I've had Ubuntu's upgrade process render the system inoperable after letting it go for a long time (six months or so) without updating.

I could probably go on but have a life and won't.

The bottom line is that if you think those bullet points are 100% factual, you live in a ideological bubble and are beyond help.

Re:heh

[Tetsujin]

Kudos on the Macross signature.

Eh, "Micronians" is a Robotech-ism, though... In Macross it's "Miclone" (micro/clone)

Re:heh

[aix tom]

Debian is not all Linux. It's actually only one of the "package based" ones.

If you have Arch Linux, you can write any package you like and upload the build script and sources to the Arch User Repository. Then it's shared with all Arch users.

Basically the two I use are Gentoo and Arch Linux. Because they just give you Linux with a software management (portage or pacman), but leave it completely up to you what editor/Desktop Environment/etc... you want to install and use.

Re:heh

[Deathmoo]

Tech support from Honey Badger? It just don't give a shit. Insects don't bother it, and it'll kick the ass of any other mammal that thinks they want to do tech support!

http://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

I wasn't aware it could read them - I've always had trouble with it not being able to open .ISO files. Can it write to them as well?

Re:heh

[Deathmoo]

I think even the most optimistic Linux-lover has given up seeing many ladies choosing that as a hobby.. :( NEED MOAR GIRLZ!!

Maybe that's the real key to the Microsoft led Desktop OS dominance... They convinced girls that it's good, so they have 1/2 the people convinced right out of the gate.. :) (Not sure all girls are convinced by MS, but they certainly don't seem to have a lot of voice in the FOSS world...)

Re:heh

[Electricity Likes Me]

The problem with DKMS is that it works fine up until the kernel guys change an interface. Then it breaks horribly.

Linux needs way more ABI stability then it currently has - ideally some very clear guidelines on when ABI's will change (which should be, between major version releases). It's not really acceptable to have device drivers get taken out by minor version kernel updates, and it's pretty absurd to religiously apply FOSS to hardware in the first place since I'm never not going to be buying hardware.

Re:heh

[ArhcAngel]

As several crack /. readers have pointed out...that should be 1995 not 85...even proofreading can't fix bad decade memory! 1985 was the year I got that smokin Members Only jacket and parachute pants at the mall...

Re:heh

[AvitarX]

It's lack of apps I think.

Unity is good enough, but only with a couple keyboard shortcuts (isn't it supposed to be the braindead option?).

I really like KDE4 now, and haven't used Gnome3.

I'm a huge fan of the always on top option for windows, and that goes a long way to my opinion.

Re:heh

[Tetsujin]

Acrobat != Adobe Reader

but who does that? (editing a PDF file)

Whoever created all of the PDFs out there. It was not the PDF fairy.

Not quite.

I create PDF files pretty regularly, as the GP poster said, via "print to PDF"-type features. I never edit PDF files. So not all the PDF files out there were created by a PDF editor.

(Of course, a more complete PDF editing system would mean being able to do things like create a table of contents - so yeah, it can be important to have real PDF software.)

Re:heh

[hawkinspeter]

I haven't performed any installations of Windows 7 on laptops, so I can't compare them. I was replying to a post that said

driver support for virtually all hardware in existence

so I was supplying a counter example.

Re:heh

[dvice_null]

> Through in gimp, sure you might be able to do all the things that you can do in photoshop but there will be a huge learning curve.

I have to disagree with you. We did usability test with 3 people who had no experience with Gimp, but some had experience from Photoshop. None of them had any major problems and everyone was able to complete the tasks without help. The results of the tests were the exact opposite of the impression I have seen in Slashdot. Gimp is actually very easy to learn and use. I was especially impressed with the Photoshop user, he had no problems doing special tricks with Gimp, even he couldn't find the same tools he had been using in Photoshop.

Re:heh

[Shadowkahn]

Exactly. I have a revolving argument with a friend of mine who gets obsessed about things. His latest obsession is Ubuntu, and he's constantly trying to get me to switch. When I point out that I need to run Photoshop and Premiere and After Effects, he tells me "well you can just dual boot," or "run WINE." Yeah, well, that's nice, but both of those solutions require that I be in a Windows environment, so what the hell would be the point of switching away from Windows in the first place? That plus the interface problems you described - even in Ubuntu, the last time I looked at it, you had to type in all sorts of shell commands to get things working, and as soon as the average person sees "Type "sudo bash blah blah"" or whatever, their eyes glaze over and they go back to clicking. Hell I came up on CP/M and DOS. I'm used to having to type weird commands every time I need to alter something, but you know what? Those OS's were in the 80's. This is 2011. Even I have come around to appreciate the value of a nice GUI where I don't have to remember esoteric commands just to load a damned printer driver. And then he tells me "Oh just wait till version Pissy Panda or whatever comes out and they say they might have a workaround for that." Big deal. Windows has it now.

But the main thing that kills Ubuntu and all the other Linux variants is that they don't do one single thing that Windows doesn't already do, and I already have all this expensive software for Windows, and I already know how to use Windows, and all my hardware works on Windows. If Linux did something unique that Windows couldn't touch, it'd be a different story, but that's not the case.

Re:heh

[ILongForDarkness]

Was this a photoshop user as in a hobbist or a professional? There is a huge difference. Someone pounding out 300 lines of C for an assignment in vi might not see the need for Eclipse or VS but that doesn't mean their isn't a need for Eclipse or VS (or something of that level). A room full of people looking for cut and paste and the drawing tool isn't the same as people using the ninjistu of edge detection, layering all the crazy stuff I hardly understand which makes a designer a professional just as much as me as a coder/physicist.

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

> Do you realize that the average OEM windows machine comes with less bloat in it than the average Linux install from DVD contains?

This is just sad.

Troll harder next time.

Re:heh

[mcgrew]

Why would one edit a PDF form? Or use one in the first place? They have them where I work, and I wish they didn't. And I have Acrobat on my work computer, and it won't do much in the way of editing at all, and often can't read PDFs from different versions of Acrobat.

OTOH, writing a PDF is built in to most Linux apps like Oo or Lo. Edit it? Why? Edit the original doc and re-save as PDF.

Re:heh

[rahlskog]

That is actually not a bad thing, picking up Gentoo after bouncing between Windows and RedHat/Mandrake/SuSE for a few years was what finally got me hooked, I actually understood what I was doing and I felt I had the power to fix things when they broke. Having to go through the steps to setup a working system made me understand how things work instead of popping in a disc and pressing next and just re-doing it when I broke it.

Then I went kind of odd and started maintaining kernel patch-sets and telling people how to re-size/move their partitions using pen, paper, a calculator and dd

Re:heh

[Flyerman]

Pretty sure we don't need to compare closed source software to the forced imprisonment and labour of a sentient lifeform, do we?

Re:heh

[daffmeister]

We have no simple way for me to write a cool hack of a little game today, and share it with thousands of Linux enthusiasts tomorrow.

Stick it on your website; create a PPA for Ubuntu; add it to SourceForge. There's a ton of ways to distribute something.

Re:heh

[markdavis]

I am not sure why your posting was modded so high, I really don't find it all that "interesting", myself.

To answer your question (and it has been answered many times on many forums):

** Compile static **

Then post it up somewhere. It is really that simple. If you want to develop a program that works on just about any Linux machine, then don't use shared libraries. Memory is and has been cheap, and it is better to use a few extra megabytes of RAM for an app than it is to rely on a dozen ever-changing, different, shared, Linux libraries.

Re:heh

[White Flame]

Filesystem support really matters when you're swapping around USB sticks or external harddrives.

Re:heh

[Gordonjcp]

Most people don't need accounting and tax software, because they're not tax accountants.
All the tax accountants I know just use a spreadsheet...

Re:heh

[SuperAlgae]

Most of the links that come up are in the "technical" sections of the site (help, wiki, etc) where references to Linux are difficult to avoid. I clicked through the eleven main pages in ubuntu.com's top menu and did a page search for "linux" on each one. Two matches came up, one on the "devices" page and one on the "community" page. I'm not saying whether that is good or bad. It's just clear that Ubuntu does not reference Linux a lot in how it promotes itself.

Re:heh

[shutdown -p now]

'm looking forward to the day when one of my alternatives to Office on the Linux desktop is actually the Android version of "Documents to Go"

All Android office suites (actually, all mobile office suits on both iOS and Android) are crap. Half of them can't even merge cells in a table inside a text document.

The only hope is SoftMaker finally releasing their Android port (they are currently in private beta) - judging from their desktop versions, they handle MSOffice compatibility real well. But then they already have a proper Linux desktop version.

running full screen "Lion"-style or "Windows 8 Metro"-style.

A better way would be running them in separate windows, actually, allowing you to move them around and even resize them (Android apps should be able to handle resizing like that). I don't see the point of always running full screen on a desktop, especially with 24"+ monitors.

Re:heh

[tibit]

You're conflating filesystem support with support for opening a filesystem stored in a file (as opposed to a block device). Windows doesn't have an out-of-the-box support for mounting any filesystems that are not on a block device. It requires third party tools to do so. Nevertheless Windows obviously supports both UDF and ISO9660 filesystems, otherwise you could read anything off a CD-ROM or a DVD. It's just that out of the box you have no way of telling windows to mount a file (a you would using the loop block device on Linux). Here's where modern Unixes excel, and OS X provides a very nice GUI for all that.

I don't think that Windows supports writing to ISO9660 or UDF natively, but this may differ between versions.

Re:heh

[tomstorey]

And dont forget your Linux conversion party how-to video...

Re:heh

[magamiako1]

desktops? servers that are meticulously maintained and the exact same configuration of software across each in some sort of clustering environment?

There are some huge differences there...

Administratively dividing up both your users AND your systems so that different users across the same system get different configurations? Different users in different areas/departments getting different information? Without massive pre-configuration of where the hell to pull the files from on every boot?

Re:heh

[Scott Atkinson]

My experience is much different.

I started playing with Linux when it was first uploaded to AOL in late 92', early 93' and I've kept my hand in since then. But I'm not a technical person and never used it as my daily driver.

A couple of years ago the XP install on my very, very old Dell laptop needed to be refreshed, but given the age of the machine and what I wanted from it, I decided to put Ubuntu 10.04 on instead.

I have never looked back. It lets me do what I most need to do - read and write email, work within a web-based content management system, resize and clean up photos, use Twitter - with no fuss, no muss. Oo handles my office needs, and lets me share files with my work with no issues at all. My seven year old (!!) laptop runs fast enough, the software is new enough and I don't have to do anything special to make it work. I never drop to the command line. I never get cryptic error messages. It's arguably the simplest computing experience I've ever had. It gets out of my way better than Windows 7 or the increasingly baroque OS X.

Obviously, I don't use Word or Photoshop or any of the other deal breakers. But I can't believe I'm alone in my computing needs, or in how Linux handles them.

     

Re:heh

[smash]

Well, actually it is. The reason driver support sucks on Linux is because there's no reliable ABI.

Re:heh

[smash]

Running Linux applications on Windows? Wouldn't that be the worst of both worlds? I just run a mac, it runs everything I want and the hardware is nice...

Re:heh

[jedwidz]

Regarding Sharepoint, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that you need Internet Explorer for full functionality.

Re:heh

[swell]

Let me speak for users here (as opposed to hackers).

I use Microsoft and other business software but I mostly work with creative media software (Everything by Adobe, Apple and others). These are massive & complex systems capable of hugely complex rendering operations.

I was a programmer/hacker decades ago but now all I want is reliable documents, audio, animation and video that will print or play as intended. The computer is nearly invisible to me and I don't care what's under the hood if it does the job and doesn't get in the way.

Similarly, I used to prefer cars with stick shift, muscle and a bit of noise. Now I want to get from point A to point B efficiently, safely and in comfort.

When you say one OS is better than another, you might ask yourself "for who?" - not everyone has your priorities.

Re:heh

[TheLink]

They're not selling "Linux", they're selling Ubuntu. Mentioning Linux won't make most people go "I want to use Ubuntu and/or give them money".

Apple doesn't make that many references to Foxconn, Samsung, Darwin or the S5L8940X/S5L8945X on their main pages either.

Perhaps Ubuntu could have a section for Linux similar to what McDonald's has for their ingredients and suppliers: http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of.html

Re:heh

[smash]

On Windows and OS X, every application is (a) bloated because they have to ship all the dependencies and (b) has to either run some stupid auto-updater or be manually updated to get security fixes.

Actually no, both Windows and OS X have shared libraries, and they are used. If you write an app for say, OS X 10.7, you KNOW that the set of libraries for 01.7 are instaled and available. Every game patch doesn't updated DirectX on Windows, and Quartz isn't updated by applications on OS X, either, just as one random example. The rate of change is far lower, and when change does happen, backwards compatibility is generally maintained for a reasonable period of time. If you'd used either operating system at any level of competency for a reasonable period of time, you'd know this already.

Re:heh

[gullevek]

I am one of those who used Linux on the Desktop for more than 10 years and then switched to a Mac.

Privately because my interests shifted and the Software I need does not run on Linux.

At work, because I spent more time making shit run and work than actually working. Fixing some shitty mp3 player to play music is not really 100% needed for work, but it just sucks. Having the 1000th issue with flash is in my work environment just unexpectable. I need flash, even when I hate it.

Re:heh

[Kurtz La Croix]

I don't think the Flaky driver support in windows is a good defence for anyone defending any non-self-compiled Linux OS, Also Surely you can’t be blaming windows because you can’t remember to re-set AHCI mode, also is it not safe to assume anyone who isn’t a "typical user" would have at least some experience compiling software? so I ask how hard is it to make your own WinXP SOE and have the AHCI drivers in the Master Image? and when you mention your "Old Hardware" what are we talking twelve months a few years or are we talking hardware that was being phased out when XP was new, are we talking parallel ports and Dot Matrix printers? And the reason that windows doesn’t come with PDF readers and an infinite number of apps when you install it is because it is all blaotware, when installing any Linux OS how often do you find yourself un-installing or replacing those tedious apps that your favourite distro comes with? I do agree with you about one thing though a windows software repository would be great and I’m sure there is not a soul that doesn’t agree a STRONGLY REGULATED software repository would make life amazing. and I still cross my fingers and hold my breath that it is a feature of windows 8 when it moves into RC phase

Re:heh

[Daniel Phillips]

You just demonstrated why almost nobody wants Linux: linux advocates are assholes like you

How can I tell the difference between you and an asshole?

Re:heh

[terjeber]

Don't forget the smear campaigns and FUD about other operating systems, threats to sue end users over patent infringement, etc

and even more importantly, applications. The things that users run to do what they want to do. Linux doesn't have them.

Re:heh

[terjeber]

what are these features that Linux is missing?

Applications. The stuff that users need to do what they want to do. They are not there, or they are unpolished in an off-putting way.

Not there: alternatives to Lightroom/Aperture (nothing), Photoshop (no, Gimp is not it, though getting better), end-user video editing (nothing really), word processing ( Linux alternatives badly needs polish, and polish matters), spreadsheet (see word processing) etc.

People do not use computers to play with the operating system. People (as opposed to geeks like us) do not do any programming on their computer. People (as opposed to geeks) do not maintain websites. These are things that Linux excels at, and "nobody" needs it. Not regular users.

Re:heh

[Daniel Phillips]

They didn't have anything remotely ressembling stability either, but that did not seem to bother most Mac users. By this I understand that they are a different kind of people from me, most probably from a different planet.

Re:heh

[Daniel Phillips]

Haven't you heard? This is the Year of the Linux Desktop!

Actually, it's the year of the Linux phone.

Re:heh

[Daniel Phillips]

I'm getting ready to replace my aging laptop and am mulling over the best route to go.

Take a flyer and get something like an Asus Transformer? Indeed, Android was not conceived as a desktop-replacement UI but Google, but it is viewed that way by many others, including Asus. I might be a little bumpy at first until things like Libreoffice land, but I find I am actually able to get by without a traditional laptop on a road trip these days. The low weight and long battery life are really sweet.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

There was a window of time where I would run home if necessary from the bus stop in order to be sure that I didn't miss Robotech. I've watched Macross but back then anime was not as readily available as it is now. I didn't know much about it. I knew the look and I was completely stoked that Robotech was on tv. I'm not sure that we even had a vcr yet at that point.

Re:heh

[UncleRage]

It was the best mod up I could give you at the time. Those damn things are never around when you want them.

Re:heh

[the_arrow]

And this is different from Linux how?

If you link against the core libs (things like libc, libm, libX11, lbGL) it will basically work on any machine anywhere up to a fairly respectable age.

Not true, as both the functions and the binary interface changed numerous times over the lifetime of Linux. I have lots of old Loki games lying at home, can't use them anymore without some major tweaking to find old libraries and installing them correctly. And doesn't work for some games anyway.

Re:heh

[mcgrew]

1. How?
2. Bullshit, you're flat out lying. The only reboot I've needed this year was when I upgraded from kubuntu 11.04 to 11.10. Lots of updates in that time, but again, the only reboot was when the kernel was updated.
3. Why in the hell would I use UNITY and give up one of the advantages?
4. Again, you're lying. Few of my old DOS games would run under Windows. FoxPro 6 (Microsoft product) wouldn't run under XP, nor would the software that came with my CD burner. About 2000 an upgrade to Access broke every single database I had written. And that wasn't even the point -- the point was that MS pushes proprietary "standards" that only work with Windows.
5. Not subjective, see Jacob Nielson's site
6. Yes, really
7. If I had those kinds of problems I'd find a new OS, or at least a new distro.

Re:heh

[mcgrew]

A lot of the same arguments can be used for the Mac platform in my opinion though.

That's true. It isn't so much that Linux is superior, it's that Windows is an inferior POS. Afaik, the only downside to Apple is price.

AV should be everywhere. Heck a virus writer just has to hack your browser and they can get most things that interest them since you likely browse the internet to your work, bank etc.

Just not being stupid will keep trojans out of a Mac or Linux box, even though you could write a trojan for those platforms. Windows computers are the only instances I know of with "drive-by infections" where simply visiting a web site or reading an email infects your computer. I do agree that the average user isn't cautious enough, which is the best reason for him to buy a Mac or install Linux.

Re:heh

[Bill_the_Engineer]

To be fair. I use KDE4 the most, except on some RHEL machines where Gnome 2 still lives.

Unity is still an unfinished POS.

Re:heh

[ryanov]

Lately I have been having trouble with the Acrobat plug-in on Firefox under Linux (sometimes loads, sometimes a black or white blank screen). Chrome is my fallback.

Re:heh

[ryanov]

KMyMoney is decent. I've never used Quicken proper, but for what I'm doing I've never wanted for more features really. I'm cheap though so I use my dad's copy of the desktop edition of TurboTax, which this year is so shitty that it doesn't even run in VirtualBox (just about every piece of software I've ever run works fine in a VM).

Re:heh

[ryanov]

On the other hand, for printers Linux supports, it's actually EASIER to configure them than on Windows. I plugged in a shitty $50 inkjet once and it completely added itself, including picking the right driver: zero user intervention. I've had the same experience with finding printers on mDNS and getting something to come out of them. I actually gave up and printed something for a Windows user on my laptop because we couldn't get the Windows driver to print properly.

Re:heh

[tibit]

Acrobat is almost universally a pain, unfortunately :( It's an otherwise nice application, but the devil is in the details.
On OS X, preview does quite a good job of pdf rendering. Otherwise, Chrome is my generic suggestion for a browser/pdf viewer combo. You will need Acrobat Reader for some things, though (some forms, pdfs with javascript form filler code, 3D pdfs that are commonly used for previewing solid models). Acrobat Reader's main fault is that it has too many features, and you need them just for the occasional pdf that uses them -- mostly government forms and 3D.

Re:heh

[ryanov]

I don't have time to respond to every inaccuracy in these last two posts, but there are many of them -- for example, KDE4 is nicer looking than MacOS X by quite a bit. However, my main point is that using fucking and goddamn in every sentence doesn't make your bending of the facts or passing off opinion as fact any more correct/gravitas.

Re:heh

[ILongForDarkness]

Mah. I user of a Mac or Linux will just sudo install crap rather than install it with a UAC prompt. Same difference. Non-techincal or even technical people that think they can trust the source will install random crap. Random crap can have viruses, in that kind of environment IMHO Mac and Linux are more secure just because virus writers haven't bothered spending as much time making viruses for those platforms. A lot of viruses are to create bots and for that you need lots and lots of machines for example.

Mac: better in that it comes from a vendor that is widely known already working and so pretty much guaranteed to at least work well with everything it comes with. Never underestimate the willingness of people to pay a little extra to not have to fiddle with their computer to get it working, even the perception that they won't have to fiddle will get them to by a Dell with win preinstalled or a Mac. Get a random box and then play ... for hours with Linux and you "may" have a completely working system afterwards. I realize a lot of that problem has gone away over the years but it still happens.

I still had issues with ~2 year old hardware at a small startup I was working at. 3 other boxes with the same version of linux (Ubuntu, pre-unity at the time) running, with a room full of linux developers in the room (who had the same machine as me but for some reason it worked "out of the box" for them). I ended up having to figure out which flag inside of the graphics card driver I had to change to get it to be recognized. Not something your average user is going to be able to, or is going to be interested in solving. (not to mention you have to have another point of access to the internet to read manuals while you try to figure out what you need to do). Was a fun one because once I logged in I got a black screen I seem to recall so it wasn't even just a low res setting it was dead to the world once it hit the Gnome desktop.

A lot of things are history: linux is known for being hard to use because it was hard to use 15 years ago. Similarly Windows is known as crashing all the time because 10 years ago it did crash all the time. My Win 7 box hasn't crashed yet (only had Win on it for 6 months mind you) other than explorer restarting occasionally which is annoying because it knocks out the control panel and win explorer windows I have open. But all my apps have stayed up and the system hasn't gone down. Perhaps linux would never go down, but less than every 6 months is good enough for me and most users I suspect.

Re:heh

[Daniel Phillips]

Sure, much of it also works on Mac, but Linux?

Also. If hardware works on Mac it probably works on Linux. The reverse is often not true because Linux has far more drivers than FreeBSD.

Whoops, no, that was not flamebait, it is a fact. Attacked by a Machead perchance?

Re:heh

[rainmouse]

Just tell them that Linux is only for people who are really good with computers and every idiot will want it. Then sell them support contracts.

I and a number of others I know have all tried linux and not stayed with it. It's not a marketing issue perhaps more than the fact that its just not as good as windows or mac os for typical users because things just don't simply work without weeks of learning and dicking around. If you have a problem the solutions online are aimed almost purely at power users compared to the step by step graphical tutorials available for the majority of problems faced by MS and Apple users. For me being a typical dumb user it took me days to get my graphics card working and I never got my sound to work beyond the ubuntu start up noise. Twice I have tried linux and twice I've cleaned it off in frustrated ''aww fuck this'' rages. No point in selling a product that cannot retain its customers.

Re:heh

[HapSlappy_2222]

You know, you're absolutely right, but I think this is still a big hurdle to a widely adopted Linux desktop. Everyday users don't want to be told "if you do this, it will work." even when it's true. Even though they have to install DirectX to install a game on Windows; average users don't even notice it, because the game installer puts it in place without them having to see anything but a "Next" button. Pushing next is just what you push until "Finish", which is the button that makes shortcuts to click. They just want software to work, with no additional steps that they have to think about. They only perceive installing Wine as "I have to do more stuff than Windows", and that only looks like excuses for a less-functional-than-Windows computer.

Your average joe or josephine isn't gonna want to hear that they need to install Wine to then install Photoshop or Quicken, especially when they have to call Adobe support for help installing Photoshop in the first place. I think what Linux needs for widespread success is a broad spectrum "ezmode" for users that just don't care about things like which OS they use. Put cd in, click next a buncha times, gogo spreadsheet/tax return/headshots. In fact, to the user, an "ezmode" isn't even a feature, it's a "normal", so it just needs to be there by default, with no fanfare. Touting a "brand new ezmode!!" feature will STILL work against Linux, because it'll call attention to the fact the OS can be trickier than a "Windows", which is scary to a new, unskilled user.

I don't know if this is something that the Linux community will want to do anyway, because if it happens and is broadly adopted, Linux won't have a special uniqueness anymore. We'll all be supporting Linux ezmode instead of the stuff that makes Linux beautiful. Maybe if software vendors started packaging things like Wine, with an optimal configuration in their own sandbox, into their installers, we'd see a difference, but then we run into a catch 22. Why would a vendor want to do this for such a small market share?

What's even more unfortunate is Windows and Mac OS's have paved a track that users follow. Unless Linux can funnel users into a very, very similar track, it doesn't stand a chance of breaking them out of the pattern. Free just doesn't make up for a perceived pain in the ass, and while I hate it as much as the rest of you, that's the reality right now.

Re:heh

[yk4ever]

Obligatory xkcd reference: http://xkcd.com/619/

Re:heh

[HapSlappy_2222]

You hit the nail right on the head, but the one thing that we all keep missing is none of it matters at all to the great wide public. Perception is everything; people are constantly using sub-optimal products because the TV tells them to.

Without a successful marketing push, all argument about the Year of the Linux Desktop is pointless. We need both momentum AND quality.

Re:heh

[brando56894]

Brilliant!

Re:heh

[Zanadou]

It seems to work well for normals. They appear to have less issues than the normals running Windows.

I think we can see the source of the problem right here.

Re:heh

[MiG82au]

RDP is for clicking. You can't create a tunnel over it or pipe program IO. I use RDP a lot, but sometimes I *really* want an SSH server. But there are SSH servers available for Windows and I have used them for tunneling. My gripe with Windows is the intentional crippling: no concurrent RDP sessions without a hacked dll, no packet routing, some other things I've needed and forgotten.

Re:heh

[smash]

I presumed he meant support for connecting TO the machine, not from it. Putty is a free, 1meg download that is just as good as any unix version of SSH. Any other OS has similar ssh clients available. Pretty sure you can even ssh from an ipad.

Re:heh

[sjames]

That still leaves using the machine as a tunnel outlet or when connectivity is poor. Multiple hops, especially when one hop is through a small embedded device would be 'interesting' as well.

Re:heh

[G3ckoG33k]

Debian rulez! :)

Re:heh

[mcgrew]

IMHO Mac and Linux are more secure just because virus writers haven't bothered spending as much time making viruses for those platforms.

Yes, that is one reason. But since there aare no Mac or Linux viruses (yet?) in the wild, whatever the reason, Mac and Linux don't need AV.

I ended up having to figure out which flag inside of the graphics card driver I had to change to get it to be recognized. Not something your average user is going to be able to, or is going to be interested in solving.

You're going to have issues like whenever you install an OS or hardware. I've had those same kinds of issues with Windows. The folks that are immune are Mac users and Windows users who buy a PC with an OEM installed OS who never change OSes or hardware.

not to mention you have to have another point of access to the internet to read manuals while you try to figure out what you need to do

Yes, that is a real problem. When I installed XP, the first patch hosed my network connection, replacing its perfectly good NIC driver with one that didn't work at all. The modem was on the floor so I figured the cat knocked it off and broke it, the ISP's help desk said they could see the modem but not the computer so my NIC was probably bad. I tried spare cables just in case that was the problem, and was set to buy a NIC. I had to reinstall XP because after I installed the CD burning software I continually got a message on boot that the burner software cause instability and was disabled, and it wouldn't let me uninstall the software. Reinstalling XP worked. It took quite a bit of thought and fiddling to figure out what had gone wrong.

My Win 7 box hasn't crashed yet

I had Win 7 crash on an Acer notebook last year, but it wasn't MS's fault; that model had a hardware glitch where if it was set to hibernate on battery and do nothing on mains power, and closed the lid and then plugged it in before all the lights stopped flashing it would go into a loop, with the only way out being to unplug it and pull out the battery. It had the same issue with Linux, although the Winndows side got corrupted so it wouldn't boot. But again, it was a hardware problem, not software. The new one I have now (that one was stolen) doesn't have that problem.

I never had problesm wih crashes in 98 or XP, either, except again because of hardware; I had a flaky power supply that often caused XP to crash. I'd been cursing MS, because Linux seemed rock solid, until it froze in Linux and wouldn't restart. But you can't blame MS on a hardware problem.

I CAN blame them for replacing a perfectly good network driver with one that was completely nonfunctional. I don't expect your Win 7 box to crash, especially if it's OEM. Excep for the Acer hardware problem 7 hasn't crashed on me once.

Re:heh

[ILongForDarkness]

My win box is OEM but a Mac. I actually switched to Win because I found Lion so horrible for some reason. It would take literally 20 s or so for FF to open on my quad i7, previously less than 2s. That in itself was painful. But switching between apps for some reason sucked too. Say mail and FF were both open already. Click from firefox to mail you'd have to wait 10s for the mail window to pop up. I think it has been fixed in patches since but once I had win 7 I didn't go back. I develop in .Net at work and have some ideas I might want to try to commercialize on the side (no-non-compete/"we own all your IP" clause in my contract). Was running in a VM before but since I can be native might as well be. Still have lion on my system though in case windows pisses me off or I want to make an iOS app. But otherwise it's been happy going with Win. Funny though in the last 2 years I've gone through about 4 OSs, Solaris/linux admin->linux dev/admin -> Windows XP dev/admin/physicist at work, Mac Snow Leopard -> Lion ->Win 7 at home :-) Funny is that geeks often play for the sake of playing but I've actually had a business/functional case for each switch :-) Soon I hope to throw in some CP/2 or VAX/VMS experience :-)

Re:heh

[StBarney]

I couldn't agree with you more. I have periodically tried to get a linux desktop computer running since about 2005. I have tried SUSE, Fedora three times and this last time Ubantu. The result has always been the same. It installs easily and connects to the internet with a wired connection. The web browser and office applications work fine, I have never gotten a DVD to play. One time I got a CD to play with a Fedora distribution but it only played tracks after it had saved them to the disk. One time I got my HP printer installed on Fedora. The one time I used a dual boot with Fedora it crashed the machine (BIOS said disk was not bootable) when it rebooted from doing updates after linux had been loaded and running for about a month. There was no observable reason for the crash. The computer was on a UPS and nothing was apparently wrong with the hard disk or the computer hardware since it has continued to run Windows XP fine since it was reinstalled. Windows had a lot of issues up until XP but since then I really cannot complain. Between myself and my extended family I maintain 14 computers. One has the most recent Ubantu distribution the rest run windows. Two run Windows 7 - 64Bit, four run Vista -32Bit, and the rest XP 32 Bit. They all use Microsoft Security Essentials. They all run on networks, some wired and some wireless, with hardware from various manufacturers. I have never had a driver problem that couldn't be fixed by going to the manufacturers home page and downloading the necessary software. I do run Libre Office on most of the computers although several have Student Office 2003 and my grand daughter in collage has Student Office 2010 on her laptop. I plan to revisit the one linux computer and see if I can get it to play DVDs and CDs but frankly, asside from the fact that it's a hobby, I don't see any reason to waste much time on it.

Re:heh

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

I can explain why the mac users have less issues than the windows users. Most of the mac users you've talked to probably just got it and a nice new clean machine is always better than the POS windows box they'd been using for 4 years before that. Most of the windows users probably are using an older machine. I've found this funny little dichotomy to be true most of the time. Most people I know with new windows machines are also quite happy with their purchase.

I can also explain why linux doesnt fly on the desktop. Most people already got windows or osx with their computer, so they have to experience some sort of problem or demand that windows or osx wont satisfy. What the heck would that be again? The only time I've had a need to implement a capable operating system that every time you want to do something simple like change a setting you have to read stuff about it for 20 minutes and edit 5 files, while windows or osx has you check a box or type some text in a field somewhere.

Its excessively complex and remains that way for two reasons. The first one is that nobody is in charge and nothing is the standard within linux, there are a bazillion combinations of kernels, ui's, apps and capabilities. Its TOO democratic vs the apple model of pretty much one guy telling everyone what to do. The second one is that linux is the prize of your more technical people, who despise the people who dont know it as well and will act like teenagers who know something that you dont should you get around to asking.

No marketing, no direction, too much compromise and variation, too complicated for the average user to install and operate at a fundamental level, and no killer app. That equals "aint gonna happen". The only time I installed linux on a permanent basis was on a laptop that I changed some hardware on and the windows OEM load wouldnt accept the change without a new windows license which was going to cost me $130. All I used the machine for was Chrome, so linux was fine for that.

Its not like I dont have any skills in the area, I was a developer for 35 years and worked on unix back in the at&t 3b series days and was a developer on the first version of Ultrix. I have a long time in with the basic fundamentals of unix. I just dont have a need for it that isnt met by something already available, free and capable.

Re:heh

[morgauxo]

Well... I would like my workplace to adopt Linux so that I don't have to develop for Windows anymore.
I would like my family to adopt Linux (not Gentoo) so that they stop either wasting money on a new computer every time Windows slows down or asking me to fix it (depends on which family member). I started my in-laws out on Kubuntu right off the bat and that has worked out great but the rest are more resistant.
I would like to see the rest of the world switch out of fear that something new will come out that I want but has no Linux support. This last one has gotten a lot better in recent years though both because there is native software for doing just about anything now and because Wine works pretty good.

I suspect that my reasons are pretty typical.

Re:heh

[justforgetme]

I think a lot of people share your position and if i were in a similar position my opinion might also be similar to yours, can't really tell because I'm not. One thing that I think I share here is the fear that all those new glorious mobile hardware (ipads,iphones, some of the android devices) will dominate the IT world so badly that Linux will start shrinking not because the software won't be able to work on the hardware but because manufacturers will lock it out in favor of promoting their own agendas. And no, rooting devices isn't a solution. The biggest enemy to free software atm is locked down bootloaders.

Re:heh

[jbo5112]

> "Actually, the problem is that out of the initial install it does so much less of what your average user wants it to do."

What version of Windows comes with an office suite, professional level photo editor, movie editor, DVD player, pdf viewer, rapid access to drivers for most printers, a software update system that handles all of their software, and a media player that plays more than just the formats endorsed for corporate control? What version of Windows has ever shipped with a game like Doom?

> 1. Learn how to interact with a new OS
This took all of setting my wife down at the computer and showing her the start menu. All the software is categorized and labeled for what it does. From day one, there was less frustration and asking for help.

> 2. Learn how to interact with all the new programs they will have to use to "replace" the ones from their old Windows environment
The high profile Linux apps tend have better laid out user interfaces, lowering the learning curve. It can be much more brutal to suffer Windows upgrades (e.g. Office 2007).

> 3. Learn how to navigate an entirely new file structure.
Are you actually more confused by having a single icon labeled "7.4 GiB Removable Media" to open the 8GB memory card in your card reader than you are by having to pick from F:, G:, H:, I:, J: and K: without any indication of which one has the card? I don't know what you're using to access your drives, but it has been quite a while since I haven't been able to just naturally access all my disks and partitions under Linux. I would never call the Windows drive letters sane, and I gave up on trying to find how to navigate my way to a different drive on Vista.

> 4. Accept that a lot of old, favorite programs just don't exist and don't have substitutes on Linux.
I'm still waiting for one to be named, and remember, if it runs on Android, it probably runs fine on the Linux desktop (with maybe a little setup). I'll throw out something on Linux that Windows doesn't have a substitute for, a prebuilt Live CD/DVD. Something valuable to me (and sometimes by extension, average users) is a good scripting language, which Linux beats Windows severely at. People find it wonderful, when you can easily piece together something automatic for them to address some preference or inconvenience.

Also, all (or at least most of) the high-end Hollywood software runs on Linux because it was easier to port to than Windows when leaving the high-end Unix workstations. With 95% of the major studio's servers and workstations running Linux, there's probably quite a bit of stuff that doesn't run on Windows, even if not all of it is marketed and sold. I would imagine some of the high-end engineering software falls into the same category, but I haven't checked.

> 5. Find out what of their hardware is "supported but not really" under Linux.
How long ago was this? Ubuntu (which is the basis of Mythbuntu) used to be really bad about access to drivers, especially proprietary ones, but they've gotten a lot better. I've had much worse problems under Windows, having to go online to fetch everything (which can be the end of the road for network drivers). It has been a long time since I've had hardware in Linux that wasn't supported from install or added automatically with a few guided clicks. Personally, I've had more problems with unsupported hardware on Windows (e.g. won't let me upgrade from the current Windows to a faster running release or driver package too big for remaining disk space).

Ooh! I just thought of software Linux doesn't have...separate update programs from every company along with some constantly running service to help launch their software faster. I suppose you could also count Internet Explorer, as it will browse the sites on the Internet that are not web sites but only Microsoft Internet Explorer sites (if there are any left). I also ran into a VPN appliance that didn't have a Linux client, but they had 100's of pages of people complaining about th

Re:heh

[jbo5112]

They removed the CLI from my phone. I don't hear any Android users complaining that their Linux doesn't have it, but maybe you have some weird friends. I personally think the CLI is there in Linux because you can do a lot of things faster with a keyboard if you know what you're doing. Plus, it's easier for someone to follow directions that can be copied and pasted. It's also easier to type the few lines of directions than to shoot a video or capture screen shots of you fixing (and possibly even staging) a problem that doesn't exist, especially if you have to find a place to host the media and hope the forum doesn't reject the URL's. Directions for a GUI don't translate very well into plain text.

BTW, it's not all that unusual to include software updates/upgrades and even new versions in a support contract. I've run Linux for 15 years and yet to fall out of support or be forced to rebuy anything, but the Windows 98 license doesn't get me much of anything anymore. Manufacturers often have to pay to support drivers on Windows, aside from the differences in market share, why shouldn't I expect them to do so with Linux? NVIDIA can do it just fine, and there are plenty of drivers that have just required the manufacturer releasing enough specifications to the community. I'll have to take your word for it on fixing a problem with pulseaudio, since I've never once had a problem with it, but the time frame is in line with how long it takes to get my Windows install up to the level of driver and software support that comes out of the box on Linux (which installs while I'm still putting in information).

Computer software is a bit of an economic game changer from traditional communism, which makes it a rather unfair comparison. If I design a car, build a factory and create a production line to manufacture it, each copy of the car still costs a significant amount of money. I cannot keep giving the car away for free without needing others to do the same for me. If I write a program, I can post it on Google Code. It doesn't cost me a thing for 1,000,000 users to download it and do something productive with it. If I have a productive use (or just enough desire) for the software that covers my initial development cost, I may get more value in letting the community use and improve the product than the value I could get from selling and maintaining copies of it. If you have doubts that people will give away enough software products (programs or data) for free in order to build a viable community, perhaps I could introduce you to a website called YouTube(.com). It may not be big enough for you to have heard of it yet, but every second people upload 1 hour of new video and watch 1000 hours of video per second.

Re:heh

[njahnke]

Core pieces like GTK are outdated and a poor platform for building a desktop environment. If you try to contribute, you run into a buzz saw of red tape and gate keepers. If you want to write an app today and publish tomorrow, you need to be on Android or iOS.

tried qt?

Re:heh

[akromic]

I've actually found driver support in Windows to be extremely flaky. I've had old hardware refuse to work under Windows 7 as the only driver available is a 32bit WinXP one. I've heard stories of scanners and printers not working in Windows 7 - I don't know if they're true or not.

That' true! I work in IT support and have encountered that serveral times. A few printers, and a significant number of scanners had no drivers whatsoever for Win7; sometimes I managed to get away with Vista drivers though the manufacturer offered none for 7. On a bright side, I got a sleek little Canon scanner for free because its owner couldn't use it anymore because he completely switched to Win7 on his two machines. That scanner worked the moment I plugged it into my Ubuntu powered machine ;)

Why not

[dokc]

Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system?

Why not? It simply works, I can do whatever I want.

Re:Why not

[Black Parrot]

Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system?

Why not? It simply works, I can do whatever I want.

And you can do that without having to buy (or steal) 50 expensive software packages to get the complete functionality you expect of a desktop or laptop workstation.

I only keep a Windows box around so I can play commercial games. For me, it's just a glorified game console.

Re:Why not

[olehenning]

That's not really the question posed though. He's asking whether or not a massive increase in market share would be possible without the marketing efforts of Microsoft and Apple. He even stated "It's not that I don't find Linux worthy ...." And it's a fair point. I don't see GNU/Linux "making it" in the desktop marketplace for a while. Most people aren't willing to go out of their way to try something different if they get what they want quickly and easily just by using their wallets.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

I only keep a Windows box around so I can play commercial games. For me, it's just a glorified game console.

I don't play commercial games anymore. The only reason why I have one virtual machine with Windows is to use Tax software and if I need something to scan (stupid cheap scanners)

Re:Why not

[Vanderhoth]

I think that's probably one of the biggest problems. A lot of people a use to doing what they're told, not what they want. When confronted with too much choice a lot of people just curl up into little balls and cry. Figuratively speaking of course.

Re:Why not

[Anonymous Coward]

"It simply works" -> no, it does not. It works great, but it is not "grandma simple".

Bollocks.

The iPad is "grandma simple" in the same way as the VCR is "grandma simple". I.e. as long as granny only does what she's allowed and the system doesn't have any problems or errors.

"Apple has chosen 1 a long time ago"

NO. Apple has chosen "I will TELL you what you will do, therefore it will be easy to do".

Re:Why not

[dokc]

no, it does not. It works great, but it is not "grandma simple".

For me is important to be "me simple".

Re:Why not

[Gaygirlie]

Most people do not have such needs and as such that is not a problem for them. And generally "ready for desktop" is quantified by what most people need.

Re:Why not

[dskoll]

My 80-yr-old mother uses Linux. It was not "grandma simple" to install and set up (I did that for her), but she certainly has no trouble using it.

Re:Why not

[Mojo66]

Why not? It simply works, I can do whatever I want.

That's not my experience. First off, I'm a UNIX sysadmin. I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 on a low-power Atom box at home. Recently I wanted to quickly burn some data on a DVD. But all programs I tried either produced a coaster or crashed. The problem was that the /tmp partition couldn't hold the intermediate image file that every program created. So we have like 20 GUI frontends to the cdwrite framework, but every single one produces an intermediate image, during my quick search I couldn't find a single one that burns data on the fly. I had to copy the data over the network to my iMac.

And that is the proble with Linux. While Apple and Microsoft ship their OSes with a set of working apps that cover most of the average user's needs, Linux distros come with a gazillion number of "My first app" quality software that does one particular thing better than all the other apps but fails in 90% of the rest.

What's needed is a concerted effort to develop a set of feature-complete apps that cover the basic functionality, and not waste resources into yet another mp3 player. It's nice to be able to choose between Gnome and KDE etc. but the average user prefers one set of feature-complete apps over choosing between a dozen varieties of the same functionality that all lack features.

Re:Why not

[Darfeld]

That's simply not true.

Ubuntu, to name the most obvious distribution, make linux grandma simple. As much as a windows at least.

As for iPad/Android/whatever, if your grandma isn't able to work things out with Windows/Linux/OSX, she probably won't be able to figure that out too.

If people are afraid of technology, they will stay away from complex devices, no matter how "easy to use" they are. If they aren't they can handle Windows or Linux, as long as they don't mess with edgy stuff. Windows has an advantage here, because most people, even some "technology afraid people" have been forced to do stuff with it, have learned the basics and are at least familiar with it. Apple has for him that it's smart things for smart people. Well that's what "they" say anyway. Linux has a rep of being complex and difficult to understand. It's true, as much as Windows or OSX, and it's irrelevant for most user. It's even simpler : to install a software, you launch the app Store and search for it then click install button. To launch a software, you click it's icon in the menu, pretty much like windows anyway. most users don't need to know more. (And grandma certainly doesn't)

Re:Why not

[WrongSizeGlass]

Simple for Slashdoters != Simple for everyone

Most Slashdoters belong to a extremely small minority of the market for computers, tablets and smartphones.

I'm not saying Linux is too hard for most people to use, but the perception that Linux is "for geeks" is a serious obstacle. Letting the masses know that "Linux is preferred by geeks rather than Linux is only for geeks" would be a great first step.

Re:Why not

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't sound like you've done very many bare metal, clean installs of both OS's in various situations when you make a comment like that. I've found different Linux distros much easier to get a complete, working OS with a full desktop environment than with Windows. Less hassle with device drivers, and running Microsoft Update on a clean install can take hours (even using a time saving utility like AutoPatcher). For some advance video cards and a lot of external devices like all-in-one printers Windows has a edge because manufacturers tend to ignore the Linux platform but there's no question in my mind that just doing a basic clean install is easier with Linux than with Windows. Even if you have a separate working PC already at your disposal, just try ignoring it as a test and do a couple of Windows clean installs on a couple of different boxes -- on at least one of the two you'll run into a problem with you try to get online to find missing device drivers when one of them is the NIC.

Re:Why not

[tverbeek]

"Why not?" is lousy marketing.

Look, Linux is a kernel. Users don't care about kernels.

What users care about is the userland apps and user interface. Windows offers them familiar apps and a familiar UI. OS X offers them some better apps and a better UI. iOS offers them a metric tonne of cheap apps and a slick UI. Android offers them the same sort of thing without less lock-down.... wait, you say that Android is Linux? Exactly. It's Linux with a userland and UI that offer something that matters to the user, something they don't get elsewhere.

Re:Why not

[kev0153]

My 15 year old daughter crashed the hard drive in here laptop by throwing it around. She also lost all the installation discs that came with it. I put ubuntu on it and she never complained once. But yeah it took me awhile to get it setup right, the wireless network card gave me a bit of trouble until I figured out what drivers I needed.

Re:Why not

[Pieroxy]

The iPad and iPhone UI paradigm is DEAD SIMPLE for non tech people because THERE IS ONLY ONE BUTTON.

So, wherever they are and however bad they've screwed up, there is this one button getting them back to the home screen. It's not simple, it's obvious.

This is a major difference with a VCR, and a PC for that matter. The problem with these devices is that they are stateful. Invariably the n00b will find himself in a situation where he doesn't know how to get out. I once did spot my mother in law on a word document, with a magnifying glass of 800% and word windowed in a small window on the top left of her screen. She was literally editing the document with a viewport showing 3 characters. Of course, she found it inconvenient. So I explained to her the "full screen" icon on the top right and the zoom setting in word. The next day, she had forgotten all of it.

Why did she forget? It's not complex dammit !!!!

It's just that these paradigms are completely both alien and useless for random grandmas. So they don't remember them.

Re:Why not

[Ginger Unicorn]

I'm not sure which 50 software packages you're thinking of, but you can also run FOSS software on windows too. I have to use windows due to some proprietary crap (not crap because it's proprietary, just crap) that I need for work, but everything else installed is what you'd find on Ubuntu, LibreOffice, Firefox, Gpodder, GIMP, Tomboy, VLC, MySQL, Python, VNC, then free beer proprietary stuff like spotify and dropbox that also runs under Linux, so it's a two-way street.

Sure i'd prefer to be using Linux and do at home, but ultimately windows can run those apps as well as makes no odds.

Re:Why not

[DerPflanz]

Simple for Slashdoters != Simple for everyone

Linux is simple. You just have to set it up (just like with Windows actually...). On my last laptop (about 3-4 years old now) I had Vista and Ubuntu installed. My wife could choose whichever she wanted. After a while, she was only using Ubuntu. She is an intelligent woman, understands computers from a user's viewpoint, but is by no means a computer nerd. And I certainly didn't push her to go either way. After some time, she actually managed to install a Wine application, by just clicking around. Linux works.

In my company, after using SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (which is a load of crap; mainly because of missing a gazillion packages), we switched back to Ubuntu and Windows 7. The Ubuntu users are happy, just as are the Windows users.

Re:Why not

[mvdwege]

You're trolling. The default on Ubuntu is brasero, which gives you the option to burn on the fly right in the dialog.

Next time, pick a less transparent lie.

Mart

Re:Why not

[blue_teeth]

How strange?  I have the reverse experience.  After destroying 5 CDs trying to burn some files in Windows Vista, I dual booted into Ubuntu and burned a perfect one using Brassero, in first attempt!!

Re:Why not

[ProppaT]

To be fair, most of those 50 or so software packages you speak of are also available on the Windows platform for free. The difference is that if you decide you need a more robust solution, you can buy a more robust solution. On Linux, you're basically stuck with that free software package.

Re:Why not

[SomeKDEUser]

Fundamentally, a computer is a Turing-complete machine. Meaning it can execute any programme you can possibly conceive of. And infinitely many more you cannot even imagine.

This is why computers are so different than any other machine ever invented. And the desktop is just a small and useful trick to help you tap the power of your computer. If you try to make your computer into an appliance, you fundamentally did not need a computer in the first place anyway.

Also, you will either fail or make your device pretty useless. It is vaguely annoying to see how many countless hours of human work and ingenuity and how many dollars are spent trying to hide to power of their machines to the users.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

"Why not?" is lousy marketing.

Look, Linux is a kernel. Users don't care about kernels.What users care about is the userland apps and user interface.

I supposed that we are talking about GNU/Linux (userland and kernel). And yes, GNU/Linux with it's kernel and it's applications works great for me. What is so strange in that?!

Windows offers them familiar apps and a familiar UI.

I use the same applications at work on my working Windows PC and Linux PC, as I use it at home. If you didn't notice, the number of exceptionally good open source applications is constantly raising. It doesn't mater if you are using Windows or Linux or MAC.

OS X offers them some better apps and a better UI.

You will need to quote some sources here...

iOS offers them a metric tonne of cheap apps and a slick UI. Android offers them the same sort of thing without less lock-down.... wait, you say that Android is Linux? Exactly. It's Linux with a userland and UI that offer something that matters to the user, something they don't get elsewhere.

We are talking about desktop here.

I'm just curious, but did you ever tried a decent Linux distro? Obviously not.

Re:Why not

[jimshatt]

My kids started using Linux when they were 4 and 2 years old. Never had any trouble with it. They love GCompris, and they know how to find the sites with flash games for kids (I keep an eye on them when they start youtubing, but I let them explore). I just needed to setup passwordless accounts for them so they could just click their icon. They never even complained about the switch from Ubuntu with Unity to Debian with Gnome-shell. It wasn't even hard to set up, but requires some knowledge of course. As does windows. There's legions of people that make their money by 'fixing' your windows every month or so. And windows actually requires fixing (removing malware, etc., etc.).

Grandma doesn't know how to maintain any OS, Linux, OSX or Windows all the same.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

You're trolling. The default on Ubuntu is brasero, which gives you the option to burn on the fly right in the dialog.

Next time, pick a less transparent lie.

Mart

To support the claim:
Brasero features

Quoting:

Features
...
Data CD/DVD:
supports edition of discs contents (remove/move/rename files inside directories)
can burn data CD/DVD on the fly
...

Re:Why not

[stoolpigeon]

No. There is plenty of commercial software that is available on Linux.

There are some commercial packages only available on Win or Mac but then you could level the same accusation at whichever of the two does not support said software.

And there are a few things that run on Win and Mac but not Linux though I think the number is small. A lot of people with Macs run parallels or dual boot - but if we are going to throw that into the mix then a lot more becomes available on Linux too.

Re:Why not

[LordLucless]

If you can't install a (relatively modern) Linux distro, you can't install Windows either.

Re:Why not

[JimmyVolatile]

This has sometimes been my experience too. I've been with Linux Mint the last 4 years at home, doing pretty much the same set of typical home PC tasks: Reading the paper, youtube, fb, gmail, banking, watching movies, managing photos, home videos the kid's homework etc. After doing it for 2 years, I felt I'd been through whatever Linux Mint could throw at me and I actually started recommending it to a few friends, touting it as a no-cost alternative that would be worth trying. Even the local kindergarten needed 2-3 better (and cheap) PC-system for the next 2-3 years for their occasional office computing needs. They were really impressed. Then it dawned on me. The people I know who are now on LM: 1. Are more willing (and expecting) to be able to pay for better applications can now maybe get 10% of their wishes granted that way. 2. Are willing to and expecting to call someone and give them $50 to fix stuff. (They can only call me as there are no other Linux guys) The point is that the money is there for you, it's just very hard (practically) for people to spend it. Take donations for instance: This is money that you give to the developer *after* you have downloaded and used some application. Only a small fraction of people even remembers to do this. In many cases you can only donate to some foundation and then only hope that this goes towards developing that one feature you need.

Re:Why not

[stoolpigeon]

Grandma is no sucker - she wont be buying her tunes.

But seriously - iTunes sucks unless you have an iDevice that requires it. I can see it for people with a bunch of Apple products - but on Win or Lin it doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Why not

[ProppaT]

But, let's be real. If Open Office doesn't cut it for you, you're going to want MS Office. If Gimp isn't cutting it, you're going to want Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator. I recognize that there are commercial software packages for Linux, some of them very good, but few of them for mainstream users.

And, of course, you can dual boot or even use Wine to run some Windows programs on Linux, but this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about Linux for the mainstream. And, to my original point, most of these free ware Linux packages are open source and are available on Windows. I know because I use a lot of them on Windows on a daily basis.

Re:Why not

[Vanderhoth]

*sigh* I agree. It's a shame, but I'm pretty sure if most people knew how much more useful their computers could be to them their heads might explode. I'm constantly telling my wife is she picked up a little programming, even if she just learned some regex, she could do sooooooo much more then she does. Unfortunately, she takes the majorities outlook and just wants to be able to click an icon and leave the "complex" operations to people such as us developers. I guess it's not so bad, I'd be out of work if everyone knew how to write their own applications.

Re:Why not

[miknix]

I don't play commercial games anymore. The only reason why I have one virtual machine with Windows is to use Tax software

Really? At least around here the tax program is java and runs quite nicely in Linux.
Since you are paying taxes, it makes sense you ask your government that ..err.. the tax program is cross-platform, no?

Re:Why not

[SomeKDEUser]

Actually, you wouldn't: so many more people would be aware of what is possible -- but can't do because it is either too long or too hard -- and hire developers for their specific needs.

As it stands, developer need to spend a lot of time guessing what people would like, because they don't know what is possible, and never gave it a though.

Re:Why not

[hawkinspeter]

Hmmm - I'm not sure if you're trolling or not.

Both brasero and k3b support burning directly to disk and I haven't seen any kind of support for ISO burning in WinXP, although I heard they included it subsequent OSes. I don't believe that Windows 7 ships with a dvd copying/burning tool - what tool are you referring to?

I don't know how you can say that Microsoft ship their OS with apps that cover most of their users' needs. Where's the PDF reader? What spreadsheet program? Video codecs?

Re:Why not

[dokc]

Really? At least around here the tax program is java and runs quite nicely in Linux.

You must say where "around here" is :-)

Since you are paying taxes, it makes sense you ask your government that ..err.. the tax program is cross-platform, no?

I know you are kidding, but actually one part of the government tax program can really run under Linux, but not tho whole package, You can use the online version from Windows, Linux or MAC.
The only problem is that I really don't understand what should I fill-in. That is a reason why I'm buying the additional tax software where I can use a simple wizard to fill all the forms. Then, the tax software uses government software to upload the tax report.

Re:Why not

[advocate_one]

I can concur that brasero does indeed burn DVDs on the fly... and very well indeed I might say so... :)

Re:Why not

[yanyan]

Similar experience. The year was 2000, i just got my first job and bought my first ever CD writer (a ~$200 Yamaha unit). After Adaptec Easy CD Creator wasted the 2 premium CD-Rs i got free with the drive, i booted up into Slackware and used cdrecord. Worked flawlessly. And it still does in 2012.

Re:Why not

[blue_goddess]

I only keep a Windows box around so I can play commercial games. For me, it's just a glorified game console.

Use the best: Linux for servers, Mac for graphics, Windows for Solitaire. (anon)

Re:Why not

[Hatta]

'growisofs -Z /dev/dvd -R -J /path' would have done the trick for you. The trick to using Linux effectively is to ignore all the GUI crap and focus on its strengths. Once you learn to use the command line, Linux is a better desktop than anything else around.

Re:Why not

[dr2chase]

It does NOT just work. I wanted to perform the equivalent of cloning my system partition to a newer, larger drive, then I wanted to turn that into my startup disk. On a Mac, that's a quick run of SuperDuper!, followed by setting the startup disk in System Preferences. There MAY be a similarly troublefree way to do this in Linux, but I could not find it. I did, eventually, succeed. It wasn't fun. (Answer: LVM, and then I think I used grub from the command line, because the magic-friendly UI buttons didn't seem to work.)

Other gripe, adding a new disk (one of those big ones that lies about its block size), the tools were an abomination. Command-line tools were borked by the block size (ask for N gig, get N/8 gig, awesome), GUI tools would by default misalign the partitions, then tell me what a bad stupid person I was to not align the partitions, why don't you repeat the operation and see if you get a different result? And I know, after extensive Googling, that it doesn't matter that much for ext4 anyway. It's UI clusterfuck of misinformation, poorly chosen defaults, and irrelevant insults to the luser.

There's all sorts of fun stuff you can do in Linux, that does not matter to most people. My experience with MacPorts on the Mac suggests that it is possible to have a generally-useful computer that is also 90% nerd-friendly, so I think that the Linux problems are more developer-side cultural rather than technical; stuff that matters to nerds (or to companies sponsoring nerds to work on Linux) does not matter to "most people". The "wrong stuff" is what gets optimized, the stuff that matters to people who buy Macs, does not.

So here's my advice:
1) The defaults should be set right for "normal" people, in the interface that "normal" people use.
Treat that interface like it is the most important one, not an afterthought.
Consider operations at a high level, not a low level -- add a disk, remove a disk, backup a disk, (maybe) convert to RAID. NOT, "align a partition", "copy blocks", "install a bootloader" (and I have bootloader choices, and one of them is apparently VERY WRONG, WTF did you hand me that kryptonite for?)

2) The need to RTFM before doing anything at all is a bug. Figure out what people want to do with your tool, and give them instructions to do that, with progressive disclosure as they get more confident, adventurous, interested.

3) If you're going to have desktop design battles, don't inflict them on "normal" people. I cannot even keep track of GNOME-this versus KDE-that, let alone what the alleged merits are. (Did KDE lose?)

4) Learn to write instructions. "Documentation" is the wrong word, I think it gives people the idea that if you simply mention every detail, it is "documented". Don't use vague terms like "appropriate". Give examples. Ask yourself, whenever writing down unambiguous instructions (a) why is it so hard to write unambiguous instructions -- do we have gratuitous variation between different flavors of Linux? how can that be eliminated and (b) why isn't this a bash/python/whatever script, activated by a button press? If you can't explain it carefully enough for a computer to follow the instructions, are you sure you really understand how to explain it? If the result has ten knobs to be set before the button press, are the knobs really necessary? Are the ones that are necessary, explained? Is there an "undo" button?

Re:Why not

[Swampash]

I never have any problems with these sorts of things on my main UNIX workstation, but then again it's an iMac.

Re:Why not

[omglolbah]

People are lazy. If it is too much of a hassle to learn they'll move back to what is familiar.

I've used a linux desktop for a while but I can honestly say I prefer my win7 machine.
It just feels more polished and has less quirks that I have to 'live with'.

I use an ubuntu install for my file/media server however. For that it works like a charm.
Pain in the ass to set up, but once set up it is excellent.

Re:Why not

[stoolpigeon]

I wont argue about FOSS stuff available on Windows. That's one thing I do like about it. I just don't like the intimation that one can't use commercial software on Linux. And we talk about 'most people' but then we can also stop talking about Photoshop/Illustrator.

As far as office - I don't use it any more. All my work docs are in Google. Everything. If somebody emails me a .doc or .xls file any more I just have to wonder what is wrong with them. Anymore if a file needs to be sent it's a pdf. Anything being worked on by the team is in Google for sure because it's so much easier to collaborate. The team calendar is there, all of it.

Re:Why not

[smash]

So, say I want to remix freely released audio tracks put out by NIN in garageband or ableton live format, how would I go about that?

Re:Why not

[omglolbah]

I suspect he burned the disc ON the mac :p

Re:Why not

[Svartalf]

That's an artificial limitation, just so you know. It's not "hard" to get something that can support a wide range of distributions and versions thereof. I managed it with two indie titles and I'm working at even better.

Re:Why not

[CastrTroy]

But a computer in the end, even an appliance computer still has to be turing complete. To be able to get a computer to do the things the users require (a calculator for instance, or run a spreadsheet) it has to be turing complete. A computer cannot be a appliance in quite the same way that a toaster, or a fridge, or a TV (the older ones without a computer inside) is an appliance. The trick (which only Apple has recently realized) is to make the computer seem like an appliance, and give no options which would let it operate out of their intended usage.

Re:Why not

[jawtheshark]

Take a look at VueScan. Best $79.95 I ever spent on software and the only single proprietary software I use on Linux. I'm just a happy customer, I have nothing to do with the creator and/or company.

Re:Why not

[Mojo66]

You're trolling. The default on Ubuntu is brasero, which gives you the option to burn on the fly right in the dialog.

Next time, pick a less transparent lie.

Mart

Well and because it gives you the option automatically means it works 100% and has no bugs?

Quoting from Ubuntu Bug #774203:

If I try creating a CD by adding files in Brasero then buring directly to disk (using defaults all the way through) brasero creates coasters every time.

I destroyed several cd's before finding the workaround...for new ubuntu users it is deterrent that you cannot burn cd's...

This bug has been reported months ago and nothing happened since.

Re:Why not

[SomeKDEUser]

Yes, and there is evil in making something infinitely more limited than it ought to be, don't you think?

And don't give me "the muggles would not have it otherwise" crap. People have somehow been trained in learned ignorance.

Re:Why not

[hobarrera]

I actually use wine. You'd be surprised how many games work fine nowadays.

Re:Why not

[Mojo66]

I'm talking about surfing the web, reading/writing e-mail, listening to music. Agree on the lack of a PDF reader on Windows but I'd consider this already on the border to what most people need. Video codecs, naah. Spreadsheet program is totally off the line.

Re:Why not

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, it's a real double edged sword that one. Make it so that only a limited number of verified programs can be run on your computer, like Apple or any of the game consoles, and computer geeks will be whining that it's a walled garden, and "I should be able to run anything I want to". But the less savvy users when they have a system like Windows PC, or even MacOS, will undoubtedly mess it up by installing some kind of virus, or spyware, or what have you, in the promise of free music, smiley faces, or better performance out of the computer.

Re:Why not

[SomeKDEUser]

Freedom has always been a doubled edged sword... I actually think humans can and do learn, if you let them. After the first virus outbreak, they become more cautious. Their bullshit detectors get honed. In the end, it's better for everyone.

Arguably, even for society: in a highly technological civilisation, it is not desirable to let people stay ignorant.

Re:Why not

[Ruie]

Sane has pretty good scanner support... at least the last time I used it. Try it out.

Re:Why not

[DaveV1.0]

Why not?

You are really going to ask that question? Here let me give you some answers:

Can I run iTunes?
Can I run Photoshop?
Can I run Quicken?
Why does everyone complain about the files I make in OpenOffice?
Can't I just run Microsoft Office?
How do I watch a bluray?
How do I play Portal on linux?
How do I play Skyrim on linux?
How do I play World of Warcraft on linux?
Why do I need WINE?
Why do my games run slower under linux? Everything crawls!
Why do I have to change my video card when everything worked fine on Windows?
I went to a website that uses Flash and it says I need to upgrade to a new version, but I can't find it for Linux
I can't get my printer to work!
Why won't linux recognize my new camera?
My webcam doesn't work!
How do I get my wifi to work?? I have tried all those FAQs you pointed me to!
I can't get my new printer to work!
I want to burn a DVD. Can I run Nero?
How do I burn a DVD?
My company require VPN software. How do I set it up on my computer?
I can't this program to work, it says it can't find the server. How do I change the firewall? I don't know what port it uses.
Why do I have to use the command line?
Why is it taking so long to set up my computer?

I have used Windows since 3.0, Linux since Slackware 3.0, and various flavors of Unix. These are but a few of the questions I have been asked when it came to Linux. Linux will generally work for many things. Often it does not "simply work", it does not have comparable applications available, and requires a lot of tinkering to get it to work right with everything the user wants. Most users do not have the time or skill to get everything working properly and are unwilling to settle or to wait for the community to maybe get whatever it is working.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

Wow... That's a post...

It does NOT just work. I wanted to perform the equivalent of cloning my system partition to a newer, larger drive, then I wanted to turn that into my startup disk. On a Mac, that's a quick run of SuperDuper!, followed by setting the startup disk in System Preferences. There MAY be a similarly troublefree way to do this in Linux, but I could not find it. I did, eventually, succeed. It wasn't fun. (Answer: LVM, and then I think I used grub from the command line, because the magic-friendly UI buttons didn't seem to work.)

Clonezilla and Partimage are the first they pop on my mind. They have GUI, they can do anything what a normal person can imagine to do (and command line with dd for the rest)

Other gripe, adding a new disk (one of those big ones that lies about its block size), the tools were an abomination. Command-line tools were borked by the block size (ask for N gig, get N/8 gig, awesome), GUI tools would by default misalign the partitions, then tell me what a bad stupid person I was to not align the partitions, why don't you repeat the operation and see if you get a different result? And I know, after extensive Googling, that it doesn't matter that much for ext4 anyway. It's UI clusterfuck of misinformation, poorly chosen defaults, and irrelevant insults to the luser.

So you say that adding non-standard new disks to the Linux PCs (including opening the case, connecting cables and everything else) is a operation which an average user can do on Windows and/or Mac.

There's all sorts of fun stuff you can do in Linux, that does not matter to most people.

The same applies to all computer systems. Do you really think that Mac and Windows don't have fun stuff under the hood?

My experience with MacPorts on the Mac suggests that it is possible to have a generally-useful computer that is also 90% nerd-friendly

My windows PC is nerd-friendly, why Mac shouldn't be. It's only a question how you use your system.

so I think that the Linux problems are more developer-side cultural rather than technical; stuff that matters to nerds (or to companies sponsoring nerds to work on Linux) does not matter to "most people".

To most people only what matter is a web browser.

The "wrong stuff" is what gets optimized, the stuff that matters to people who buy Macs, does not.

That is a reason why I take Linux and not Mac. For me is the right stuff optimized.

So here's my advice:
1) The defaults should be set right for "normal" people, in the interface that "normal" people use.

Defaults are tried to be set to the be most logical and effective.

Treat that interface like it is the most important one, not an afterthought.

Why? Do you start programming the interface or the functionality? Interface is (as the name says) the intermediary between a human and a program functionality.

Consider operations at a high level, not a low level -- add a disk, remove a disk, backup a disk, (maybe) convert to RAID. NOT, "align a partition", "copy blocks", "install a bootloader" (and I have bootloader choices, and one of them is apparently VERY WRONG, WTF did you hand me that kryptonite for?)

The reasons are historical. Linux is a UNIX child, and UNIX used that names. If the "normal user" first came in touch with those terms, they would be more used. Or do you think that RAID. DISK, BACKUP are natural expressions?

2) The need to RTFM before doing anything at all is a bug. Figure out what people want to do with your tool, and give them instructions to do that, with progressive disclosure as they get more confident, adventurous, interested.

You will need to give us some examples here... I'm not sure on which tools are you hitting here. Most too

Re:Why not

[dokc]

Take a look at VueScan. Best $79.95 I ever spent on software and the only single proprietary software I use on Linux. I'm just a happy customer, I have nothing to do with the creator and/or company.

Thanks, but I think the right solution for me would be to invest those $80 in some better scanner :-)

Re:Why not

[dokc]

Sane has pretty good scanner support... at least the last time I used it. Try it out.

That was a first thing what I did. I was insane to buy a scanner before checking on Net if it's supported by sane. But on other hand it was just 30 euro. I should just buy a new one.

Re:Why not

[kenh]

Vista or Ubuntu? Hell, I'd choose TRS-DOS over Vista!

Comparing Ubuntu with Vista is like comparing an Operating System with a shiny box...

Re:Why not

[kenh]

Actually, it was your sixth attempt, You happened to switch platforms between your fifth and sixt attempt.

Windows Vista didn't natively support CD/DVD burning as I recall, Windows 7 does, Are you blaming Windows Vista for the failings of an application you installed and then had problems with?

Re:Why not

[dave420]

That's great for you. It's not the same experience as other people, who have issues with stability under Linux that they don't have with Windows, and software that simply doesn't exist under Linux. It cuts both ways.

Re:Why not

[jawtheshark]

Fair enough... I have some very expensive gear (actually my fathers) that hasn't got drivers any more on any platform. Not Windows, not Mac OS X and not Linux. Vuescan does, on all platforms (and the license is valid on all platforms). Since I got the license, and (for example) my wifes Canon LiDE20 doesn't work with OS X, I tried it with that and... tadaaa... working scanner.

Of course, I could have bought a new scanner, but why? The gear I had was in working order, the problem was software.

Re:Why not

[lahvak]

Exactly, it works, straight out of the box, and it does exactly what I need it to do.

The reasons I run linux instead of windows on my laptop are pretty much the same today as they were 10 years ago, although the emphasis shifted a bit.

1) Availability of software. I use number of programs that 10 years ago were simply not available for windows. Almost all of them were ported since, but there is still a huge differenece. On linux, I can install almost all of them from central repositories, while on windows, I have to go to 20 different websites, download 20 different installers, run all of them, then spend few days configuring things before I can get any work done. My last work laptop was windows (when I got it, I did not think about asking if I can put linux on it, actually I did not think the IT guys would agree to it, so I used windows. With my new laptop, I asked, and to my surprise they said sure, why not) and I could get my work done, but it took me several days just to get things set up, and even after that it was constant pain.

2) Software integration. On linux, all the software I use is designed to work together, and in a consistent way, or it can easily be made to cooperate. On windows, each program behaves in its own way (mostly because they were all ported to windows by different people, and because the people doing the porting could not count on the other software being installed, or being installed in a known location). On linux, when I save some data, I know where the file is. I know where to look for config files for any application I use. On windows, I have to constatly hunt for things. I can install a decent shell on windows, but most application will not be able to work with it, and will insist on starting windows console every time they need a shell access. Some application will use forward slashes as path separators, some backslashes, some double backslashes, with no obvious rhyme or reason. On linux, things just work, on windows, after spending hours configuring things, I get a semi functional working environment.

3) The user interface. Again, linux just works. On windows, I can install some additional software to get multiple virtual desktops and a decent command line, but it doesn't always work, it does not work with all aplications, and I need to go to some website to find the software, download it and install it, and keep track of updates. On linux, all that stuff works out of the box. Cutting and pasting on windows just simply drives me nuts, it does not seem to have any logic behind it, and if there is some, it is unnecesarily complicated. On linux, I do not get dialog boxes that open other dialog boxes that will somewhat prevent the original dialog box from being moved to a different part of the screen.

I could go on, but this whole thing is getting long, and anyway, it is rather pointless. Depending on the nature of our work, and on our work habits, we use different operating systems which is perfectly fine as long as data are kept in well defined open formats and networking and data exchange protocols are open. The problems start when someone uses propriatary file formats and when someone pushes their platform onto people who simply have no use for it.

Re:Why not

[tverbeek]

This isn't about you.

It's hard for some geeks to grasp that concept and to think about something from someone else's perspective, but it's true.

You might be surprised to learn that some other people use Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, Quicken, TurboTax, etc. play certain popular games, etc. There are perfectly usable substitutes for many of these on Linux, but they are not the same, familiar apps. Similar != The Same. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but other people are sometimes different from you. Understand?

Re:Why not

[dr2chase]

I can't tell if you're serious or joking.

1) Clonezilla didn't appear to be what I wanted.
That's the thing where I burn a special CD, boot from that, and am given a bunch of lethal-to-data choices, and doesn't grok LVM? Also, dog-damn-slow? (Hmmm, appears to do LVM now.) Yes, I downloaded it, burned the CD, tried it, and for some reason decided that it was not working (it may have not worked, that may be why I decided that). No doubt, pilot error, but if Linux is only a friendly option for pilots more skilled than me, then it's doomed on the desktop (hint: I'm a pretty good pilot, though as a skilled pilot, not happy to have my valuable time wasted).

2) I can add a disk by plugging it in to the back. The box has SATA ports, right there. Lots of people add disks and memory to Macs, I have been doing it for years, and it is far easier than the soft side (partition, copy, make boot) of adding a disk to Linux. Physically adding a drive is just not that hard (unscrew, add plugs where they fit, rescrew, done).

3) If you're interested in selling on the desktop, all those *choices* are bad. Every choice, is a branch point in documentation and testing. Choices destroy network effects (ask my friends for help, what if they do it two different ways?)

4) Users can be expected to understand "disk", "backup", and (maybe) RAID. All that other stuff, all the steps used to accomplish the users' high level desires, that is either sausage manufacturer or digestion, and those details are scary and confusing, not helpful.

If your reply is intended seriously, it is the poster child for "why linux can't sell on the desktop". Nerds doing stuff that makes nerds happy, will only sell on the nerd desktop. Here's something that you should accept as an axiom if you expect Linux to sell on the desktop -- Clonezilla is a miserable failure. If all you can do is make excuses for why I'm wrong and it isn't an unusably borked, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Why not

[IANAAC]

I've used a linux desktop for a while but I can honestly say I prefer my win7 machine. It just feels more polished and has less quirks that I have to 'live with'.

Honestly, I don't think there's any less polish in Windows, Mac or Linux. They are all quite polished these days. The difference with Linux is you have to do the polishing yourself. But once it's polished, it't every bit as polished as any other OS.

All the previous attempts by PC/laptop manufacturers to ship Linux have been really half-assed. They've consistently picked the worst distributions to install, and I don't for the life of me understand why. It can't be because of set up... I've set up plenty of machines myself, and with hardware that doesn't come out of the box with any distribution, but is easily obtainable from the component maker (Broadcom, NVidia are two examples).

Half-assed laziness is the only explanation I can come up with.

Re:Why not

[fmoliveira]

you just have to type zombo.com in your browser

Re:Why not

[swillden]

My 80-yr-old mother uses Linux. It was not "grandma simple" to install and set up (I did that for her), but she certainly has no trouble using it.

My father-in-law runs Linux because it's much easier for me to manage. Meaning, I set it up and it Just Works. Especially since I installed KDE and locked down the configuration so he can't accidentally change anything. Trying to manage a Windows system for him was just nightmarish.

Actually, I think for him the ideal OS might be ChromeOS (or Mozilla's spin on the same concept) -- nothing but a browser. Everything he uses his computer for is done through a browser, so anything else is just confusing cruft that can potentially get screwed up. I think this is increasingly true of an ever-larger set of the computer-using population.

Re:Why not

[DogDude]

'growisofs -Z /dev/dvd -R -J /path' would have done the trick for you.

... and people say Linux isn't ready for mainstream users...

Re:Why not

[CastrTroy]

Some may become more cautious. The majority don't most people just live with the viruses and all the problems that come with them. They eventually go out and buy a new computer, and all is well again for about 2 weeks before that new machine gets infected. That or they end up buying an iPad, and not having to worry about that. I have no problem with the existence of the iPad and other similar devices, but there's no way that I would have one as my only computer.

Re:Why not

[e70838]

wine is for the mainstream. I have wrote many programs on windows that work perfectly well on Linux. Photoshop works fine. I have not tinkered at all, just click on the executable.

Re:Why not

[e70838]

setup ssh and www.nomachine.com. Fix issues remotely.
Take the money (at least for the rare cases where you have to be physically present).

Re:Why not

[rev0lt]

Welcome to both opensource (if you want it fixed, download de source and do it yourself) and slashdot!(the opensource program I use for a given function is perfect and it has no bugs or side effects)

Re:Why not

[Electricity Likes Me]

This is the wrong answer - www.x2go.org

It is literally everything NX should have been (and uses SSH keys and authentication correctly).

Re:Why not

[Shompol]

85-year-old grandfather watches TV on an Ubuntu HTPC (Zotac) and uses Ubuntu laptop . Stability and no annoying pop-ups from taskbar make him happy. It also wonderfully translated itself in Russian, would probably need a special purchase of Windows to achieve that.

The drawback: he relies on me for support. The "neighborhood nerd for hire" does not dig his system. I tried to convert several non-techie acquaintances to Linux and they ended up depending for on me for support, and obviously I visit them seldom, if at all -- many unhappy "customers" who switched back, and I just abandoned the practice of recommending it to non-techies.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

you just have to type zombo.com in your browser

Ok, just did. And?

Re:Why not

[tepples]

I thought a lot of PCs that came with bundled Windows also came with bundled Office Home and Student.

Re:Why not

[ProppaT]

We're talking about Gimp and OpenOffice not cutting it. Gimp is an exercize in frustration due to it's absurd GUI. OpenOffice is a fantastic product, but if you're dealing with heavy formatting with multiple authors, it doesn't always work out so well...

Re:Why not

[Rich0]

While the specific examples will vary, I can certainly vouch for having had similar problems.

Getting printing working on my linux system was a pain. Then every few years it tends to break. Right now I can't print, due to some update to the foomatic libraries, or maybe it was cups. I suspect that most of the popular print drivers were updated, but my printer is probably going on 5-6 years old and was never super-popular.

That said, Windows is not free from these sorts of problems either. I upgraded a PC to Windows 7 and it is having plug-and-play issues with the network card. From what I can tell it is some issue somewhere between the BIOS and the network card and the drivers for each. All of the above are about 5-6 years old, and are using the built-in drivers in Windows 7. The network card is the venerable DFE-530TX (Rev D - which apparently is a bit of a collector's item), and google says that the consensus is to buy new hardware.

Some distros make this sort of thing more seamless than others, but really they all fall short to some extent or another.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

It's hard for some geeks to grasp that concept and to think about something from someone else's perspective, but it's true.

You would be surprised to know that many "geeks" earn for living thinking about something from someone else's perspective.
If a programmer doesn't think how every single sane and insane input would be handled, software would be in much worse shape as it is today.

You might be surprised to learn that some other people use Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, Quicken, TurboTax, etc. play certain popular games, etc. There are perfectly usable substitutes for many of these on Linux, but they are not the same, familiar apps. Similar != The Same.

You might be surprised to learn that some other people use Eclipse, Firefox, VLC, OpenOffice on both Windows and Linux.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but other people are sometimes different from you. Understand?

It's very important to me that all other people are always different from me (except if some clone of mine is not wandering around). Understand?

Re:Why not

[miknix]

Really? At least around here the tax program is java and runs quite nicely in Linux.

You must say where "around here" is :-)

Sorry, around here is Portugal.

Re:Why not

[bmo]

>I thought a lot of PCs that came with bundled Windows also came with bundled Office Home and Student.

Trial versions that you have to pay for and activate.

Nice try.

--
BMO

Re:Why not

[Daniel Phillips]

My kid started on Linux when she was two, is now eight, and does her art mainly Inkscape and Kolorpaint instead of Tuxpaint because she appreciates the extra features like bezier curves and gradient fills.

Re:Why not

[jimshatt]

Cool, I'll set that up for them. She is really into drawing (mainly on paper), so she'll probably like inkscape. My son mainly likes to stamp hippos and onther animals with tuxpaint :). Thanks.

Re:Why not

[dokc]

Sorry, around here is Portugal.

And around here is Germany :-)

Re:Why not

[miknix]

Sorry, around here is Portugal.

And around here is Germany :-)

Funny coincidence then :P

previous info, repeated

[pbjones]

ask not what OS is for you, ask what your OS can do. After the shine wears off it's about what you use a computer for. I play 1 on-line game, read the news, and catch up with a few people on FB. And I have have a diffrent machine for eMail. If Linux does what you want, use it, you don't have to sell it to anyone.

Why do you need to sell it to people?

[lattyware]

Really, why? If you can't think of a good reason for someone to use it - it's probably not for them. I've been a Linux desktop user for ages, and I'd find Windows horrible to go back to now, but I get that it's not the same for everyone.

Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't let people know Linux exists and show them how it could help them, but don't get obsessive about it.

Re:Why do you need to sell it to people?

[Black Parrot]

Really, why? If you can't think of a good reason for someone to use it - it's probably not for them. I've been a Linux desktop user for ages, and I'd find Windows horrible to go back to now, but I get that it's not the same for everyone.

Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't let people know Linux exists and show them how it could help them, but don't get obsessive about it.

Yeah, I'm always amused at the notion that we "should" market Linux. So long as there are enough participants to support a well-rounded free software environment, Linux will have its niche.

It's not competing with OSes sold for other niches.

Also, its purpose is to let geeks do stuff they want to do, not to saturate the consumer market or pump up someone's stock portfolio.

There's no reason for its creators, users, or proponents to do anything other than what they've always done.

Re:Why do you need to sell it to people?

[muon-catalyzed]

The sales people get a huge cut for selling software like MS Windows, software is a boon and they love it, but that is not the case with Linux. Maybe that's the problem.

Re:Why do you need to sell it to people?

[stoolpigeon]

For me this is less of a problem every year. I used to have 2 pieces of software that made me keep Windows around. 1 was Turbotax and now that I do that on the web it's off the list, so I'm down to 1. It's a custom piece of software I need for me job. (The developer is a friend) I just found out that there will be a web based option available in the next year. Then my count will be at 0. As it is I just keep a little laptop for Windows and run Linux on my other machines.

Re:Why do you need to sell it to people?

[louic]

Why do you need to sell it to people?

Because if we can stop them from sending around doc or docx documents (or orther stuff that you need Windows only software for), maybe I can work quietly without my boss and collegues telling me to start using Windows because it is "better" (which they prove by the fact that I can't read/edit their documents normally)

Re:Why do you need to sell it to people?

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, I'm always amused at the notion that we "should" market Linux. So long as there are enough participants to support a well-rounded free software environment, Linux will have its niche.

For the most part, people want it to be more popular so that more apps get ported to it, and existing ones are better supported (think Flash or Skype).

'cause it's better

[rastos1]

Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system?

In no particular order:

• no viruses
• no forced upgrades
• better functionality (stuff like kioslaves, etc ...)
• customization
• price
• the system does what I tell it to do. Not more, not less, and not what some DRM/*AA/SW vendors wants.
• less demanding on HW

Re:'cause it's better

[Gaygirlie]

One of the biggest issues is that many people have software and/or hardware that do not work under Linux. Like e.g. it totally sucks for gaming, MTP-support is still hit-and-miss, and with smartphones getting ever more popular there's plenty of software to run, none of which works under Linux --atleast I am not aware of any vendor shipping Linux-software--, and as I said, hardware may not work at all, works slowly, or is missing features.

Re:'cause it's better

[metacell]

No, it's not the same. Until Windows Vista, the vast majority of users were logged in on accounts with full Administrator priveleges on their local computers. That made it much easier for small security loopholes to escalate into big security loopholes when a user ran a program or visited a web site they shouldn't have. Even on Windows Vista, users tended to turn off the security features because they were badly designed and too cumbersome. And remember that the decade-old Windows XP is still the most widely used Microsoft OS (unless it's been overtaken in the last year).

Also, until around the turn of the millenium, Microsoft didn't believe in the Internet. It may sound ludicrous today, but Microsoft claimed the Internet's popularity wouldn't last, and instead pushed their own proprietary online service, Microsoft Network, which, back then, was similar to America Online. Microsoft products were adapted to a LAN environment, not an Internet environment, so their security was seriously lagging behind, and it took many years for them to catch up.

Internet Explorer has also historically had much more security problems than the most popular browsers on competing operating systems (Safari, Firefox, Chrome, etc).

Saying that Windows OSes get more viruses because they're more widely used is only part of the answer.

Re:'cause it's better

[Gaygirlie]

unpatched Windows XP

I quoted the relevant part.

Re:'cause it's better

[icebraining]

So? Until the patch was released - and in this case, it was only with SP2, so full three years after XP was released - everyone was vulnerable. "Unpatched" are not only those machines that are poorly managed.

Re:'cause it's better

[hawkinspeter]

I haven't had trouble using MTP to talk to a Samsung MP3 player from Linux. And, that's a particularly troublesome example as MTP is part of the "Windows Media" framework, so you wouldn't expect anything other than Windows to even try to support it.

I ended up re-flashing the MP3 player to use USB storage mode instead as getting Windows to support MTP was a major pain in the backside. If I plugged it into a Windows machine, I'd then have to hunt around for the driver from Samsung's website (I suppose I could have just carried around the driver CD everywhere) and install software just to be able to talk to it.

Re:'cause it's better

[smash]

Now now, leave him be. Comparing Linux to Windows XP and claiming superiority (in 2006-2012) is one reason why the state of the free desktop is such a mess in the first place.

Re:'cause it's better

[kenh]

no viruses - I can count the number of viruses and other malware I've gotten on my Windows computers over the last 20 years on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to pick up a bowling ball. That they exist isn't the issue, it's bad user habits and a refusal to use even the basic protection MS offers for free that causes most infestations.

no forced upgrades - this is 100% controllable by the user, simply choose to not install updates/upgrades

better functionality (stuff like kioslaves, etc ...) - What? That you think this is an imprtant "feature" proves you are out of the mainstream.

customization - What kind of customization? Desktop theme? Windows if extremely customizable.

price Windows 7 came bundled with my $400 Dell Desktop, which has the same specs as the $450 "Linux" computer I saw on line...

the system does what I tell it to do. Not more, not less, and not what some DRM/*AA/SW vendors wants - That is a function of the applications you choose to use, not the OS.

less demanding on HW - Seriously? When four hundred dollar bills gets you a quad-core CPU of 3 GHz and 8 gigs of RAM and a terabyte of hard drive space, how big a concern is "squeezing" the last little bit of performance out of a seven year-old computer to the average user? And, BTW, Windows 7 is actually a better performing OS than Windows XP (Win 7 runs better on an identically spec'd 7 year old computer running Win XP - at $work we use Dell Optiplex GX620s running WinXP and Win 7, and with 2 Gigs of RAM and our applications Win 7 feels "snappier" to the end user, and the improved CIFS protocols between Win7 and Windows Server 2008 make for a nice upgrade from WinXP & Server 2003)

Simply saying something is true, doesn't make it so.

Re:'cause it's better

[rastos1]

no viruses - I can count the number of viruses and other malware I've gotten on my Windows computers over the last 20 years on one hand

Does Windows inform you that you should be running a antivirus? Yes. Does any Linux do that? No. Ok, the current Windows versions are more immune. However it still asks me to run an antivirus.

no forced upgrades - this is 100% controllable by the user, simply choose to not install updates/upgrades

MS Installs New Software Without Permission

better functionality (stuff like kioslaves, etc ...) - What? That you think this is an imprtant "feature" proves you are out of the mainstream.

Yes, I'm out of the mainstream. The mainstream did not discover that you can edit the files directly on ftp server or on system accessible only over ssh. So what? I'm just saying that Linux works better in this regard than Windows and that makes it an argument asked for by TFA.

customization - What kind of customization? Desktop theme? Windows if extremely customizable.

Example: I like the theme installed by default. But I want the taskbar icon to flash in red color (as opposed to default slight change of tint) when the application needs an attention. I can do that (and did) in Linux. How do I do that on Windows? Another example: Can I put an additional button on the titlebar that tells the window to stay on top? I can in Linux. Can I tell one application to have locale X and another application to have locale Y? I can in Linux ...

price Windows 7 came bundled with my $400 Dell Desktop, which has the same specs as the $450 "Linux" computer I saw on line...

Why you compare the price of computers when I compared the price of OS is beyond me. However I'm a counter example to your anecdotal evidence because it cost me 100 bucks to get Windows 7 for my computer and it cost me a few cents to download a Linux distro.

the system does what I tell it to do. Not more, not less, and not what some DRM/*AA/SW vendors wants - That is a function of the applications you choose to use, not the OS.

Is a printer driver a part of the OS? If we agree on that, then explain to me why it has tens or hundreds of megabytes? Does it do just what I need or load of other crap? Am I free to get a less bloated driver from another source? Another example is - file search. Since Vista windows does not provide a GUI tool that does a real search for files based on the string in the file content. It pretends to do that but it does some lookup in files in indexed locations.

Seriously? When four hundred dollar bills gets you a quad-core CPU of 3 GHz and 8 gigs of RAM and a terabyte of hard drive space, how big a concern is "squeezing" the last little bit of performance out of a seven year-old computer to the average user?

Seriously. There are developed countries where 400 dollars is monthly income. Also if I leave Windows alone for half an hour, two things happens: 1) the antivirus decides that the machine is idle and starts trashing the disk, 2) the system swaps out. The result is that when I get back to the machine again, it takes it 5 minutes to start to be responsive again.

Re:'cause it's better

[Cro Magnon]

Pre-SP2, Linux certainly WAS far superior to XP security wise. It probably still is, though admittedly Vista & W7 are vastly better than even post SP2 XP.

Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[RogueyWon]

I don't think the answer here is about Linux, I think it's about Windows. Simply put, there isn't enough "wrong" with Windows these days.

There was, I felt, a moment where Linux had a chance to make a breakthrough onto the mainstream desktop. It was around the point where Windows ME was failing horribly and Windows 2000 had yet to get much public acceptance. At that point, there was a lot wrong with Windows. The technology underpinning 95/98/ME was creaking horribly. It's hard to believe now, but if you were a heavy PC user (particularly a gamer) back then, your Win98 machine would need daily reboots just to maintain basic performance and stability. Over on 2000, until it got a service pack or two, there were horrible compatibility issues with many applications, particularly those that required directx.

And then the moment passed. Windows 2000 got patched up and then Windows XP went on, after a rocky start, to become a stable, pleasant to use OS. Even the debacle of the Vista launch couldn't undermine the general dominance of Windows - because the major competition to Vista was coming from XP, not from Linux.

If you want to unseat the dominant market player, you have to not just be better than them, but be a lot better. It's not just that you have to have a few killer features; you have to be able to at least match the dominant player in every other significant respect as well. Linux is nowhere near that kind of position in respect of Windows these days (take gaming support as a case in point, but there are plenty of other examples).

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[stoolpigeon]

It will be interesting to see how Win 8 fares. I agree that Windows is not horrific for normal desktop usage at home. Windows 7 has progressed to be close enough to my Linux/KDE setup that I actually don't mind it too much, especially with power shell. But the changes in 8 are rather significant. I've been running the preview in a VM on my Fedora box and there are some huge changes. I think MS may continue pushing more customers to Apple with it. I don't see it being much of a boon for Linux because Linux just isn't on most people's radar.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[gbjbaanb]

don't worry, Ballmer won't let you down. Metro is coming.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[RogueyWon]

I think the problem for MS's competitors is that, as we saw with the Vista launch, even if MS get something badly wrong, they've got a market dominance safety margin because a) their older OSes are still out there and usable, barring some kind of actual kill-switch and b) the competition needs, in many key areas, a few years to catch up to them even if MS stands still.

Agree that Apple rather than Linux is the more dangerous competitor for MS, particularly if Apple starts to take gaming more seriously in a post-Jobs world. Don't underestimate how many people's OS choice is driven by the games that they and/or their kids play. And it's in gaming support that MS is currently many years ahead of the competition (gaming on Linux appears to have made little substantive progress over the last decade).

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[ratboy666]

Actually, I think you have that backwards. Windows 95/98/ME were trying to compete with Linux. Microsoft used illegal means to compete -- fair competition would have resulted in OS/2 and Linux on top.

Finally, in 2001, Windows XP achieved some parity with Linux and OS/2.

OS/2 has gone away; Linux hasn't. But, even today, Windows 7 is no particular match for Linux. Does Windows run on Z-series mainframes? Sparc? Anything other than x86? Big-endian? Embedded? With how much compatibility?

The Linux kernel is remarkably successful. What is amazing is that even with all the illegal efforts at exploiting a monopoly, and actual engineering efforts that have been put into Windows 7, that Linux is even considered competitive.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, if you combine Windows 7 (regularly patched at least once a month on "Patch Tuesdays") with Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 (3.0 is coming later this year), Windows is actually a quite secure operating system. And more importantly, Windows 7 has the hardware driver and third-party software support that LInux wishes it could have, including using better free web browsers like Firefox 12.0 and Chrome 17.0.x versions.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[luther349]

its not even out of beta and people have restored the classic start menu to windows 8. the thing that might have put users off.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[DdJ]

But the changes in 8 are rather significant.

I'd call this an understatement. Seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU

Granted: the Metro UI was genuinely innovative on a phone-sized device, and I can see that there are actually people for whom it's a better UI than iOS or Android. Microsoft did something actually innovative and good for the handheld with this UI.

But it does not work on a standard keyboard-and-mouse desktop environment. It also doesn't really work in the set-top environment -- I say this both because of my experiments with Kinect-driven Metro on the latest XBox, and because of my experiments with Windows 8 and 720p displays. (Windows 8 will not show you your address book on a 720p display, because it says it's not high resolution enough. At 1280x720. To show your address book.)

Now, it's possible that Microsoft will be able to force this through. But in my workplace, where people already have a choice between Windows, Linux, and MacOS, I'm expecting a noticeable uptick in Linux and MacOS desktop users over the 18 months after the release of Windows 8.

(I'm planning to familiarize myself more with Ubuntu/Unity in the near future, so I can be helpful during this time. And yes, I'm also familiarizing myself with Windows 8, running the consumer preview both natively and under VMs, and conducting experiments and compatibility tests. And my own day-to-day desktop environment is already MacOS.)

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[smash]

The other thing that also happened, was that the Mac was in a similar position and got OS X. After a bit of a rocky start performance wise, since about 10.4 it has gone from strength to strength. I certainly agree, the mainstream alternatives just aren't bad enough to warrant a switch any more.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[smash]

Even if 8 flops (which I reckon it will, as no business will adopt it until home users get used to it first), Windows 7 will be supported long enough for Microsoft to recover with Windows 9.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[k6mfw]

Exactly. Also note to use Linux, you have to be a computer/systems guru. Of course many Linux users will cry foul at my statement, but then they know everything and know it so well they cannot understand those that don't (and they forgot what it was like being a beginner). But....... I heard Windows will eventually become all PCs using that OS must be online to "phone home" so M$ can keep tabs on legitimate users and pirates. There are some machines I ***do not*** have internet connections, and many people, companies, and agencies have the same.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[KlomDark]

"They tryin to drive me to Mac" was an epic finish for that video.

Windows 8: The Next Vista

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[kenh]

Microsoft will make sure Apple is always around - if Microsoft went to 99% of the desktop market, they would get their brains sued by anti-monopoly lawyers in governments around the world.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[kenh]

God lord man, do you remember wht it was like installing Linux on a pre-2001 machine? It was no big deal to get a text console, but running X Windows took an extreme knowledge of the software and hardware you were trying to make work. It didn't just "work" - not by a long stretch.

As craptacular as Win 95/98/ME were, you could at least install the OS and have a graphical interface on almost any piece of hardware - Linux was a 20 floppy "adventure"...

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[Cro Magnon]

You didn't have to be a heavy user to have trouble with W95. When I used it at work, I don't think I had a day without a BSOD. At the worst, I had 15! I counted them! NT4 was far better, but still pretty bad.

XP was GoodEnough (tm) for stability but was a bad joke for security (especially pre-SP2). Unfortunately, from the POV of a Linux advocate, W7 probably IS GoodEnough (tm) in the ways Doze used to suck.

I agree that we won't see "The Year of Linux" anytime soon.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[wanzeo]

Gaming is key. Linux can't increase market share over night, and the next most logical group to be assimilated are gamers. The younger windows users who don't write programs or run servers, but are otherwise very computer savy. People who are capable of installing an ISO, and won't switch back if they have to edit a few configuration files, but are numerous enough to move linux towards the mainstream. Going after any other market at this point is unrealistic.

But somehow, gaming seems to be the one area of actual distros that is least ready for prime time. I don't game too often, but last time I checked WINE ran zero of my windows games and there were zero killer linux games. Now I realize this is not entirely under the control of the linux crowd, you would need support from third party developers. But hey, Valve released the Steam client for Mac, and of all things, the PS3. Why can't we get a linux client? If Valve made the Steam client and their game library available on Linux, that would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[Hegh]

The Humble Bundles seem to be helping with this, though. They're getting a lot of independent game studios to think about releasing for Linux, and they show that Linux controls nearly 1/4 of the gaming market. I'm hoping that this helps push similar changes up to the bigger studios.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[ratboy666]

Ken -- as long as you were happy with 640x480 16 colour graphics, you are right.

Getting Windows 3.1, and 95, 98 running with anything else (possibly VESA modes were supported out of the box by 90/ME) meant using a substandard proprietary vendor driver.

Which crashed a LOT -- there are still people who refuse to use AMD on principle.

At least Linux XFree86 gave a consistent view of the hardware, and with the appropriate mode lines, it would work. Maybe not "accelerated", but the accelerators were ALSO crap.

So, yes, I could claim that Linux worked better, even then. And, since I refused to use Windows 98 (later, ME, and these were provably unstable OSs) on my laptop, I have been using nothing but Linux since 1998.

Obviously, Windows 98 and ME were NOT ready for my desktop back then -- Windows XP may have been, and I considered it. But it caused me an installation horror story when I tried (back in 2004/5). It was ALSO not ready for my desktop use (basically, it installed from a CD, and then refused to see the CD or network until motherboard drivers were installed, which were located on a CD. Couldn't get my money back; $200 down the drain.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[e70838]

For me the trigger was the migration to Vista. Vista was too bad. It was a good opportunity to move to ubuntu. I think (dream) that all the societies that are still on windows XP should study a migration to linux.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[RogueyWon]

You're clutching at straws. The Humble Bundle appeal to a small and specific section of the market (and while there are a couple of decent games that have been sold through them, they put out a lot of crap as well). I don't know what on earth makes you claim that Linux controls nearly 1/4 of the gaming market.

The bundles sell in the low hundreds of thousands, with a sales breakdown of roughly 50% Windows, 25% Mac, 25% Linux. The average price paid tends to be around $5. Even if you grant that Linux users are paying more on average than Windows users, they're still not handing over anything like the cost of a "full sized" commercially developed game.

Meanwhile, those "full sized" commercially developed games put out sales numbers that are better than those for the Humble Bundles on a weekly basis. I'd be very skeptical of Linux having more than a 1% share of the overall PC games market.

The trend in mainstream PC gaming is away from Linux, not towards it. Even historically Linux-friendly developers like id have dropped the platform for newer titles.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[Electricity Likes Me]

Complaining about Metro UI as a reason Windows sucks these days is idiotic in a world where Gnome 3 was created and Ubuntu lost it's damn mind and made Unity.

The whole world of computer interfaces has gone to hell very quickly because of tablets and people taking away all the exact wrong lessons from them.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[Electricity Likes Me]

Agreed.

Gaming is a great big tether to keep my on Windows. I mean, I use it for other things, run other programs, do work on it etc. but since I'm going to keep it around for gaming anyway there's no real incentive to ever make the push since I know I'll always keep coming back to it.

Linux - essentially - desperately needs a good compatibility interface for DirectX and the gaming-relevant APIs. Or a way to get say, 90% of my graphics card's performance out of virtualized box of Windows for gaming without me having to boot away from Windows.

If something like that could be accomplished, we'd be in a much better position.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[FaxeTheCat]

If you want to unseat the dominant market player, you have to not just be better than them, but be a lot better.

Or you just change the market. Linux is not popular in the traditional PC market, but where it succeeds is in new markets.
If you look back, beating the major player sometimes involved changing the market.
Digital Equipment Corporation could not beat IBM on the mainframe, so they created the minicomputer.
SUN was successful because they initially just put together standard equipment while the competition were still busy designing proprietary hardware.
Now, is there a media player out there that does not run Linux? Even my TV runs Linux!

So basically it is all around us in places which either did not exist, or did not need an OS. But Linux will never dominate the desktop. So what?

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[LinuxIsGarbage]

An interesting tidbit of history that some people get wrong (I'm not accusing you) is that Win2000 was actually released before WinME. Win2000: Feb-17-2000, WinME: Sept-14-2000 so in truth ME was obsolete before it came out. Windows 2000 also saw far longer shelf life: Both in 3rd party support, and Microsoft support. Microsoft discontinued extended support of Win2000 in July 2010 and WinME in July 2006.

Windows 2000 didn't get much public acceptance because it was never marketed as an end user / home operating system. The non-server edition was "Windows 2000 PROFESSIONAL" which cost more and had higher system requirements. Seldom would it be included with machines at Bestbuy, etc. I remember buying a $500 emachine July 2000 that only came with 32MB RAM and 98SE. Windows2000 is really desperate with that little RAM (Not that 98 is much better) Incidentally the machine had the RAM upgraded, it still works, and it ran Win2000 for the longest time. People were also still clinging to their DOS support. ME didn't run anything in the Autoexec.bat and config.sys so people couldn't run their crappy real mode drivers which they complained a lot about! All NT's (including 2k) never even pretended to parse those files given they weren't DOS based.

Windows 2000 truly was a huge leap forward. It introduced a lot of features NT4 lacked (PnP, USB, latest NTFS version) and XP/2003 were always just a small increment above it.

What you say about "95/98/ME was creaking horribly" is so true. You would get blue screens all the time. Heck you get a blue screen if you take out a floppy or CD and try to access it! The system would show the BSOD, stop, but let you hit a key to continue. Remember "System resources"? The mystical figure that decreased as the system ran, not all of it would be freed up as programs closed, causing you to reboot? It's true, you had to reboot at least once a day, though most people at the time shut down every night. I remember on only two occasions coaxing Windows 95 last long enough to crash at the 49.7 day bug mark. I got an analog photo of one occurrence!

Transitioning home/end users over to the rock solid NT architecture made all that go away. BSODs are a lot less rare, and usually traceable to crappy hardware or crappy drivers. I typically only reboot my home machines once a month at update time.

But yes, I agree with you, Linux had it's opportunity when Windows 9x was mainstream and such a steamy pile. That moment passed more than 10 years ago.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"

[Daniel Phillips]

The moment didn't pass. Linux crossed the magic threshold years ago where it attracted enough users so that it is worth making it continuously better, pretty much every aspect. So Linux on the desktop is basically here forever, it's a done deal. And those intelligent enough to use it in the interest of their own safety and satisfaction are happy about that. If there are others who want to just keep on suffering, that is not my problem.

Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

You don't sell Linux as a product: You sell it as an idea.

The idea is that you can do anything you want with it.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Gaygirlie]

General populace is not interested in ideas. That's the whole crux of the thing; they want something concrete, they do not care about the ideas behind the product as long as they can feel they got what they wanted.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

That's exactly what I mean. "What do you want?" I chose Linux because I could do what I wanted.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Gaygirlie]

I chose Windows because Linux couldn't do what I wanted.

Re:Wrong Approach

[fisted]

>> I chose Windows because I couldn't do what I wanted w/ Linux.
FTFY

Re:Wrong Approach

[Blakey Rat]

Well: 1) You can do anything you want with Windows, and it's equally "free" in the eyes of the consumer, so what's your point?

And of course 2) no you can't. Can I play Skyrim in Linux? (Yes, yes, WINE, whatever, the answer is: no, no I can't.)

Re:Wrong Approach

[Gaygirlie]

>> I chose to twist parent's words because I feel so insecure that I must project all shortcomings and problems on the people using it, not on Linux itself.
FTFY

Re:Wrong Approach

[Howitzer86]

I admit, I couldn't compile a version of 3DStudio Max 2012, Revit, and Photoshop CS5 for Linux.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

If you wanted an Xbox you should have bought one.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Gaygirlie]

Use all of my hardware, allow me to enable 3D over HDMI 1.4 or allow me to run my games. Some games could be made to work using Wine, yes, but not all of them , and when trying to play some games Wine would always place the game on my 2nd display if it was running in fullscreen-mode. I have no idea why it kept doing that and why it did that only on some games.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

Then get an Xbox

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

I bought a computer when all I really wanted was an Xbox.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Gaygirlie]

Real mature, a classic example of exactly the thing people have been pointing out all along: some Linux fanboys just are so insecure that they must constantly attack anyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm. Where does the insecurity come from then? You feel Linux cannot succeed unless there are people like you about attacking anyone who dares to disagree? You feel Linux IS indeed such a rough platform that you must insult people into using it?

As for the Xbox - thing: no, I hate console gaming. And just buying a console wouldn't have solved the issued I had anyways, and it wouldn't be able to do the things I want. As for Linux: I think it is an absolutely great server OS, and on the desktop it works for people who have simple needs and all their H/W works out-of-the-box, and that it doesn't need arrogant fanboys like you defending it.

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

Actually I am sick of the weak argument "But can you run Game X??". Lots of people don't really care about games.

Re:Wrong Approach

[virg_mattes]

You said this statement at least three times that I saw, and it's pointless and dismissive. As my counter to why it's a suck argument, I present that it's surprisingly difficult to buy a computer with Linux installed and enough people balk at the idea that it's not gaining any real ground in the desktop market. Maybe it would be more productive to address the presented arguments with something better than cracks about XBoxes and statements that you're tired of hearing the argument that it won't play particular games. That argument is a valid reason not to switch to Linux, and it's not going to go away because of derision. I personally love Linux. I've got it running on both my desktop and netbook and I use it all the time. I fix computers for a living and I'm very knowledgeable about it. I still can't get World of Warcraft to run in WINE at anywhere near the framerate that it runs in Windows on the same machine (it's bad enough to be unusable in Linux and the XBox argument fails on that program) and so I'm still booting back to Windows to play it because it just doesn't work in Linux. Solving that sort of problem would go a lot farther toward getting Linux popular than alienating potential users by being an asshole.

Virg

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

You have just reinforced my argument. Wanna play games? Get a Windows system. For real work you can use Linux and enjoy better performance and the ability to do truly useful and fun things. I have a laptop built in 1998 that runs Debian better than it ran Win95. It was my personal workstation until 2007 when I was forced to switch to a WinXP system due to disability. I still use that lappy as a LAN server.

Rather than cry about wastes of time, address the issue that not everybody cares about just gaming and the fact that computers can do so much more.

Re:Wrong Approach

[virg_mattes]

And you just missed my point. I don't "wanna play games" alone, and I use my system every day to do real work and fun things. I don't care about laptops built in 1998. I have one (a PowerBook PDQ running Linux, by the way) but that's not what will make Linux grow. I want my computer to do everything I want it to do, including playing games, handling my work, controlling remote systems, handling telephony and so on. The rig I have right now does it all in Windows. It does everything except the games and some hardware in Linux. If those problems went away, I could run Linux exclusively and so could many of my friends, family, coworkers and neighbors. I don't want to have two computers for different things, and I don't want to have to switch operating systems to do all of the stuff that I want to do. The general public doesn't want that either. Say "go get an XBox or a Windows machine" to these people, and guess what they'll do? They'll go get a Windows system and they won't bother with Linux. How does that help? Your whole argument does nothing for Linux except alienate vast swathes of potential users so you can act smug about what you think everyone should do with a computer. Your attitude causes people like me more trouble than any problem Linux presents, because I can convince someone that I can fix a problem with Linux but your comments just make them think that Linux users are elitist jerks. If you can't manage to rein in the attitude, at least stay quiet so you don't get in the way of those of us who are actually doing productive work toward getting people to like Linux.

Virg

Re:Wrong Approach

[Penguinshit]

And you missed my point, which was "but what about Game X?" is a stupid argument because very many don't care and/or have something like a Wii for that. Most of the people I know have lappies which still aren't very good for graphics-intensive games. And after a couple of years they nearly uniformly bitch about decreased performance and have no relish for wiping and reloading. My point about the old lappy was that I don't experience that.

You can whine "elitist" all you want. I say grow up and face the move to portables which will never run Skyrim, etc.

Dear god this blog post is terrible

[Idimmu Xul]

It's a Livejournal period drama featuring Teamspeak, Gnomies and Google+ hangouts; a total mashup of the entire Internet.

It name drops, it backlinks, it links images with contribution, it bolds, "quotes", paraphrases and italics. There's even a google advert.

It just doesn't say anything at all. Which is quite impressive considering how long it is.

If only it was compressed down to 140 characters, might have been less painful to read.

Re:Dear god this blog post is terrible

[Voogen]

That's just the LockerGnome style, it seems to me that they see themselves as a bit of a tightly knit community and it is common for them to name drop members of that community as though the whole of humanity should know who "superstar" Stacy Pharis is... Superstar? Why? Who is he? Also, from what I hear they will do more of these "personal" stories. To me it seems rather pointless. Some dude who we don't know anything about has some doubts about the OS he is using and discusses this with "superstar" Stacy Pharis who in the community is a relatively well known Linux sceptic.

Re:Dear god this blog post is terrible

[Idimmu Xul]

When I saw the word LockerGnome I was like 'wow, Gnome developers criticising Linux on the desktop', i didn't realise it was more a community circle jerk :o

It works...

[flyingfsck]

It works, is robust and zero maintenance.

Marketing is not the problem

[dejanc]

I make my living on Linux I spend and for the last 12 years I've been using it on desktop. I am very happy with Linux - I spend better part of my day in Linux consoles on various servers. However, 6 months ago I switched to Mac OS X for my desktop needs and I'm not going back. Why?

Firstly, now I have a sane desktop environment which doesn't change often. It took some time to adjust to it's workflow, but with 27'' screen it wasn't that hard (just keep everything open).

Secondly, I get access to all applications I need - ranging from Adobe products to MS Office to various ingenious applications from independent developers. I can still access all console utilities that I had under linux, so nothing is lost but a lot is gained.

Finally, I get a better software selection than I had with any distribution I tried. The foundation is solid, I don't have to worry kernel upgrade will break binary graphic drivers (which I also get from e.g. Debian Stable), but I can keep Firefox, Virtualbox, etc. up-to-date with a click of a button (which I would get from a rolling release distribution).

Simply put: Linux is great, and there are many excellent distributions out there. But until they settle on a DE (including broken DE's like early versions of Gnome 3 or KDE 4 is just not acceptable) and until Adobe, Microsoft et al. start selling their software for Linux, many people will simply not be satisfied with Linux desktop - which has very little to do with Linux itself.

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[ElusiveJoe]

It took some time to adjust to it's workflow, but with 27'' screen it wasn't that hard (just keep everything open).

If OS needs a 27" screen and keeping everything open, it doesn't seem like it has a good UI. I'd say it is a terrible UI, or you're doing something wrong.

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[Lawrence_Bird]

While you went the iSteve route, XP and 7 are very stable and accomplish what just about any user wants. As you have noted, there are software advantages - both from the availability standpoing but also another key point: If Microsoft sends a patch for XP or 7, it does not break my already installed software. Unfortunately, in the Linux/BSD (which I prefer) world, updates to libraries and kernels are almost a 100% guaranty that you will break your installed software. Likewise, installing new software often ends up with a gigantic vicious upgrade loop. On windows you rarely meet new software which demands that you upgrade some other part of your system or libraries or that when you do, your old installed stuff craps out.

And while one can try to live off of binary/prebuilt packages, those are likely to leave you just as hanging as building from source - something that very few end users ever want to go near.

*nix on desktop will never be acceptable for wide adoption unless developed and managed by a central authority akin to what Apple did when they took some BSD core stuff and churned out OSX. (And even when I did use an iBook under an earlier gen of OSX I still found XP to be the easier to deal with when it came to software installs and updating drivers or other system type stuff.

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[dogmatixpsych]

I've seen this same switch in my neuroscience/neuroimaging field (but over the past 4 years). For a long time neuroimaging post-processing was all Windows. Then it went to Linux (mostly). Now it is almost all Linux and OS X (with some Windows). At conferences or training meetings, most people seem to be running Macs. They have all the benefits of Linux/Unix plus, as you wrote, all the benefits of OS X (plus it's trivial to also run Windows on Macs {yes, that's true for most boxes running Linux}). I keep thinking I should be using Linux more than I do but I have no reason to when I have all the tools I need from Linux in OS X and I don't have fiddle around just to get Linux working flawlessly on my computer (some distros do "just work" now, mostly).

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[smash]

It doesn't. Headless apps are awesome.

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[assertation]

I've been using Linux at home for about a decade. I've thought about going Mac on again and off again.

I like that I can run Linux on generic hardware that I can get the corner geek shop to fix cheaply should a problem arise.

I'm worried that if I buy an iMac, when it breaks, I will need to ship it to the factory or drive off to some distant Mac store. It is all in one piece that isn't easy to open up.

Has this been an issue for you?

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[pankkake]

I've used Windows, Linux (with pretty standard stuff like openbox, kwin, etc.) and Mac OS X. My experience of actually working with it was the worst on Mac OS. If I wanted a non-free OS, I would take the one that has more software and hardware support, and a reasonable UI, i.e. Windows.

I had pretty much the same experience as this guy: http://wanderingstan.com/2009-12-11/65-reasons-mac-sucks
So why do we see so much people telling us they LOOOVE their macs online? Stockholm syndrome.

Re:Marketing is not the problem

[dejanc]

Yes, it's a big issue. My iMac has a screen problem - nothing major, but some clouding behind the panel so I can't clean it at home (disassembling it is very tricky, at least as seen on youtube instruction videos and it's still under warranty, so I don't feel like it). This is the other side of the coin of Apple - many people have the same issue and Apple doesn't care.

Luckily, the local Apple shop here which services the machines understands that I can't live without it for prolonged periods of time, so they agreed to let me know once the replacement panel comes in, so I can take it there just for that one day.

Still, a pretty big hassle...

It doesn't have to

[Anonymous Coward]

Really.. First, stop bothering about selling. Seeing the world only from the eyes of a marketeer puts the focus on the wrong things, stuff i'd almost tend to call 'fake'. We see enough fake already. I'm glad that `linux` focuses on quality, and is not driven by the force of sales but by the force of functionality.

Secondly, if you look at it's major competitor on the desktop - it's a player that's doing every effort to drive the serious user away from it, Linux doesn't have to sell itself - Redmond will. Noobification, putting a price tag on everything, vendor lock in, just to mention a few. It scared me off in the long run, it scared others away, and it will scare average joe away, just it may take a while. 'Windows' is no longer a product worth to pay a price for, to get 'ease of use' back in return. It's a monkey on your back, nagging the customer into a way of operating the computer that's anything but user friendly.

Linux still isn't trouble-free

[mikael_j]

The biggest problem is, IMHO, inertia. In order for Linux to beat the others it has to be clearly superior

And of course, Linux is still far from being trouble-free. I've been a Linux user since the mid-90s (although for a period I mainly used FreeBSD) but switched over to an iMac as my main workstation a few years ago. Was this because I couldn't get Linux to run right? No. Was it because Linux was "too hard"? No. Was is because of marketing? No. It was because it was UNIX and a turnkey solution. I know it's a tired phrase but it just works. I no longer fear software updates (apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade used to terrify me, had a few incidents where it ate its own package database or simply uninstalled necessary packages (like my X server) for no particular reason) and it stays out of my way.

Now, obviously this isn't for everyone. I still have Linux desktops at home, they're just not my main workstation because I still can't quite shake that feeling of "well, it's stable now but it took two days of configuring and god knows what'll happen next time I update some software"...

What about Ubuntu? Well, it's sometimes more user-friendly than Debian but it also breaks in new and exciting ways (for example, for the longest time I couldn't get it to accept the idea of an interface having a static IPv4 address and a dynamic IPv6 address using the GUI tools, and editing config files somehow broke the GUI tools so they would constantly assume that I had no internet connectivity at all).

Re:Linux still isn't trouble-free

[Electricity Likes Me]

Dealing with that situation as an end-user though is still a pain. Even if I can figure it out, it's one more thing I have to figure out.

Information like that needs to presented in an easy to digest manner straight to the user, and the relevant actions made available at a few clicks - not command line functions.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you really have to post this?

Platform doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words - Microsoft Office.

You're not really asking the right question.... the operating platform (whether Linux, BSD, Windows, OSX, ReactOS, VMS or wutever) is largely irrelevant in comparison to what you can actually do with it. You may as well compare the colors and grips of different screwdriver handles. What matters to the screwdriver buyer/user is "will it work with my existing screws, and will it work well for my future screwdrivering needs?".

There's a significant majority of pre-existing screws that are Microsoft Office shaped, and in order to work with not only your own screws, but other people's screws too, you will want to guarantee compatibility, so you get the tool that fits the standard.

The Office file formats in their various guises, have been around for long enough to ensure that storing things in other formats is a royal PITA now and for the future.

Beyond the basics of document editing and saving, non-MS-Office applications have just enough compatibility issues to be a PITA, and non-technical users rightly or wrongly still want those 80% of the features to be available. Just in case.

Why do you think MS lobbied so hard against the non-MS document standard? Office is the product that keeps them in business. Windows? W7 is just W2000 with bells and whistles. It's the information storage, retrieval, and management tool that controls the desktop.

Hard to sell what is free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used Linux as my primary OS for 10 years now and wouldn't consider going back. The things 'people' want in a desktop/laptop PC (YMMV): Stability, reliability, security and speed. But there's another, less tangible aspect. When you're ahead of the curve (or even a little to the left); you're cool. You get that innate smugness when someone proclaims their new Windows x/OS y machine ePeen score that you're just a little bit more awesome than them.

Collaboration and openness; it's the future. First software, then government & enterprise.

Re:Hard to sell what is free?

[smash]

The things 'people' want in a desktop/laptop PC (YMMV): Stability, reliability, security and speed.

You forgot the major one: application support.

Linux doesn't have enough of it. Sure there's a huge GNU software library, but a huge library that is full of crap with a few gems, and a heap of applications for other OSes that simply have no usable equivalent on Linux means that for many people it is a non option (unless you resort to running another OS in VMware, but then what's the point? Pay license for OS, may as well run it as your primary, neither Windows or OS X these days have major problems you can't live with).

The Right Tool for the Right Job

[Anonymous Coward]

I sell desktop computers and laptops with Windows becaise it's the right tool for that job and it works.

I sell servers with Windows Server and Linux because they are the right tools for that job, where Linux fits that's what I sell, if my customer needs Active Directory, DNS and Mail I sell them Windows Server and Exchange Server.

I sell iPad's for tablet computing because it just works how people expect it to work, my corporate clients use their iPads to remote desktop to their office PC's - never had any complaints.

I sell Apple Mac's where people are doing DTP/Graphics work because that is the environment they are used to.

I advise people to either get an iPhone or an Android device dependent on what they need it for.

Everything integrates seamlessly at the network level because I make it work that way.

I would never sell or install Linux as a desktop operating system, it's about 10 years behind Microsoft and Apple in that regard.

If I was to put Linux on a desktop PC it would run XFCE, XFCE is way ahead of all the other Linux GUI's because it presents a familiar environment, Unity, KDE and GNOME took a huge step backwards a couple of years ago and I could never ever implement either of those in a corporate environment - too confusing for "Joe User".

Windows 8... hmmm... even though it's only preview I'm already getting support calls asking how to use it and how to "fix the desktop corruption - all the icons are really big and the screen keeps flickering when I press the explorer button", wondering if I should send the bill to Microsoft, Metro is like Marmite, 90% of people hate it, 10% love it...

Easy

[ratboy666]

The OS is a commodity. Shouldn't be a "premium" item, in my opinion. Now, let's go over some of the benefits Linux brings to the table.

1 - POSIX. If you want to develop for POSIX, Linux supports this out of the box.

2 - Mature, peer-reviewed and stable.

3 - No cost. But, support is available, for free or paid. Since Linux is peer-reviewed and is GPL, support can be very high quality.

4 - Best alternate driver support, due to support by Vendors (IBM, Acer, Oracle, etc.). The Vendor support leads to people writing drivers due to demand. Driver are ALSO peer-reviewed, leading to higher quality.

5 - Number one platform for clusters and super-computing. Leads to best support for algorithmic GPU use. Easiest platform to use for applications in this space.

6 - Considered standard platform for virtualization base. As a result, Cloud Computing based primarily on Linux.

Now, if a "desktop user" doesn't need or desire Linux, or prefers Windows, my opinion is that she should not be forced into it. If the user CHOOSES a platform, she will make an effort to use that platform.

So, don't try to sell the use of Linux. Indeed, Linux as an OS doesn't really need these efforts (it will be no worse off than it is now).

Re:Easy

[kantos]

1 - POSIX. If you want to develop for POSIX, Linux supports this out of the box.

As a developer that is precisely the problem, the only consistent API in Linux is POSIX, and compared to say... WIN32 Core (minwin) that's fine. But as MinWin is essentially just Linux with Busy-box running on it, you have POSIX and nothing else. But as a developer to justify developing for Linux I need a set of rich distribution independent API's that are universal across the entirety of GNU/Linux, and not specific to a particular build of a particular distribution. Without that I'm left chasing distro install numbers to justify what I'm going to develop for or I have to trust that some downstream developer isn't going to screw up my code (See the Debian OpenSSL incident).

So what am I saying? I'm saying that very choice and customization that makes Linux the OS that so many love and cherish is what is preventing desktop development outside the tightly coupled applications that come with the various shells. Fundamentally I don't think that is an issue that can be addressed. Perhaps each shell could agree to make a subsystem to allow their apps to run on the other... (much like QuickTime allows Itunes on Windows) but that would require a lot of development for little payoff so I don't see it happening.

Re:Easy

[ratboy666]

But GUI applications just work -- the developer should use rpath and bundle the necessary libraries with the application.

Just like Windows, btw -- most of the applications bundle things like the Microsoft base C library (or, at least, they did the last time I bothered looking). Or, a .NET installer, etc.

For example, LibreOffice does it that way.

Then again, Sage doesn't (and it's bigger: 2.5GB of code). Go figure, Sage supports Linux, Solaris, BSD, so maybe they are right.

My "third party" applications include Adobe Reader, Skype, LibreOffice, Chrome Browser and Sage. And, personally, I have never had a problem distributing applications either.

Re:Easy

[kenh]

POSIX - How many people develop FOR POSIX?

No cost? 90% of Windows buyers do not see Windows as a line item on their system purchase, so to them it is free, since the hardware they want isn't available without WIndows,

Best "alternate" driver support - whoop-dee-do - Windows has driver support from the manufacturers.

#1 OS for clusters and super-computing? So what? How many non-slashdot readers have clusters or super-computers at home?

Std. platform for virtualization - not if you want to run virtual Windows servers - MS have very generous licensing terms that allow for multiple Windows Server VMs to run for free if they are hosted by Hyper-V (Windows Server Enterprise has license to run 4 Windows Server VMs on one box for no additional cost - running 4 VMs of Windows Server Enterprise on a Linux/VMware host will require you to buy four server licenses.

Re:Easy

[ratboy666]

Ken

Boxgrinder will become a standard part of RHEL at some point. Right now, it's a technology preview. But I can see a future where, if my local compute resource isn't sufficient, external ones can be called for.

Apple uses it right now with Siri. But, Siri is limited in scope. To use this generally, the user (read application if you like) has to be able to move parts of itself to either specific servers or the cloud. Now, we shouldn't care WHAT the cloud is -- if I happen to have usable servers of my own (and, as it happens, I do), I should be able to use those. If I don't, I should be able to job it to whatever cloud compute resources are available. Indeed, the lowest spot price, and the application should find it.

Since the raison d'etre of the OS is to manage resources, this particular function should arguably be an OS function. Until this infrastructure exists, user applications will probably not use it, but we can see the beginnings now (Google Docs, Siri, etc.). Why shouldn't I be able to simply push my own applications as well? (and, with boxgrinder I can finally see a way).

Linux is at the lead in supporting this kind of stuff. Since it is, people who are pushing the leading edge will tend to use it, giving even more support to Linux as the "advanced OS".

Back to the drivers... I really don't trust the vendors to produce good binary drivers. I much prefer reviewed drivers. Reviewed by people that I trust. Indeed, (for non-Linux people), Linux kernel issues are ignored, and the kernel is considered "tainted" if a binary driver is used. There must have been a reason for that particular decision.

Re:Easy

[shutdown -p now]

I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. Rich APIs exist for Linux - Qt is a good example - and they nicely shield you away from all the lower level stuff. And you can always bundle them with your app.

And those low-level APIs may not be to your liking, but they are very stable. Maybe not Windows level of stable, where you can have a Win 1.0 app run on Win8, but how many people actually need that?

Question is: Why *should* it happen?

[F69631]

It's important that we have a free (both meanings of the word) alternative for an operating system for those who want it. However, as long as the existence of that alternative is relatively safe it just comes down to competition. You need to invest something (money, time, etc.) to a system and you gain something from it (be it the knowledge that your system is "free", more stability or the UI and applications you prefer) and if most people say that they'd rather go with Windows... why is that "wrong"?

I guess you can make the point "They might not say that if they KNEW more about Linux" but at that point you are no longer asking "How to increase Linux market share" but rather "How to educate people about Linux so we get more competition" which should be approached with an entirely different mindset. I find it difficult to even think "We should boycott MS because it's EVIL"... Maybe it still is so, but there are so many even more horrible corporations around that I feel a bit apathetic about that.

Summa summarum... If you know that someone would benefit from Linux, it should be easy to sell. If you don't know, why should you even try to?

(nearly) Full time Linux user here...

[s0litaire]

Ok so I'm in the UK using Ubuntu only my Laptop and XBMC on my Desktop.

One of the big problems for me is Legal media viewing,

I'd love to use Netflix/Lovefilm but it's Windows/Mac only.
I'd love to watch the Blu-Ray disks I've received (either via comp wins or presents from others) without breaking the law, but I can't since they won't licence the required key's to Linux based players. (I know their are "work arounds" for playback but I've never gotten them to work reliably...)

I've actually bought a US Amazon prime account in the past so i can access their streaming movie service.

It's so annoying, here I am, willing to actually PAY for content! (i know! it's a shock!!) but i can't. So I have to resort to not so legal means to view movies which I have physicality in my collection. Or go to the trouble of keeping an Windows install upto date just for watching movies (Which, to me, is more trouble than it's worth)...

Binary compatibility

[paugq]

Desktop Linux will be a reality when people have a reason to choose Linux over Mac and Windows.

Let's assume all the eye-candy, hardware support, etc is there.

There is also a lot of good applications, yet people want more. Desktop Linux needs closed source shareware, freeware, etc applications. Not because there is no open source alternative but because people want to have 10,000 applications to choose from instead of 10. Also, by having shareware on Linux, those microISVs will be promoting Linux amongst their customers, which will in turn make Linux more popular.

So what do we not have shareware, freeware and other closed-source applications on Linux? Because of binary compatibility. When an ISV wants to release an application for Linux, he has to test with a gazillion Linux distributions, do all kind of tricks and ship his own version of every dependency down to glibc (it's a nightmare even with Listaller!), explain how the average Joe -who knows nothing about root, package managers, etc- can install it on Linux, etc Just not worth it.

Can we solve that? Sure we can. Canonical started by offering the "partner" closed-source repository but it's not exactly successful. There are very few closed-source applications there. What we need is a single appstore for all the distributions. Intel AppUp looks like a good start but again it's not popular. It will never be unless we solve the binary compatibility issues.

Please do not answer with "but closed source does away with my freedom", etc. 99% of the people do not care. Even slashdotters. Android Market, the Apple AppStore, the Kindle, etc show even most of those who boast about software freedom are carrying a Kindle and an iPhone, which are the epitome of closed-sourceness.

All major OSes are pretty well usable

[roothog]

I have two offices, each with a different desktop (WinXP on one, OS X Lion on the other), two MacBooks (Lion on one, Leopard on the other), and a home Linux system (Ubuntu/KDE). I find all systems to be fairly usable, and for the most part, I don't really care which one I'm using. I just want to be able to use the computer, so trying to push one type of system over another seems pretty pointless if they're all ultimately usable. The differences among the systems end up being pretty minor:

Linux:
- Easy connectivity to remote systems/servers.
- Easy to find, install, and uninstall software via apt-get, with reasonable assurance that the centralized repositories aren't hosting malware.
- I never think about licenses, everything is free [beer].

OS X:
- Easy connectivity to remote systems/servers.
- UNIX with a pretty GUI (though KDE is pretty nice nowadays).
- Many applications have easy installs/uninstalls, just drag the folder into /Applications or from there to the trash. (Though having to remember which applications uninstall with a drag to the trash and which need to run an uninstaller is annoying).

Windows:
- Usable as long as I can stay away from the start menu (which I find cumbersome).
- Needs a real command line that lets me ssh & scp. Having to use a GUI program to scp annoys me.
- No customizability. For example, I can't figure out how to have the clock on the taskbar also list today's date.
- Installing software via downloads of .exe's from random websites is worrisome.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[SolemnLord]

- UNIX with a pretty GUI (though KDE is pretty nice nowadays).

It's not "pretty", it's "well-designed", and just happens to look good. Until more Linux advocates start realizing the distinction (and props where props are due, there are plenty of design-centric Linux devs out there. Canonical, for example. Android is forcing a lot more to be), that will always be a massive hurdle for the OS.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[ProppaT]

Actually, I wish more project managers understood this. GUI tasking usually goes to graphic designers, who are the worst possible people for the task. They're most concerned about aesthetic than functionality. If the project is small enough where you can't hire a dedicated UI person (someone with a background in UI and/or psychology), then give the task to a tech writer. The tech writer is usually the one person on a project who sees the whole picture because they have to document the entire thing and share in the end users frustration.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[jamesl]

For example, I can't figure out how to have the clock on the taskbar also list today's date.

Win 7 ... My taskbar clock also lists today's date.

It's interesting that many have complained over the years that Windows is too complex because MS gives users too much flexibility.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[bobbomo]

"- No customizability. For example, I can't figure out how to have the clock on the taskbar also list today's date."

In XP Display Properties, change to Windows XP style. Resize taskbar to double height and Time, Day, and Date are shown.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[Blakey Rat]

- No customizability. For example, I can't figure out how to have the clock on the taskbar also list today's date.

Point the First: Customization = bugs. For every checkbox in the OS, you double the time taken to QA. Windows has been reducing customization to ensure they can ship a quality product. (OS X has always followed the same philosophy.) So if that's what you're looking for, Windows isn't for you... but I also think if you were rational about it, you'd prefer a well-tested OS over one that's customizable.

Point the Second: Windows has shown the date on the Start bar by default since Vista. Please update your rhetoric to Windows OSes shipped during this decade, thank you.

I actually wonder if one of the reason Linux users think "Linux is just fine! It's just as good as Windows!" is that they're always comparing to a 10-year-old copy of Windows.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[Woldry]

FWIW, I just reinstalled Win7 on my laptop. No date showing in the status bar by default, and I can't find any setting to enable showing it. (The date does appear as a mouseover tooltip.)

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[Blakey Rat]

FWIW, I just reinstalled Win7 on my laptop. No date showing in the status bar by default, and I can't find any setting to enable showing it.

Then you (or possibly your employer?) changed the default. Because the date shows on a second line below the time in Windows 7, by default.

Re:All major OSes are pretty well usable

[shutdown -p now]

It only shows if your taskbar is tall enough for it to fit (and if it's large enough for three lines of text, it'll also squeeze in the weekday there). With default settings that should be the case, but perhaps you have made it look like XP, sizing it down?

By the way, Win7 taskbar really makes much more sense docked to the left or right rather than down (yes, like Unity) - and it will show date in that mode.

Re:games

[satuon]

I need a Windows partition to be able to use HDMI to play movies on my TV. On Linux there's a loud whistling noise every 10 seconds, and I can't get smooth playback of 1080p videos even though I have core i3. On Windows 1080p videos play flawlessly and audio is OK.

But..every place..

[SQLz]

Every place I've ever worked uses Linux almost exclusively on the desktop. (OSX sprinkled in).

Re:Because it sucks

[dskoll]

I have an actual company I can go yell at on the phone.

Oh? Please tell. I'd love to hear stories of how you yelled at Microsoft over the phone and actually got anywhere.

Linux Does sell on the Desktop

[pogson]

The premise of TFA is wrong. GNU/LInux does sell on the desktop and soon Android/Linux will as well. Many OEMs sell GNU/Linux and many retailers do as well, just not all of them. It's different in various parts of the world. In Germany you can go into shops with lots of shelf-space reserved for GNU/Linux and the share, according to NetApplications is 1.84%. In USA there are few shops that sell GNU/Linux and the share is reported to be 2.13%, not significantly different because it's business usage that NetApplications measure. Mountain View, California shows 80% because that's what Google uses. see this German site and compare it with Dell, who have hundreds of stores in China selling GNU/Linux http://www.notebooksbilliger.de/notebooks/notebooks+ohne+windows (That's Notebooks without Windows, according to Google Translate)

And The Answer Is...

[martin-boundary]

what in the world do you focus your efforts on selling? An idea?

"Linux. The Desktop Teenage Alien Ninja Turtles use. Torrent It This Summer, Or No Pizza For You."

I wouldn't pay much attention

[Voogen]

Largely the LockerGnome editorial stance from the top is against Linux, and also anti Windows. Some of the writers might be Linux and Windows users, but over and over in Chris Pirillo's videos he seems compelled to take little swipes at both Linux and to a lesser extent Windows. As far as I can see there's nothing to report here. Don't take this as me being a LockerGnome or Chris Pirillo hater. I read LockerGnome and find some of the stories useful. A couple of the writers know their stuff, and even Pirillo himself despite the clown image he cultivates knows his stuff, if you've ever heard him talking about website usability this is clear.

For Pete's Sake, Stop

[adosch]

WTF does this show up on /. at least once a week? As entertaining-yet-lame as the Linux vs Windows vs Apple vs Foo flamewar debates can be, can we 'stop' making this drivel a headline /. news story already?

This is an easy question to answer

[Charliemopps]

This is an easy question to answer:
          I can't go to the store and buy software for it.
          I can't play ANY games on it that aren't total crap or 10yrs old
          It's hard to use for most people. (editing text files in emacs is not easy for most people)
          The linux support community are a bunch of assholes. Try and post a question in a linux forum asking how to do something, you get treated like an idiot.
          Even if you had someone to support you, the entire appearance, function and utility of it differs widely from distro to distro... even from release to release. Win7 may be a lot different than Win95... but not nearly as different as 2 Ubuntu distros that are less than 5yrs apart. So even a linux pro can be lost unless you drop to command line, and even then they may be confused unless you're using the same distro... not to mention that its virtually impossible to support a novice, over the phone, while they're entering console commands.

None of this is new... it's the same problem that linux has always had.

Re:This is an easy question to answer

[unapersson]

1) You don't need to, but anyway, it's been a long time since I've seen boxed PC software in the wild. Online there's plenty of software you can buy for it.
2) Humble Bundle. But that said, I game on PC a lot less than I used to, the Windows only policy of a lot of PC game developers drove me to console gaming.
3) Which decade did you last use Linux? I don't think I've even got emacs installed.
4) Given the tone of your post, I'm not surprised, but in my experience that's inaccurate.
5) Gibberish.

Re:This is an easy question to answer

[darkfeline]

I can't go to the store and buy software for it.

Free equivalents to many (not all, I admit) software you may need are available for download, either directly through a package manager or as source.

I can't play ANY games on it that aren't total crap or 10yrs old

This is true.

It's hard to use for most people. (editing text files in emacs is not easy for most people)

emacs works pretty much the same at notepade. vi/vim I can understand, but if most people can't use emacs... (I mean on the superficial level most people would expect from a text editor anyway)

The linux support community are a bunch of assholes. Try and post a question in a linux forum asking how to do something, you get treated like an idiot.

We expect people to do their research beforehand, act mature and use proper grammar and spelling. Unfortunately, this seems to be outside of the abilities of "most people"

Even if you had someone to support you, the entire appearance, function and utility of it differs widely from distro to distro... even from release to release. Win7 may be a lot different than Win95... but not nearly as different as 2 Ubuntu distros that are less than 5yrs apart. So even a linux pro can be lost unless you drop to command line, and even then they may be confused unless you're using the same distro... not to mention that its virtually impossible to support a novice, over the phone, while they're entering console commands.

Linux tutorials are usually given in CLI commands precisely BECAUSE they're easier to support. What's harder to tell someone to do, hit ALT-F2 and type "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" and hit enter, or tell them to go to the start menu, find microsoft update, click on that, wait for the page to load, hit normal upgrade (or whatever that is), hit confirm, wait, restart computer, and rinse and repeat for each application you have installed?

Re:This is an easy question to answer

[Registered Coward v2]

The linux support community are a bunch of assholes. Try and post a question in a linux forum asking how to do something, you get treated like an idiot.

We expect people to do their research beforehand, act mature and use proper grammar and spelling. Unfortunately, this seems to be outside of the abilities of "most people"

Says he who fails to put a period at the end of a sentence. Seriously, what you really mean is "we expect people to be able to wade through pages of Google hits and pointless diatribes to try to find an answer to a simple question; when they can't and post it in a Linux forum, rather than simply ignoring it, we feel compelled to respond with yet another diatribe about their obvious technical incompetence."

What I find amusing is how, when someone mentions how to make Linux more popular on the desktop or advances arguments as to why it is not; Linux users immediately respond with "we don't care, it's about freedom and sharing." If they really didn't care, this thread wouldn't have 200+ responses so quickly. Deep down inside, many are hurt that people think their baby is ugly; yet they are unwilling to do things to change that perception. Until they do that, Linux will always be an after thought on the desktop; despite it's ability to do many of the things the average computer user does currently with OSX or Windows.

Re:This is an easy question to answer

[DaveV1.0]

We expect people to do their research beforehand, act mature and use proper grammar and spelling. Unfortunately, this seems to be outside of the abilities of "most people"

This is completely false. Most of the time, the questions I see on forums either go unanswered, are answered with "RTFM N00B!", or very rarely answered with useful information or pointed to some other forum where there is an answer. It has gotten so bad that people often post the question to 20 forums which results in a Google search returning the same question by the same poster and one is lucky to find an actual answer.

Re:This is an easy question to answer

[Gaygirlie]

2) Humble Bundle.

Humble Bundle - games are fine for casual gamers who like short burst of gaming, but often are way too little for not-so-casual gamers. I for example have only liked Osmos and World of Goo, and they're only fun in short burst on a mobile device, they simply aren't fun on a PC. The point is, if you don't like Humble Bundle - games there's very little worth touching even with a barge pole when it comes to Linux - games.

But that said, I game on PC a lot less than I used to, the Windows only policy of a lot of PC game developers drove me to console gaming.

For the fear of being locked to one platform you jumped to another locked-in platform?

Looks bad from neck deep in the malware swamp

[dbIII]

It's not good enough by a long way, it's just better it was last year. Many people probably even had less frustration with their Microsoft systems ten years ago.

API

[should_be_linear]

Each successful platform must have single API that pretty much covers everything that you might want to create on that platform. From threading, devices (USB), 2D, 3D, sound, input to web rendering, notifications, etc., well documented and organized. Thats what Android is doing, and what Ubuntu (and other distros) is NOT doing. Therefore, difference in acceptance of both products is huge, albeit both are basically Linux kernel with several modules on top of it. All apps on Android follow same basic "ideas" on how to write app, install app, launch app and switch between apps, all of that in easy way. Ubuntu does not have "writing app" covered at comparable level, installing and running is solved well for free apps only. Bottom line is: Ubuntu needs simplification and unification, removing 90% of "Linux applications" from current repository and adding new "Ubuntu applications" following Ubuntu API instead.

Now I don't know what to recommend too

[pepeperes]

I for one had that one product that I used (still do, though looking for a change) and recommended to many people, and even setup it for them if they asked. It was called Ubuntu (yes, the african word that stands for I don't have time to fiddle with Debian anymore). But not anymore, since their inspiration died with the BIG Unity fiasco. And Gnome 3 seems to have helped them in destroying an established, well know and easy to use, intuitive desktop (after all the years it took us to get there!).

So right now, for me, yes, I wouldnt know what to recommend to the ppl I used to recommend Ubuntu. OpenSuse? No way I'm going to mess around with rpms again. Ever. Mint? Tried it, and didnt like it, it's an unfinished product in the sense that Ubuntu 10.04 was a "finished" product. Found many minor desktop and setup annoyances with it. So yes, I'm one of those who have gone silent.

some reasons

[e**(i pi)-1]

I use linux as my main work platform since 15 years. Here are a few reasons why I still use a mac. Here are the tools, I use regularly where I did not find analogues.

• dead simple and robust video editing with quicktime pro (copy paste) which is able to read and export in essentially any format
• screen recording which allows to archive any video which is visible on the screen.
• pages, to quickly make a flyer, syllabus which looks great.
• garage band which just works and does not need to be learned because one can just plug into the epiano and work.
• PDF manipulation: preview is a fantastic tool to rearrange, copy paste pages in PDF files. Nothing like this exists. I use Adobe professional to reduce the size of PDF files (especially from scanned books). Most of the time the space reduction is a factor of 10.
• Scanning: with a Fujitsu scanner, I can get a digital version of a book (cut the spine and throw it into the scanner, push one button). The result is a perfectly OCRd PDF file. No hassels, no time waste. Nothing like this seems to exist on linux.
• presentation software. The simplicity and robustness of keynote is fantastic, especially if you want to play embedded videos.
• digitizing DVD's. With handbreak, it is trivial to get a nice video file from a DVD. Throw in the DVD, push a button and wait.
• Backup. I even use time machine to backup some linux directories. Sync them over to the mac, where things are archived nicely.
• hardware: since a couple of years it is virtually impossible to get reasonably prized displays. The imac has 2560x1440. Almost all monitors one can buy now have only ridiculous 1920x1080. Even the ipad has with 2048x1536 pixels twice as many. Also the macbook air is unmatched.

Why do I use linux then?

• Have complete control about the machine
• Have a second leg just in case.
• Not to be dependent on a vendor, who might just one day decide to discontinue with operating systems because it is not profitable. (I do not believe that to happen with the Mac, but I had been burned several times in my life, like with Next). This is not going to happen to me again.
• Have a fast machine. Lag and delays (even fractions of seconds) drive me nuts. Linux allows me to customize my machine so that this never ever happens. Its like going with a racing car. I use a minimal windows manager (blackbox) and disable anything which is not needed, and also regularly buy a decent new CPU. On the mac, especially with "versions", things can become frustrating. open a document for a moment, then close preview, delete the document, then open preview. The program tries to find the old document and blocks the machine. An operating system never should slow down the user.
• Fun. I like to tune things but do not like to do too much sysadmin. Typically, I do not have to do anything once things are running.

Re:some reasons

[arikol]

and.... that pretty much exactly sums up my attitude on the matter.

I substitute "robust audio editing" instead of "robust video editing"

Task dependent tools. A hammer when nailing in a nail, and a saw for cutting apart wood. Nailing a nail with a saw is no fun, neither is video/audio editing under Linux.

Re:some reasons

[drjones78]

FWIW, Handbrake runs on Linux and rsnapshot gives you wonderful time machine style backups too, in an automated fashion (though it doesnt have the fancy interface).

Re:some reasons

[phantomfive]

Not to be dependent on a vendor, who might just one day decide to discontinue with operating systems because it is not profitable. (I do not believe that to happen with the Mac, but I had been burned several times in my life, like with Next). This is not going to happen to me again.

YES. Or to a lesser extent, drop features that your apps rely on. I lost several applications, one that I used frequently, when OSX Lion came out. I now am making the switch over to Linux because of that. It's really frustrating when it happens.

Attraction vs. Promotion

[Lorien_the_first_one]

I use Linux because I find it very attractive. Sure, there are problems I encounter but I'm committed to working through them. That's how I learn how computers work and I have learned more about how computers work with Linux than I ever have with Windows. I simply cannot imagine myself going back to jail with Windows or Mac. For me, Linux is the Swiss Army Knife of computing. Anything I want to do, I can do it with Linux faster than I can with Mac or Windows.

For those who want to use Windows or Mac? They're not attracted to Linux for their own reasons so I let them be. They're paying for the subsidy I got on my computer, which has a Windows license. Since they're spending their own money, they have a right to their choice and I support that. I even offer support to fix their computer when they need help, for a reasonable fee. But if they want to convert to Linux with a little boost to get them started, I do that for free.

When i got my last computer, I imaged the hard drive, and put the image away (making Windows installation CDs is very slow compared to a quick image of the drive). Then I proceeded to install the distribution of my choice and I've been happy ever since. I've been on Linux exclusively at home for almost 5 years and I have no plans to go back to Windows, nor do I see a need to sell Linux. If people want what I have, I help them get it. If not, they always have Windows or Mac to use. It's their choice.

I would prefer the use of Linux to grow by attraction rather than promotion.

Re:Attraction vs. Promotion

[firefrei]

I use Linux because I find it very attractive. Sure, there are problems I encounter but I'm committed to working through them. That's how I learn how computers work and I have learned more about how computers work with Linux than I ever have with Windows.

Are you sure you're learning about how computers work, or just how Linux works? I've had many problems with various Linux distros which I've managed to solve through shear determination, but I'm not convinced I've expanded my knowledge about the fundamentals of computers - rather I've expanded my knowledge about how to fix Linux-specific problems. There's a difference.

Also, I do enjoy learning how to fix problems. But only in my OWN TIME. I do not enjoy coming home to fix problems unless I'm in a mood to do so. If I come home and find that a kernel update I applied the night before had killed my wireless adaptor or my graphics drivers, this does not please me. I can fix them most likely (or boot an older kernel), but I don't want to have to deal with this shit unless I'm mentally in the mood to do so.

Re:Attraction vs. Promotion

[Lorien_the_first_one]

I can appreciate your sentiments, but I haven't had the experiences you've had. The problems I have seen with Linux have been few and far between and fairly trivial to fix. As to your question of whether or not I'm learning how computers really work, I say that Linux is a lot more transparent than Windows (and probably more so than Mac, too, but I don't work with them much so I can't say). One example of what I mean comes to mind: Linux is configured with text files.

If a desktop configuration gets corrupted in Windows and I can't login to my user profile, then I usually I have to blow the user profile away to have it rebuilt. Then I have to put all my settings back the way they were. With Linux, the settings are ruled by text files, so I don't even have to log into a desktop to fix a configuration setting. Since the configuration of a user profile is distributed across a few files rather than one big registry or some binary blob, there is no need to try to access the configuration settings with a mouse as is often the case with Windows. If I have a problem, a little research will yield a man page on the configuration file I need to fix as well as a potential fix for the problem. Then I have a number of options available to me to access the configuration file, make the proper edits and test.

Given the advantage of transparency Linux has over Windows, I can honestly say that I learn more about how computers work with Linux than with Windows.

Re:Attraction vs. Promotion

[firefrei]

I can appreciate your sentiments, but I haven't had the experiences you've had.

Doesn't make them any less annoying or worthy of recognition of their existence. Plenty of people have had these issues, posted on various Linux forums, with varying levels of success at fixing them.

If a desktop configuration gets corrupted in Windows and I can't login to my user profile, then I usually I have to blow the user profile away to have it rebuilt.

What in God's name are you doing to your system that ends up corrupting your user profile? To be fair I shouldn't complain too much because in a past life I did IT support (never again!) and some people somehow fucked up their profiles so badly that new ones had to be made. I still have no idea why it happened.

With Linux, the settings are ruled by text files

Traditionally yes, and this is a good thing which has saved me some trouble when copying settings between various servers. However there seems to be a new breed of Linux developer who stores their settings in binary files now, sorta akin to the Windows Registry, and if this trend keeps up then you won't be able to mark this as an advantage anymore.

Re:games

[Chrisq]

for the dual boots out there: ask yourself why do you still use windows? personally i still use them for gaming, there's no other reason to use windows, i can do everything i want in linux, for free, but i cant play games.

bring some serious game titles to linux and people will follow, it's common sense.

Ordinance Survey get a map

Windows is pre-installed on every PC

[Mojo66]

Something I haven't read in the comments so far is the fact that M$ is allowed to more or less force PC vendors to ship new machines with Windows. What would politicians say if Daimler-Benz demands every new car on this planet ships with a Mercedes engine?

To break a monopoly, either some political changes must happen, or a competing product covers a niché feature that the monopolist product lacks. On servers, the niché is the pricing. But desktop Windows doesn't seem to lack something that is big enough of a niché so that a competitor could live in it.

My conclusion is that as long as every PC ships with Windows pre-installed we'll never see real competition in the desktop OS market.

Re:Windows is pre-installed on every PC

[Shados]

Apple is now the biggest manufacturer of PCs in the world (and hell, the most valuable company at this point if i remember well? By a fair margin?). No windows there. Phones and tablets are replacing PCs and lap-tops quickly, and unless Windows 8 pulls a miracle, it will stay that way.

If you put all "general purpose computing devices" together (and now, tablets and high end phones count in that category), Windows is nowhere close to dominating anymore (which is a shame, Im one of the few who loves Windows... but even I now replaced my lap-top with a Transformer Prime and a keyboard dock, running Android 4...way better).

Re:Windows is pre-installed on every PC

[kenh]

Force? They offer steep discounts on OS licenses if the OEm agrees to put the OS on every model in a given line. They also subsidise advertising for computer models that include Windows when it is prominently included in the ad.

They aren't forced, they are seduced - and they go willingly, because if they don't their competitor will have a distinct price advantage, a big box maker like Dell can pay $25-40 for the OS when MS discounts it, $60-80 if they don't - that 's a lot of money to make up when competing on specs on otherwise commodity hardware.

Z-series mainframe as a desktop?

[F69631]

OS/2 has gone away; Linux hasn't. But, even today, Windows 7 is no particular match for Linux. Does Windows run on Z-series mainframes? Sparc? Anything other than x86? Big-endian? Embedded? With how much compatibility?

The discussion is about desktops so pretty much none of that is relevant... Or maybe there is relevance that you didn't elaborate enough and I'm just not getting? I don't think that anyone here denies that Linux is superior to Windows in that kind of specialized systems but that's just not important in this context.

Re:Z-series mainframe as a desktop?

[kenh]

Windows Server 2008 R2 runs on the Itanium

There is also an embedded version of Windows 7

Re:Nope, fewer viruses because Linux is harder

[Gaygirlie]

There are as many or more Linux desktops than Mac ones

I really doubt that.

then Apache would be the most virus laden product in the world, as opposed to Windows with that "honour".

You're comparing apples and oranges; Apache is a web server, Windows is an OS. Compare Linux to Windows and Apache to IIS.

But you can STILL get a drive-by virus even with the latest, most secure, most up-to-date Windows OS. You don't have to do anything other than connect to the internet.

Don't try to spread lies, that hasn't been true for a good while now. That was true with XP, yes, not now. And heck, even with XP that was no longer true after SP2 which enabled firewall by default.

RMS said it best

[brad-x]

In a recent interview with an Iranian Linux publication, RMS had this to say about the very issue addressed here - it's an opinion I share.

"LR: What's the best way to advocate Free Software? Some Free Software users engage in technical debates with Microsoft and Apple fans, trying to convince them GNU/Linux is more powerful. Another group focus on philosophical and cultural aspects of Free Software and try to make people care about their freedom. Which of the two mentioned approaches are more effective?

RMS: They are both "effective" but they lead to different results.

If you convince people that some free software is technically superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on superficial issues. This is just a partial success.

However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or technically superior, because they will see that free software is ethically superior. They will understand the important question and judge it right. This is a full, deep success.

Another weakness of technical arguments is that nontechnical people probably won't care about them at all. But they can understand ethical arguments. Ethical arguments are the only way we can convince nontechnical people to become free software supporters.

I figure that users can judge for themselves whether program A is more convenient than program B. So I don't try to convince them about that sort of question, except when someone has preconceptions about free software and has not tried it. I focus on talking about freedom. "

Re:RMS said it best

[wrook]

When you quote from such an article, it helps to add a link: http://mobile.osnews.com/printer.php?news_id=25724

The reason I say that is because, while I get your point, often RMS communicates in a rather blunt manner (IMHO anyway). It's not impossible for an astro-turfer to concoct an RMS-like quote that looks plausible but contains certain phrases that trigger "nutjob" knee-jerk reactions in people. Being able to point to the actual interview helps to show that it is authentic.

Unfortunately, I don't think he does himself any favors in this interview. Like you, I largely agree with him, but I wish that he would take some advice on effective methods of getting his message across. His use of the word "ethical" is troublesome. I think I understand what he means, but I guarantee that many people will interpret it as meaning that they are "unethical" if they don't run free software. I don't think that is what is intended (I might be wrong, I suppose). As a movement geared to *help* the user, using software that isn't free is unfortunate, but hardly unethical.

A free software community is powerful because instead of being consumers, the user is enabled to be a producer. If the software is not free, they are blocked from contributing (even if it is only to help themselves). If users choose software that isn't free because it is more capable, they get more capable software, but can't form a community of enabled users. They can't help themselves; they can help their friends and they can't be helped by their friends (or some random guy half way around the world who happens to have the same problem). Everything must come from one controlling entity. If they decide not to help (or decide to charge you ridiculous amounts of money), then you are screwed.

I suspect RMS thinks that people already understand this and simply says that free software is a matter of ethics to drive home his point. Unfortunately, I think many people completely miss the point and instead become insulted. It ends up having the opposite reaction that was intended.

Re:RMS said it best

[scharkalvin]

RMS has a good argument, but unless FOSS software is at least as usable as non-free software it won't get used no matter how strong the ethical argument is. Take Gnash for example. Gnash is a free alternative to Flash, but in most cases it fails to work with youtube or hulu well enough to replace the non-free Flash.

A good example of an FOSS program that can replace a non-free one is Libre Office. It may not have all the bells and whistles of MS Office, but it can do the job well enough to meet the needs of most casual users.

Re:RMS said it best

[DaveV1.0]

However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or technically superior, because they will see that free software is ethically superior. They will understand the important question and judge it right. This is a full, deep success.

He has been saying this for how long with what result?

What is it called when one does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result?

Re:RMS said it best

[anyaristow]

However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or technically superior, because they will see that free software is ethically superior.

Blowing a mod point to say this is a geek pipe dream. Normal people don't give a rat's ass about geek dogma.

Re:RMS said it best

[unixisc]

This is a great point - couldn't agree more! By painting this issue in moral terms, which is standard w/ a sanctimonius prick such as RMS, he conveniently ignores or forgets (I think the former) that computers are tools that are supposed to make our jobs easier.

Nothing illustrates the fanaticism better than pages on the GNU website that list out the FSF's (i.e. RMS's) preferred distros. Normally, when one thinks of FOSS, what are the names that come to mind? Red Hat? Debian? Centos? Slackware? Gentoo? Arch? But noooooooooo, if you go to their page explaining why these all are not really free, you'll see bigotry that would make Jihadis blush - like Debian is impure for providing repositories to 'non-Free' (itself a retarded terminology) software as well as free, while some of the others don't have clear statements about their acceptance of non-Free software, so it's assumed that they allow mixing. BFD! Similarly for statements on whether every license under the sun is free or not - in the process, slamming OSS licenses from veteran FOSS vendors for whom GPL obviously doesn't work.

It's so bad that you know that when you see a distro boasting its 'freedom', you can safely conclude that it's also pretty unusable. In fact, if you look @ their trends, the more usable/functional/bug-free a software title is, the less free RMS is likely to find it. Of course, for him, since the only thing he seems to use is emacs, that works for him - which is also why a Yeedong laptop w/ a Loongson i.e. MIPS processor running GNewSense is fine for him - he doesn't need ANY compatibility w/ anything, except his beloved emacs. But the rest of us do need other things - be it Firefox (which has an unacceptable license), Libre Office, Avidemux, and so on. While some 'free' software like GIMP may well be pretty good, most of us would prefer a non-free Firefox to a free Epiphany. B'cos getting to actually do the things we either need to, or want to do is important.

Re:RMS said it best

[Howitzer86]

That doesn't matter. If you want to be an ethical person, you'll use Gnash over Flash, even if it barely functions.

To me it's like the debate over food. They say we're immoral for eating meat, even though our diet has always involved meat of some sort. We are omnivores... our most efficient diet involves a bit of everything. But that's not important. The important thing is that you don't eat meat, even if you're worse off because of it.

Of course, I think either position is hogwash but that's just me. I'll keep my closed source software and pork because my idea of morality and ethics are clearly different. How one goes about changing something so fundamental in people is anyone's guess.

You are taught from an early age the fundamentals of right and wrong. We are never taught a thing about opensource software or what it means or why its important we should use it above all else and no matter the cost. I'd guess, if you want to teach this kind of thinking, it would be best to start there, because by the time they are adults most of them will think its kinda silly. Kids are much easier to brainwash.

Re:RMS said it best

[lennier]

What is it called when one does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result?

Gumption, determination, enterprise, dedication, farsightedness, elbow grease, the old pioneering spirit, just plain hard work, stick-to-it-ive-ness? ;)

Re:RMS said it best

[lennier]

His use of the word "ethical" is troublesome. I think I understand what he means, but I guarantee that many people will interpret it as meaning that they are "unethical" if they don't run free software. I don't think that is what is intended (I might be wrong, I suppose). As a movement geared to *help* the user, using software that isn't free is unfortunate, but hardly unethical.

Not quite, I think.

If I understand RMS's position - his words make perfect sense to me as written, but it's possible I haven't parsed him correctly, so bear in mind I am talking about my own interpretation of his position - he's thinking about something much more deep and subtle than merely "helping the user". From his perspective, merely "getting stuff done" today is a very, very shallow consideration that doesn't really even rate on the evolutionary scale. He's talking about the long-term future of humanity, and he's very deeply worried about the issue that we are creating automated systems which we don't have full control over. A similar level of thinking comes from say, Ray Kurzweil, Ted Nelson, and Danny Hillis.

In the 1930s-1980, this kind of thinking was common. Computers were still new and strange, and there were many valid, deep worries about the future of automation, and they usually revolved around "when we build killer robots, or giant universal computer systems, will we forget to put in an OFF switch?" . But the problem today has morphed a little: now it's not a matter of "can we turn the systems off", but "WHO gets to control the systems?" And the answer today is still very concerning: more and more it is coming back as "not you, and you probably can't even find out who."

These are not small issues, they are very much ethical rather than commercial or even comforting, and may indeed be seen as off-putting or confrontational to everyday computer users. Since the mass adoption of home computing in the 1980s our generation has have grown up with the shiny humming beige boxes, so we tend to think we both understand and can control them. And that we still do have an "off" switch. But we don't, necessarily, anymore. We would be wrong to blindly assume there is no danger, or that an ethical analysis of computing is either irrelevant or wrong.

That's why I think RMS means literally the word "ethical", and means it seriously. He does indeed think it is as unethical, in an absolute sense, to use non-free software as an anti-nuclear-weapons compaigner might think it is unethical to pay taxes which support the development of nuclear weapons - in both cases, one is materially contributing to the development of technology which might literally enslave or destroy the human race in the future. You might not feel comfortable believing or accepting this, you might not want to be "blamed" or "made to feel guilty" - but the issue is nothing to do with your feelings or your comfort. We are all either creating the instruments of our destruction, or of our freedom, and the universe doesn't care how we feel about our part in that. It merely offers us the choice.

I feel that RMS is correct, yet I know that by his (and my own) standards I too am unethical, because I am still contributing to the nonfree-software machine. I run Windows as well as Linux, and I don't yet see how to stop. And my taxes indirectly do support the military state, so I'm unethical on that scale too. And I still buy non-organic food, and use global warming, rapidly depleting oil. But even if I don't know yet how to become 100% ethical, at least understanding that some of my current actions are unethical must be a step forward from pretending that all possible actions are equally ethically irrelevant.

Does that help?

Re:RMS said it best

[wrook]

Very interesting point of view. You are probably correct. I am probably projecting my own sense of values on RMS's thoughts. I will have to reflect on it a bit.

Re:RMS said it best

[DaveV1.0]

It is called insanity. And, to be honest, stupidity. The true secret to success is not "never give up". Rather, it is "Know when and why to give up and try something else."

The linux comunity is a bully

[darojasp]

I came to the same realization when I decided that my wife's live was simpler if she stick using windows In those times the X server tended to die from time to time and that was a worry I didn't want to put on her. However I think canonical has been doing a good labour in making linux a household desktop name, but what did they got from it, the whole community bullies them as sells outs. Frankly, I guess geeks don't want linux to succeed in the desktop so it can keep being something of the “elite,” despite geeks evangelizing their friends about using linux, the don't want it too be too popular. Just like when you found an underground band, and you got to love it, and you presented it to your friends, but the day it appeared on Mtv you felt they sold out.

Wait wait wait

[ifwm]

If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open, then you're just as bad as Apple is with their locked-down-only stuff.

So, if I insist on using a driver that is free and open, that's as bad as "locked-down" Apple hardware? How much crack have you smoked to think that makes sense?

Re:Wait wait wait

[jythie]

The person has a point. Both cases are attempting to force a manufacturer to play by the OS developer's rules rather then their own. People tend to forget that forcing people to open up is still forcing, the fact that it benefits them personally does not change this.

Re:Wait wait wait

[gbjbaanb]

yep, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. Just because you insist on one extreme over the other (and therefore claim your view is good, while the opposing view is evil), the reality is that they're both extreme positions that attempt to impose your ideals on someone else.

Sure, I like OSS, but there is still the argument that a closed environment allows a company more freedom (internally) to produce better products knowing that they can make more money from it, thus encouraging them to do so.

The graphics driver issue is one anomaly in the OSS world though, I agree OSS is better than closed, but I'm quite happy to use a proprietary driver for a gfx card as I need to buy that card and the driver only works with that card. So it doesn't matter if its free and open or not. When I buy a new card, I expect the best driver there is to work with it, regardless of openness.
If this means I have to 'suffer' a closed driver, then that makes no difference to me. It definitely makes a difference to me if the only driver available is poor though.

Hence my position that the "only open" view is just as extreme as the "everything closed" view.

That's not the problem either

[dbIII]

Firstly, now I have a sane desktop environment which doesn't change often.

At work I'm using the Ganymede desktop theme for Enlightenment 0.16 just like I have since 1997 and many computers ago. You need a different strawman to burn since there are a choice of quite a few sane desktop environments which don't change often. Even if you pick gnome to bitch at you can still have the old gnome in the current RHEL and CentOS along with most likely many others.

But until they settle on a DE

Before Linux even existed CDE proved that the hardly anyone is serious about wanting a common desktop environment unless they are in some way connected. Even Microsoft Windows has moved through a range of desktop environments and is now trying out one that differs a great deal from their previous desktop.

Re:That's not the problem either

[smash]

Lol. Because E16 is totally comparable to the frameworks you get with OS X that applications can actually use. Point being, OS X is updated, applications can use new features, but the workflow hasn't changed since about 2000. And CDE failed because it was SHITE.

Re:That's not the problem either

[dbIII]

I'm talking about the behaviour of a window manager not an entire system. Thus OS X and E16 can be directly compared and be contrasted to the Win98 to Win7 transition over the same time period.

Re:That's not the problem either

[smash]

The lack of a cohesive development framework is a major cause of the problems with Linux on the desktop. Every X months all your apps change because new version of GTK/KDE/QT or whatever comes out, breaks backwards compatibility and all the apps need to be updated or replaced. Different apps use different UI toolkits and don't talk to one another properly.

Linux workstations are easy to sell

[Kagetsuki]

If the conditions are right. Hospitals running electronic karte software for example are quite receptive to using Linux workstations - there's even vendors that specialize in low profile Linux workstations for hospitals for exactly this reason. Schools can be quite receptive too. You just need to know your customer and find a way that Linux will fit their needs. Also, consider selling Linux as a service - offering a yearly support contract alone will instill enough confidence to make sales and in many cases it ends up being cheaper than hiring a dedicated administrator to deal with constantly breaking MS setups.

Experience

[Oasiz]

I think one of the biggest issues is training and support.

People have been using windows for years and most who want to try linux are happy to do so. Problems arise when something breaks up and you and nobody else has no idea how to fix it (aside from some linux guru you might know who is already pissed off at dealing with so many linux issues that people have). You simply don't know what to do that well. Sure you can google but it just gets more and more frustrating since you are not actually solving the problems, more like applying solutions blindly.
This gets reflected when you suggest / do a install for an average user, if something breaks up they turn to you.
Do you really want to say that you have no idea what they should do or suggest them to do stuff inside terminal just to get their stuff working?
This is one of the reasons I don't even want to suggest macs. While I have used them and I know that the average user might be "better off" using them but I kinda feel responsibility after turning people for their purchase. If they need help, they are ducked. Unless they know some "mac-expert".

Back to Linux..
I've had so many instances where people wonder why they can't open file format X properly or save as "proprietary & more supported/familiar" file format Y. Sure you can do many hacks to get things to working but at the end of the day you realize that they are so much better off just using windows where
they can just buy an, say, webcam or a printer and not worry about the fact that will it work on their system or not.
Ugly truth is that windows supports almost everything on the PC market out there, even the average users can pop the DVD in and install the software, unlike where in linux you might need to start poking at some stuff since the support might exist but you have a rev B instead of rev A and won't work out of the box like that (just an example).

Linux does a lot of thigs, but some of those things are half-done. You might have 10 different ways to perform a task (different programs) but in the end you actually just want one that works. This is what Apple has kinda been doing as well. Everytime you start windows you can be sure that the programs are the same or just evolved versions of their former versions where with Linux distros they might change the distributed application between versions and you suddenly need to learn a totally new program.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Linux on the desktops someday but at the moment it's just too much of an hassle and is more like a hipster-OS when it comes to desktop computing.. Yes, I just said that. I currently do use debian on my server and loving it, I haven't really been using the GUI for a few years aside from occasional quick sessions. :)

It's about what's familiar

[sohmc]

People who grew up with using Windows at work want to be able to use it at home. They don't want to learn something new. This is the same reason why office computers use Windows. Most of their employees are used to using Windows. Instead of spending money on training, they slap windows on a machine and call it a day.

It's a catch-22.

But iOS has actually become such a popular OS that I can see this shifting. People want the ease of the iPhone and want their computer to "just work". Granted, OS X and Macs provide a lot of the framework to do just that, but again, why buy a Mac and then have to learn something new?

It doesn't make it right. It just makes it popular.

It's not about marketing

[grumbel]

What Linux needs isn't marketing, what it needs is to become the better product. Back in the Windows98 days one could make some good arguments for Linux in terms of stability, security and such, but those days are long gone and Microsoft and Apples OS offerings are just as stable as your Linux box these days, if not even more so. Which doesn't leave much arguments for Linux on the desktop. In terms of usability it's a complete clusterfuck, the user interfaces are an inconsistent non-backward compatible mess (we used to complain about QT looking different then GTK, now GTK3 apps don't even look like GTK2 apps), the packaging formats are all incompatible (even if everything uses .deb, it's still all incompatible) and there still isn't a standard way to ship third party applications on Linux. The fact that it is all Free Software is essentially irrelevant as it rarely povides the user with any pratical benefits over a proprietary alternative (data formats from one app can't be handled by another, etc.). Security is also rather terrible for a desktop OS, as it provides little to no sandboxing for applications, thus making it risky to try third party applications.

In essence, stop complaining about lack of games, hardware suport or third party support. While those are holding Linux back, they are in large part simply the result of the underlying framework being rather shit. If it would be trivial to build and distribute Linux software, a lot more people might actually do so, but it's not, so the support overhead is rarely worth the effort.

Re:It's not about marketing

[jones_supa]

Back in the Windows98 days one could make some good arguments for Linux in terms of stability, security and such, but those days are long gone and Microsoft and Apples OS offerings are just as stable as your Linux box these days, if not even more so.

That is true — actually Linux has become more buggy than Windows.

Don't require the user to think

[Shivetya]

Beyond having usable applications Linux aficionados need to acknowledge the fact that the majority of people just want the damn to work and they don't want to have to try very hard to get things to work that don't.

Oh, make it pretty too.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[jimshatt]

Don't require readers to think when reading your sentences. For example, you might want to try using interpunction.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[CastrTroy]

Which brings up the solution. Since Linux is free to distribute, that is, no licensing costs, wouldn't it be worth it for someone like HP or Dell to sell Linux computers, and use amount saved on licenses for better customer care. Somebody like HP is big enough to push around hardware manufacturers to get hardware drivers that actually do work. If a big company really took Linux seriously, then I think there's nothing really stopping it from getting at least as popular as Mac OS, most likely taking away market share from Windows.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[gtall]

Customer conversation with HP:

Customer: Hi there, I need a new computer.

HP: What does it need to do?

Customer: Well, I need it to run MS Office mainly.

HP: Okay, here's one, it runs Windows and hence will run MS Office.

Customer: Thank you.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[icebraining]

PC vendors make their margins by pre-installing crapware on their machines. The lack of crapware for Linux means they'd lose money, even if they gained from not having to buy the Windows licenses.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[omglolbah]

Either HP or Dell did sell machines with linux installed for a while. I know.. because a friend of mine bought one..

It took less than a week for her to return it for a windows machine...

* No fullscreen flash video playback
* Every time she opened a video in the default video player she would get a font error message.
* Several websites she used would not work properly due to a java issue.. Following the usual directions to get it fixed did not work.

The list goes on. While most 'geeks' can figure this all out, to someone who does not know the command line it can be quite challenging..
For 'security' they also disabled sshd on the machine so it was annoying as hell to go through the procedure to configure and get that running to even be able to remotely help.

It takes just one such meet with Linux to forever label it "shit" in someone's mind.

While a great idea, the execution is severely lacking in the attempts that have been made :(

Re:Don't require the user to think

[jones_supa]

If LibreOffice at some point reaches good MS Office document compatibility then at least that conversation could be different.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[fnj]

I had an English teacher who rather unfairly called sentences with more than a couple of clauses "sentence diarrhea", but that would be a stretch in this case. When you come down to it there is nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence. You might want a comma after "applications", but no other punctuation is warranted.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[Reservoir Penguin]

More likely:

Customer: Well, I spent most of the time on facebook and twitter and check mail with gmail, and surf for some porn.
HP: Ok, Linux it is then.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[Bing Tsher E]

Ok. So Linux will get the people who sit in chat rooms and watch porn.

Windows will get the people who create spreadsheets and presentations.

Anybody see the problem with this?

Re:Don't require the user to think

[Doctor_Jest]

Hell, if MS Office would have good compatibility between its own versions, I'd be happy at work. :) LibreOffice is a great alternative to the bloat, cruft, and asinine 'features' of MS Office. It's not just because it's free, either. It's because it works and works well. The only difference is the big logo and "comfort" feeling bean-counters get with MS Office (I'm guessing...)

There's a reason most people stick with a previous version of Office for so long... it's because the more recent version breaks things and adds features no one requested. That's not to say MS Office doesn't have its place in the computer canon... it's just that people seem to overlook the huge flaws in Microsoft's own compatibility.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[BlackCreek]

If LibreOffice at some point reaches good MS Office document compatibility then at least that conversation could be different.

The only issue with that is that people keep repeating it since about 1997. (I use Linux as my *only* OS since 95 ;-))

Re:Don't require the user to think

[Reservoir Penguin]

Office365 is booming.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[Rolgar]

Manufacture's sell installs to software on Windows to offset the price difference between Linux and Windows. Heck, if they install enough software, they might make as much profit with a lower price on the Windows machine.

When somebody buys a computer, it comes with some antivirus package on it. Norton, McAfee or some other. "Free" games might be installed. Other software is often included. When the PC vendor sells the machine, they price it based on a certain markup over the cost of producing the machine. If they can sell an install, then they reduce the cost of the machine an appropriate amount, do to the fact that that's what their competitors do for a price advantage.

I went to buy my father-in-law a new machine last Father's Day, found a great deal on a machine from Office Depot, like $415 after tax. The guy at the store was trying to talk me into letting them clean the machine of junk software (Geek Squad at Best Buy does the same thing) for a price.

On more expensive machines, the vendors often omit these programs, but people in that price range probably don't balk at the price of a windows license at $60.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[jimshatt]

Well, "people just want the damn to work" might indeed be grammatically correct. "they", in "and they don't want to" is superfluous, but grammatically correct as well. I would stop the sentence at "and" and start a new sentence starting with "They don't want to". But that's just me. In any case, my sentence-parsing-stack nearly overflowed when reading that sentence. But it could just be me. I'm generally not a grammar Nazi, I just wanted to be snarky for once...

Re:Don't require the user to think

[dosware]

Customer conversation with HP:

Customer: Hi there, I need a new computer.

HP: What does it need to do?

Customer: Well, I need avoid the viruses.

HP: We's gots the Windows.

Customer: Thank you.

Re:Don't require the user to think

[gottabeme]

But if people have those same problems in Windows, they don't send the machine back. :/

And people don't mind the malware and garbage? Well, they don't mind the junk on TV either, so I guess it makes sense.

Why? I have reasons...

[Lumpy]

Here are the reasons why my non techie wife loves linux over windows.

1 - her computer just works. I dont need to take it and work on it for a weekend here and there. it Just works all the time.
2 - backups and upgrades lose nothing at all. When I do a complete OS upgrade most of the time she never notices. Only the last Ubuntu change to the Unity desktop has she noticed that it is different. All her app settings and even the desktop wallpaper is effortless to backup and restore.
3 - effortless free software. She installs a lot of her own software from the computer on her own. Apple recently did this as well and it is the future for the typical user.

4 - No viruses. And yes this is a fact contrary to all you fanbois. She cant get any of the viruses or trojan horses and spyware that all her friends seem to get weekly on their windows machines. IT just does not happen.

Drawbacks she does not like.

Cant use itunes. This has become a moot point with icloud and her iphone and ipad. she could care less about itunes anymore.
Print spooler still get's finicky at times. Honestly the linux print spooler is great until a printer screws up. For some reason still to this day the linux print spooler does not recover on it's own gracefully. I still have to re start the print spooler to get it to flush the waiting jobs. But we have had no problems at all with printers. In fact the brand new HP color laser we just bought was EASIER to install on her linux box than it was on the Windows 7 machine I have. Yes, Linux is EASIER to install hardware than Windows 7.

Once in a while she complains that she cant install some cupon printer, until I point out that that "printer" is a trojan horse that causes many of the issues her friends have.

She is a light user. Internet, and College masters classes. She understands that professors are not bright demanding "MS WORD ONLY" and turns in Libre office documents saved as word all the time and is acing her classes and never has had any complaints. This is her 5th year using linux for home and School. And yes she plays all those damned games on facebook without problems.

Linux = zero problems desktop for free. You cant get that for a home PC vwithout paying for Apple hardware.

And yes, we used her linux laptop for taxes this year.

Here's the truth

[kelemvor4]

It'll start selling when it runs all the latest games and apps with no special configuration or anything. Also, a user needs to be able to use pretty much every feature without even being aware there is a command line interface just like windoze or OSX. You could get around at least the first requirement if you managed to make it 'trendy' like Gucci, Prada, or Apple; but requiring any skill at all to use it is definitely not going to fly.

Re:Here's the truth

[Robert Zenz]

That's like saying "I'll drive Mercedes if the Audi-Speedometer finally works in it!".

Re:Here's the truth

[kelemvor4]

That's like saying "I'll drive Mercedes if the Audi-Speedometer finally works in it!".

Only if the majority of car buyers wanted their car specifically because they wanted an Audi-Speedometer. Most people don't care about details like that, they want their computer to run their games and apps, and they want it to do those things without much hassle. They might be willing to give up the functionality of running their games/apps as long as it's trendy, and still hassle-free. That's how I see it, anyway.

Re:Here's the truth

[buddyglass]

More like saying "I'll drive Mercedes when they're allowed on normal roads instead of just the track."

Linux==Religion

[ThirdPrize]

TFA is quite interesting. His problem is not with Linux, but with his belief in it. It sounded a bit like one of those articles where the "religious believer" starts to question why their particular "god" inflicts so much suffering on the world. I am sure that all that is keeping the notion of the Linux Desktop alive is the belief of all those "Gnomies" out there that it is a real possibility. Should they all however "wake up and smell the coffee" then /. may collapse.

Are you sure it's the marketing?

[Kjella]

I switched to Linux full time in 2007 after dabbling with it on and off since around 1999, I switched back to Win7 in 2011 after three and a half years and it wasn't because of Microsoft's marketing message. The reasons were complicated but one of them was that very often I got dragged into problems I didn't want. For example one classic was that I discover a new feature in an application I want. Is that version in my distro? No. Can I find a backport? No. Okay but I can upgrade my distro. Oh, new version has regressions. Oh, upgrade is buggy but problem goes away if I do a clean install - it's the "Why should you reinstall every 6 months" for Linux. One of the great reliefs I've had on Windows is that I can install the latest version and it won't end up hosing the base system.

Without further ado I'll just state the next one simply: There's quite a few Windows applications that either have no counterpart in Linux, lacks features, is buggy or user-unfriendly and WINE/VirtualBox is not always a solution - in particular WINE constantly needs tweaks and has regressions. Saying "you got what you paid for" makes it sound like you had a choice when there is no choice to pay for commercial software, it's either find some way to live with it or ditch Linux altogether. There's many times I wish I could have put down $20 or $50 or $100 for a Linux port and not deal with the OSS abomination. The "all or nothing" approach tends to make people choose nothing, particularly since a lot of good OSS runs on Windows too.

The only part I really miss in Windows is some kind of application update center, where software could register URLs to check for upgrades so you could do it all at once instead of every app running their own updater, not from mostly one repository like on Linux but still centrally managed. Overall though I can't really say I've missed Linux, it's okay enough if Windows turns to shit but it's not a very compelling value even though the cost is very low. But since some now live in the browser I suspect they'll be happy with Facebook, Facebook Chat, Webmail, YouTube etc. and the actual platform is irrelevant. OTOH "switch to Linux, you won't notice the difference" isn't that good a selling point...

Re:Are you sure it's the marketing?

[deimios666]

Try Secunia PSI. It is a security patch scanner but as a sideeffect it also updates most of the known windows applications.

Re:Are you sure it's the marketing?

[DeeEff]

"Why should you reinstall every 6 months"

You're right. You shouldn't. Try a rolling release next time.

Suggest the correct tool for the task

[arikol]

When suggesting a computer or an OS thens listen to what the person wants to do and suggest a system that supports that.

Liking a certain ideology is fine, but that can't blind us to the real world. If I can't complete the task I want/need to complete then that system is useless.
That means that Linux is useless for gaming, has limited CAD capabilities (the main programs are not available), lacks good audio recording/mixing options (lacks the professional applications, although Reaper has fixed this somewhat), and doesn't have many big games. Linux is insanely flexible, but needs technical know-how if any real changes are to be made.
Mac lacks games (those that are released are always behind the Win versions), costs more to begin with, and has lacked CAD software (that is improving right now), but is easier to use and comes with a good default setup.
Windows has an amazing selection of software in almost all classes, but has usability issues, needs more maintenance than a Mac or a well set up Linux machine, malware issues etc. and a worse setup out of the box (and I can back that up with empirical data)

So, for the engineer or CAD student, gamer, or business software user, suggest Windows.
For the casual gamer who needs to work with graphics, text, or sound, then Mac is easiest
And for anyone who is willing to put in time to learn their tools, or wants to play around with systems, Linux. Cheap home media centre? Linux FTW!

All have their pros and cons. Select (and suggest) what fits the user, not yourself..(of course, if you have to provide support then factor in your ease with whatever OS it is. But if you're comfortable with Linux then you can figure the others out...)

Here comes the Audit

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked at tiny companies and Fortune10 companies. Dealing with Microsoft is very different, but in the end, the results are still the same for both. You are screwed. The problem cannot be resolved. MS will sell you professional services to fix it, but they will leave after 6 months and your problems will still exist after you've been forced to drink more MS Koolaid.
* Install AD
* Install DHCP
* Install SMS
* Install AV
* Install Sharepoint
* Install Exchange
* Install MS-SQL
* You forgot the CALs - start buying

The first Kooaid sip of anything from Microsoft demands you accept the entire barrel of Koolaid from Microsoft.

A few years later, you get a nice letter from MS saying that you agreed to being audited in your software license EULA, so please determine all your installed products and let us know. You have 2 weeks.

Now i have my own companies. We only use MS stuff when we absolutely must. Currently, that is 1 VM running QuickBooks. EVERYTHIHNG - EVERYTHING else is Linux. Desktops, servers, routers ... everything.

Re:Here comes the Audit

[smash]

Or, you know you do it the right way, and go to MS and say "we have x,000 desktops, we want licenses for everything on them", you hand over $x00,000 and install whatever you like. Whilst those numbers sound big, the amount of time saved in fucking around with broken shitware and lack of driver support for hardware is more than repaid.

Emperor's New Clothes Day again?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real. So what if it's free? Support is terrible and most products aren't accessible if you're not familiar with the programming environment enough to compile source code. People want to USE their computers, not tinker and brag about them.

Also, as if it hasn't been said a thousand times, no gaming worth talking about.

Re:Emperor's New Clothes Day again?!!

[ArcherB]

Get real. So what if it's free? Support is terrible and most products aren't accessible if you're not familiar with the programming environment enough to compile source code. People want to USE their computers, not tinker and brag about them.

Also, as if it hasn't been said a thousand times, no gaming worth talking about.

This is no longer true. I have not compiled a single thing in years. Sure, I can if I want to, but why? Of course, this is not to say that things have not been compiled on my machine. I've run some install scripts that seem to be compiling, but they require no input from me. Proprietary video drivers are an example. The only requirement was that I had to have the kernel source code downloaded which was as easy and clicking on it in Synaptic.

I don't remember the last time I had to "make" anything.

Gaming? Can't help you there. You do know you can buy an X-Box360 for the price of Windows7 Ultimate, right?

Re:Emperor's New Clothes Day again?!!

[e70838]

The first thing that feels strange after migrating to Linux is that you do not spend time tinkering. I have tinkered a bit grub menu when it was grub 1. Now, with grub 2, I have nothing to do. Wine works fine for photoshop and kitsune (I was too lazy to compile it). In fact, I have not compiled anything (except personal programs) since I played with linux from scratch 5 years ago. I use my computer. You are 10 years retarded and you completely missed the point.

Re:Emperor's New Clothes Day again?!!

[Deathmoo]

The moving target is what will make it hard for commercial developers to target Linux. I would use more Linux on the desktop (I use Win7 mostly now-a-days) if gaming worked under Linux (which it would if you could develop for ONE platform under Linux - which is really maybe what Linux is really lacking?). Yes I know Wine is decent, and is leaps and bounds ahead of where we were even 5 years ago.

Having said that, my machine at home has a pretty new video card, and was built for gaming, I'm not going to install a second rate (for that purpose only) OS on it, and fight trying to get new game "X" to work under wine. I know it is possible to make it happen, but I just don't care enough to spend the time. That is GAMING time, not Hack time. (Hack time is fun too.. but my gaming machine is kind of a temple at which I worship - I know I have deeper problems than my choice of desktop OS, lol!)

If you are seriously telling me to go get an XBox for gaming, I can seriously tell you don't know a lot about PC gamers. PC gaming is the e-peen-ultimate gaming platform, and has been for years. I have an XBox. Haven't powered it on in months. Why would I, almost every good game is available for the Microsoft Windows platform. And damn does Windows 7 work nice and slick, and fast, and damn does it look good doing it.

This coming from someone that actually does believe that MOST people don't do ANYTHING with their PCs running Windows, that they couldn't accomplish using Linux. Most people don't even do ANY word processing nowadays... All they need is a web kiosk, doesn't matter the OS, as it rarely even runs local software (YMMV, just what I've seen from lots of "average" users at home). It's just that my use-case favors Windows. Heavily.

Because of marketing

[mlwmohawk]

I recently switched my wife over from Macintosh to Ubuntu when I got her a new laptop. She was a little disconnected at first, but once she started looking form the menu in the application, it made more sense to her. The transition was fairly easy, I had to do some tricks to get her email over to Thunderbird, but it was doable. After a couple months, she doesn't even miss the mac.

I don't believe that the Linux desktop is any less ready for the desktop than Windows or Mac, in fact, in a lot of ways I think it is a better choice. If it had money and marketing behind it, it would be an easy sell. Alas, since it is free, who has the money.

Linux is comming soon

[na1led]

Linux has struggled to get the attention of the masses because we live in a Windows World. Microsoft has made its mark long ago, and that mark has stuck to everyone's mind. All that is changing because of Google's Android operating system. Android is basically Linux, and since it's so popular, people wouldn't have a problem using it as their desktop OS. With so many apps already available, it's seems like the perfect choice to replace Windows. Soon, there will be 3 contenders to the Desktop Market, Microsoft, Apple, and Google.

Long term update support

[nurbles]

My personal beef with Linux over the past several years is the rather large difficulty in getting support for an older version. I can still install Windows XP from a 10 year old CDROM, connect to the internet and have it update itself to the latest version of WinXP. Try that with a ten year old version of linux! Now, I'm not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE (though sometimes it has proved to be so) to get ten year old linux updated, but you are very, VERY unlikely to find any apt or yum or whatever software repositories being maintained or even still on line for those old linux versions. Linux update support seems to be all about "recent" -- somewhere between "now" and "12-24 months ago." If you want "now" updates, you must get them from the developer directly (for example, the latest bind updates take a fair amount of time to appear in the Ubuntu repositories.) If your system, for whatever reason (e.g. you think it is stable and want it to keep running for a while) gets a bit too far behind in updates, then you're out of luck and need to install the next version of the OS from scratch and then reinstall all of your stuff (much like going from XP to Win7) or you can go ultra-tech-geek and scour the internet for updated, but still compatible source packages that you can manually build and install to replace your aging packages.

I'm sure this isn't the only (or even the primary) reason for poor linux desktop adoption, but it is a factor and has become an support issue for more than a few.

Re:Long term update support

[Robert Zenz]

... and need to install the next version of the OS from scratch and then reinstall all of your stuff (much like going from XP to Win7) or ...

No repro here. I've reinstalled my Desktop system (Ubuntu) multiple times from scratch, all I needed to do afterwards was to reinstall the software (that's point and click in synaptic).

Also, if you have a server (which is connected to the internet) which falls 24+ months behind in updates, you have a bigger problem. If it is not connected to the internet...who cares about updates then anyway as long as it runs?

Re:Long term update support

[nurbles]

No repro here. I've reinstalled my Desktop system (Ubuntu) multiple times from scratch, all I needed to do afterwards was to reinstall the software (that's point and click in synaptic).

That's close to what it is for Windows users, too. BUT... if this happened on a mail server machine, there is SO MUCH MORE than point'n'click after a scratch OS install that it isn't funny. And that doesn't count the pieces of the mail system that have been discontinued, replaced by something different, massively changed so that old config no longer works, etc. The same may sometimes be true of end-user programs as well.

Also, if you have a server (which is connected to the internet) which falls 24+ months behind in updates, you have a bigger problem. If it is not connected to the internet...who cares about updates then anyway as long as it runs?

Not necessarily. A business values stability, so once a server is working correctly, one would prefer to apply security updates only in order to have as little affect on stability as possible. However, I've encountered security patches that required me to install a new version of the compiler (and sometimes, additional NEW language compilers/interpreters) and once, even the new compiler wouldn't work on my nice, stable server. Everything needed to be upgraded by hand, by discovering and downloading source packages one at a time and eventually, the whole thing stopped working because one of the libraries required by the mail system needed to be updated for one of the security patches and then it didn't work with the mail software! If I had been willing to completely re-install the operating system every year, then restore all of the mail users, their mail, all of the mail server config -- assuming none of that changed (Ha!) -- and then test all of those changes or in other words, spend at least a day or two with NO MAIL service, then several more days testing and debugging.

Ahem. Sore subject with me after an actual automatic software update replaced dovecot 1.x with dovecot 2.x without warning me that the 1.x configuration was totally incompatible with and different from the 2.x build.

Re:Long term update support

[Centurix]

No repro here. I've reinstalled my Desktop system (Ubuntu) multiple times from scratch, all I needed to do afterwards was to reinstall the software (that's point and click in synaptic).

Before the re-install:

sudo dpkg --get-selections > packages.txt

After the re-install:

sudo dpkg --clear-selections
sudo dpkg --set-selections packages.txt
sudo aptitude install

It's easier for the REAL tech support

[Dr. Manhattan]

My 80-yr-old mother uses Linux.

This.

I have my parents on Linux. They used to use Windows, but I got them on Firefox and Thunderbird, and then switching them over was easy. Now when we come over for dinner, I'm not spending half an hour or more cleaning out malware and untangling registry cruft and so on. If they have a problem when I'm not around, I can SSH in and tweak it.

In the real world, most people don't know how to administer a computer, be it Windows or Linux or even Mac. So they get their brother or sister or kids or their friend who's "good with computers" to support them. (My wife got me a t-shirt to wear to family reunions that says, "No, I will not fix your computer.") So if you're going to be supporting someone's computer, shouldn't it be a system that's easier to support?

Re:It's easier for the REAL tech support

[Achra]

I agree with this absolutely. I have a mother-in-law that literally lives across the country from me. I don't get over there all that often to work on the thing and it used to be a malware nightmare no matter how much prophylactic I would install. It's also an older computer, something I built for her almost 10 years ago (a Duron 800mhz, I believe!). Well, last summer, I took a stack of my old computer garbage to upgrade the platform as far as it would go and a XUbuntu disk. At first, my mother-in-law didn't much care for it, but before a couple months were out, she was a huge fan. The fact is that linux requires LESS support than Windows. It just works, works the way I set it up. It isn't tangled with malware or part of a botnet. It hasn't torn itself apart with its own self-loathing (like windows is wont to do). I even installed a fairly staggering selection of games from the humble bundle so that grandkids would still have games to play. I had converted her to firefox & thunderbird years ago, so those applications were still familiar to her, and to be honest, those are almost the only applications that she uses (and I'll bet those are almost the only applications your grandma uses too!). The fact is that the LESS computer saavy the user, the easier it is for them to switch to Linux.

Re:Because it sucks

[jonamous]

I've had quite to opposite experience. I've been using GNU/Linux and BSD for 12 or 13 years (still dual-booted my desktop for flight simulator and other games until recently). The biggest problems I had were wireless connectivity on laptops in the early/mid-2000s - easily resolvable with NDISWrapper or something like LinuxAnt. More recently, hybrid graphics have presented battery life problems on a Vaio laptop I own - using VGASwitcheroo fixes that and the script can be mapped to my hardware "speed" and "battery life" switch. I've used Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu (I think starting with Breezy Badger), a few others for brief stints (Gentoo, Backtrack), back and forth between Fedora and Ubuntu and finally settling on Arch. In each case, the install and setup is quite simple and - with the exception of Slackware - package management is quite easy on all of them. Certainly, things have improved noticeably, especially over the last four or five years but I don't think there was a point where I ever thought "boy this sucks", which was the thought I had back with Windows 98 and Windows ME which caused me to go to Linux as primary OS in the first place.

Why would anyone want to use Linux?

[Robert Zenz]

Because all the cool stuff is only available on Linux: conky, devilspie (or even better window managers), multiple panels, terminals/shells (which are actually usable), ssh, package management software...the possibility to opt out of stuff you don't want (Metro, Unity, Gnome3...)...

But I have bad news for you anyway, asking a bunch of geeks what they want is different from asking a bunch of "OMG IT'S SO SHINY" guys. Hint: We're the minority.

Re:Why would anyone want to use Linux?

[WrecklessSandwich]

Now make that sales pitch to your (grand)parents. Suddenly, the problem is clear.

It's the applications, not the OS

[erroneus]

My son is a game-playing teenage boy who has had his laptop compromised too many times. I put him on Linux (an Ubuntu flavor... I'm a redhat guy myself) and he has been able to do 100% of his social networking, web browsing, chatting and all that. He even manages his iPhone and stuff with it.

Recently, he got a new Lenovo laptop running Windows7 but he doesn't want to give up his Linux -- it has been stable and reliable. He uses the Lenovo to play some game which is only available on PC and will not play under Wine. Interestingly, he only uses the laptop for that game using his Linux laptop for everything else.

It's all about the applications and when you remind people of why they use computers, they begin to see the point. Many things "Microsoft" and "Windows Only" are becoming less relevant while others remain as necessary or irreplacable as ever. There is definitely no "Linux for all occasions." Accept it for what it is. It's not a religion even if people tend to treat it as if it were.

Easy sell for me

[GameboyRMH]

It would be hard to explain to the average user but Windows and OSX seem like toys compared to Linux. Linux is Serious Business and is years ahead feature-wise.

But the features the average user would be interested in are:

- MASSIVELY cheaper than the competition, making the switch will save you LOTS of money, and lots of work in the long term, although setup requires more effort
- Change PC parts, or the whole PC, without a care in the world! The OS won't fail to boot, or lock you out because it suspects you of being a filthy pirate.
- Lower system requirements - jump off the upgrade treadmill and move at your own pace!
- Viruses are practically a non-issue.
- Possible to fix problems you'd just have to live with on Windows/OSX.

Of course there are the big downsides - running recent Windows games is a crapshoot, there's a good chance your wireless card will act up (yes even today), and they may run into a few apps they have trouble replacing or running on Linux.

Re:Easy sell for me

[kenh]

- MASSIVELY cheaper than the competition, making the switch will save you LOTS of money, and lots of work in the long term, although setup requires more effort

And the day the average user reaches into their pocket to pay for an OS, rather than have it bundked with their hardware purchase, that just might matter.

The only people that buy retail copies of Windows OS are people that either need a specific version for work OR are building their own system. When a new OS comes out, people use it as a sign to update their computer, they don't run out and buy a retail pack on launch day...

Re:Easy sell for me

[Swampash]

Yes, that real genuine UNIX sure does seem like a toy next to Linux.

Those aren't desktop benefits

[sirwired]

Every single one of those benefits is to people developing system-level applications. Every single one. They're all true, but they are also completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The population of people that need to do such things is so small, it's utterly insignificant. That's not what anybody (except you) is referring to when they say "desktops".

Re:Those aren't desktop benefits

[ratboy666]

Insignificant? Only as far as current use of computers is defined by capability. How about home transcoding of videos? I guess applications can be re-deployed into Windows, but the bulk of the work in this space is on POSIX systems.

How about support infrastructure for home computers?

My music player crashed (no, Linux does not make for a perfect system). The event was logged into the crash processor, which then allowed me to report the issue. On digesting the crash, the crash processor suggested that a fix was already available, and in testing. It advised me as to the fix to apply. Couldn't have worked in a closed source infrastructure, unless the media player and OS were controlled by the same company.

Wait -- they are if using Microsoft Windows! Doesn't Microsoft have something like this available?

The advantage of GPL and peer review are working to this users desktop advantage.

Ignores one obvious fact

[Dcnjoe60]

The summary ignores one obvious fact. BSD has done quite well on the desktop. It's called OS X. And while BSD is not Linux, it shows that the problem is not OS specific.

  What keeps Linux from repeating that success is that there isn't a large sponsor of it in the PC industry and Microsoft doesn't release Office for it.

Re:Ignores one obvious fact

[buddyglass]

OS X is BSD "with a ton of other stuff on top". If Apple had chosen "Linux" as the core of its operating system then, yes, I could see "Linux" succeeding on the desktop. When people use the term "Linux" here, though, they basically mean "existing distros" and not "just the kernel". As to large sponsors, yes, but I'd suggest that "any old large sponsor" wouldn't do. BSD (in the form of OS X) became successful due to the unique success of Apple. If Lenovo decided to roll out its own Linux-based OS on its devices I would be highly pessimistic about its chances.

Does Linux Even Have A Choice?

[bmo]

If one makes the presumption that the modern IT is all about the internets, then you have to ask yourself 'Does the Linux even have a choice in this matter ?'

A modern computing system is not one that is run from the DOS command line - it is a system that is tied in with the internet instead. Just have a look at Windows 7 with Aero for an example of this done right.

You need the outlook to connect in with the mass of email flowing around us every day. And then there is document collaboration - the sharing of Wordfiles and Excels between users across state boundries ! Voice over IP, internet enabled 'surface' computing, and voice command interfaces - all tied together with .NET and the Aero interface.

The driving force behind this internet is the Microsoft Sharepoint Server - a central peice of systems software which connects all these end points together, in a synergistic kaleidoscope that achieves both balance and symmetry.

The smart Vendors know that in order to get ahead in the future IT, that means integrating with the internet.

And so, we will see more and vendors of the Linux remit their legal obligations to Microsoft, and then benefit by getting onboard the .NET revolution.

just continue to provide a better experience

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as it was evident that I was to be mr PC Fixit guy at the small company I work for, I quickly tired of trying to figure out why this PC or that PC wasn't working right and wiped everything from Windows and installed Ubuntu Linux. Now everything "just works" and most of the 20 users have ditched windows at home for Ubuntu so they can have that worry free computing experience. Ultimately, Commercial Operating systems are designed to extract money from your wallet first and foremost, the Linux focus has always been on providing the best user experience and in the end Apple and MS cannot survive.

Re: Installation

[Lonewolf666]

In my experience, either Windows or Linux can be easier, depending on hardware.

I've had Ubuntu Lucid Lynx install and run without any additional work on my self-assembled PC from 2007. That clearly beats installing Windows on the same (or my current) PC, where I have to manually install drivers for at least
-the graphics card
-and onboard audio

On the other hand, getting a Soundblaster Audigy to run under Linux on my current PC required fiddling with the settings in Alsamixer, and it was not well documented at all thet you have to "switch off" the "Analog/Digital Jack". That cost me some time digging through forums and made it a more annoying experience than installing Windows.

But overall, if you have to install from scratch I think the non.geeks would not be happy with either Windows or Linux. What works in favor of Windows is that it comes preinstalled on so many PCs.

Linux preinstalled on the desktop...

[bmo]

An interesting concept perhaps, but one ultimately doomed to failure.

I would hazard to suggest that such a venture would be like fissling good seed onto barren ground, when one considers the target market for this ambitious venture.

Firstly, let us consider the target market. Those who would purchase a Dell computer with the linux installed, typically do so with one factor predominant in their mind's eye. That is - they choose the linux in order to save money. Any venture that invested resources in providing training services to this market is at a disadvantage from the first day, since that market has already classified itself as a penny pinching mob, collectively bereft of financial resources.

Secondly, one must consider the technical depth of this target market. The linux lacks the shine and technical sophistication of modern operating systems, such as Windows 7. There is only so much that can be taught to customers about the linux before one has exhausted it's technical abilities, let alone the shallow pockets of it's users. Selling training for advanced topics such as - Virus Protection, Disk Defragmentation Utilities, Job Scheduling, Windows Scripting, and Windows Clustering, Sequel Server .. all great topics that make a firm foundation for a lucrative training program .. but these opportnities are solely lacking in the linux world.

And Thirdly, let us consider the professional development of this target market. When one enters an University level course in advanced computing with a view to a productive future in the IT industry, what exactly do you think they teach students there ? They would hardly be teaching the linux, the unix, or the mainframe in this day and age. Nay - Its primarily Windows and Office that form the foundation of a professional career these days. One would only be doing a half hearted disservice to users if you limited the training program to the linux.

So whilst I find the idea of offering training to Dell's linux customers gregarious and even charitable, I think it is a venture doomed to failure, and surely one which most investors would be loathe to back with the resources required.

what made me give up desktop Linux

[smash]

As a former Linux or BSD on desktop user, I gave up a few years ago. I'll still check out Linux or FreeBSD on the desktop from time to time (PC-BSD looks pretty good actually), but it's just too inconvenient.

Why? At work, we're a windows shop, by necessity. We have a large number of custom applications that will cost multiple millions of dollars, and significant risk to migrate. So work is out. At home? Well, most PC hardware sucks, i'm mostly a laptop user now and Apple make the nicest portable machines.

Given that I'm going to run a Macbook, well, OS X just works fine for me for the vast majority of what I do. In fact, I can't think of anything I want to do at home that I can't do quicker and easier on the mac than I can with Linux - I have bash, csh, or whatever other shell there if I need it. I have Python, Perl, Java and a C compiler. I also have some awesome development frameworks.

Essentially, OS X can do anything for me on the desktop, better than Linux, so I see no need to ditch OS X. in fact, there are apps on OS X that I vastly prefer to anything I've seen on Linux. Such as time machine and mission control. There are apps that are not available at all for Linux, such as Ableton Live. And if I really, desperately need Linux, I can virtualize it anyway. Linux can't legally virtualize OS X.

The "win" from running Linux just isn't there any more. Windows got stable, and OS X is Unix with commercial support and a nice UI. Also, despite what many would have you believe, if you ignore paper spec and just want a decent machine that works, apple is not super expensive. I'm old enough and have been around long enough to not CARE if some other machine is .2ghz faster or has RAM that runs at 1600mhz instead of 1333 or whatever. In real life practical use it makes very little difference - the major gains are when you step from one generation of CPU/bus to another, within a generation its much of a muchness. More important to me is the quality of the display and user input devices/software - and OS X multi-touch is the best interface out there, IMHO.

Sure, I can customize the shit out of a Unix desktop environment, but you know what? Since KDE3 bit the dust, I haven't seen one I actually like. No matter how pretty it is, compared to the OS X GUI, which is at least stable and fairly consistent, the Unix desktop is lacking. It is too disjointed, too clunky and lately, too fucking unstable. I like Windowmaker, but the rest of the apps to turn it into a proper implementation of OpenSTEP just aren't there, and are too much fucking around to get working anyway, as no distribution seems to give a shit about GNUSTEP, and are all fawning over Gnome or KDE and their latest hair-brained idea of the month.

So, in short: home desktop = OS X. Work = Windows (with a few BSD machines doing stuff I REALLY don't trust windows to handle). Home servers = FreeBSD. Desktop Linux just doesn't offer me anything significant, given that I'm already buying apple hardware because they make nice laptop hardware (even Linus thinks so). And because it doesn't offer me anything significant, and I already have an OS X license, I can't be bothered putting up with the shit you need to go through (drivers, lack of software like Ableton, etc) to use it.

And that's before I even get into the political games being played over stuff like h.264, linking to binary drivers, etc. As an end user with money, I don't care about your political ideals. I want an OS that works, and am prepared to pay for it. This is why I run free Unix (FreeBSD or Linux) where it works well, and don't run it on my desktop :)

Re:what made me give up desktop Linux

[smash]

lol. again, "i disagree" = mod down. if you disagree, how about refuting my points :)

Re:what made me give up desktop Linux

[smash]

I haven't been paying attention to Mac in a good long while, but isn't OS-X based on a BSD kernel, still? I thought it was just a pretty interface sitting on a real kernel?

Its sitting on its own unix kernel (XNU), running FreeBSD userland tools, plus the OS X layer.

However, and this is what a lot of casual observers don't seem to get: OS X is more than the aqua GUI. The GUI is imho the least impressive part. It works, but i don't particularly like it. The major benefit of OS X in my opinion is the deep rooted application of object oriented design throughout the OS. Objects can "observe" other objects and thus be notified on status change. Hence (for example), finder windows update automatically - they're not polling the window contents, they're told to update when a folder changes. Settings apply automatically. User interfaces are standardized, and applications can talk to each other Objective-C has some amazing programming techniques available to extend other people's classes after compile time, so you build on other people's work in a far more effective manner. The end result is better, more consistent applications, as less time is spent reinventing the wheel or attempting to talk to other applications in a non-standardized, inconsistent manner.

And this is in my opinion why Gnome is failing so hard lately - they're trying to copy the superficial OS X UI fluff, without getting the foundations right first. As a result, you're left with a poor UI ripoff of OS X without the lower level object re-use and associated gain in developer productivity.

Don't let aqua (the frosting on the cake) fool you - it may look like OS X is for kids, or less technical users, but there is an extremely powerful platform underneath. If you haven't used it for any real period of time (like, a few weeks or more - enough time to "click" to the mac way of thinking/doing things) you won't see it.

Re:what made me give up desktop Linux

[smash]

Pretty similar to me then. I started with slackware 3.1 in 1996. Tried pretty much all the distributions, ran FreeBSD for a while as well (still do on servers). Ran Debian+Solaris 2.5/2.6 extensively in an ISP (squid proxy cache, sendmail relay, pop3, imap, radius services) between 1997-2001. Have run FreeBSD for similar purposes, plus PPTP, ipsec tunnels, content filtering, etc since 2003 in a mining company).

Bought a Mac Mini in 2009 to sate my curiosity regarding OS X, liked it, upgraded to a Macbook Pro in August last year.

Agreed, there are trivial things I don't like, but the trade-off is worth it, by a long shot - there's a lot less about the machine/OS that pisses me off than there is with my previous PCs running Linux or FreeBSD in a desktop situation. And there is a lot to like - automator/applescript, folder actions, time machine, etc.

Those who claim OS X is for noobs and useless for doing anything serious clearly have never used or become proficient with it.

Why I think it can't make it for normal users

[C_Kode]

The sound system blows. It's terrible and has so many issues. They created Pulse to fix it, but Pulse is a train-wreck too.

X is horrible. Hopefully Wayland will fix it.

Not all Linux are the same. Debian clones / Redhat clones. Several of their functions (start up / update) are different. That will just confuse people. Yeah there are others, but only these two are actually feasible due to how wide spread they are.

Ubuntu IMO is doing a great job with the desktop, but the first two things on my list must be fixed.

I don't see much reason either

[buddyglass]

The main benefits as I see them are:

1. It's free (legally).
2. It has a built-in *nix-like development environment (unlike Windows).
3. It's not tied to a particular set of hardware (unlike OS X).

These are balanced against:

1. "It just works" is much less true of Linux.
2. Lack of app support.
3. Spottier hardware support (than Windows).

Add them all up and I don't see much reason (personally) to consider Linux on the desktop. At my past three jobs I've been given a Mac for Java development, deploying to either Linux or Solaris servers. At home I run a free (illegal) copy of XP on fairly old hardware. If I were to upgrade my home machine I'd most likely go with Win7 (legal) on custom built hardware, though I'd strongly consider a Mac.

Re:Torvold said...

[kelemvor4]

Torvold (main Linux fellow...) said that Android code will merge back into Linux in the next five years. If so, Linux via Android is going to be on tablets, etc, competing in some way for use in the office.

It has already happened. http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/19/0237245/linux-33-released

Once it was X...

[nurbles]

I think this issue is mostly gone now, but for many years the underlying X window system had a rather massive weakness that Windows did not share: Changing to a new video card and sometimes only changing a monitor could render the graphical system on linux unusable. Then one would need to know many arcane things like monitor timings, scan rates, etc. and manually update the Xconfig (I think that's the file, but you know what I mean) file by hand, hoping that it was correct and wouldn't actually damage the hardware (which the comments warned could happen if one made a mistake.) Windows would simply fall back to a set of relatively standard VGA drivers any time things changed in a way it didn't (yet) understand. I discovered this when my first linux/X system had a monitor die and then would only boot into an emergency text-only mode with the new one I bought -- but when I booted Windows (I had swappable hard drives) it just came up as a VGA and asked me to configure the monitor and/or install a new driver. THAT is the way as many things as possible need to work if linux is ever to be accepted by the general population.

Linux should be appealing to me

[Oswald McWeany]

If Linux wants to become a major player on desktops it needs to appeal... to me. Well, me and my kind first.

What is "my kind" - I am a technically minded person (programmer) but still an everyday person. I don't buy all the latest gadgets and tech trimmings- but I wait to see what I need, what is good etc. The kind that try every thing new- and want all the latest tech gadgets have probably already tried various flavours of Linux.

So... why am I not a Linux user- why haven't I tried it? I have been curious... I have been tempted- twice I've almost installed it on my desktop. I did actually buy my wife a cheapo eeePC for doing web/e-mail 5 or 6 years ago- the flavour of Linux that came with it was fine for simple tasks- probably not a "REAL" linux though with all the bells and whistles.

For me to buy Linux- I have to be able to run whatever software I want on it. I want to be able to walk into a store- pick a Software title off the shelf- stick it in my computer and run it. Yes, I know most software is available in stores now- and I do buy more online than in stores myself... increasingly so as time goes by.

Even online though- it is different software usually- I can't buy the same Linux titles that I can Windows usually. Yes, I know I can do a dual boot with Windows... but why- if I have to have Windows anyway- why not just use Windows?

It's a case of chicken and egg. In order for me to install Linux- software vendors have to make it standard to create a Linux version of most of what they write. In order for Linux to do that - they need more market share.

There are two things Linux could do to make it have more appeal to the "me" of the world (and once they've got me- they'll get critical mass and be able to sell to the hoi-polloi).

1) They need the ability to run full windows titles straight from Linux without having to install windows. Yeah- I know not an easy option probably with legal problems.

2) Android. Android is getting more and more traction with tablets/phones. It is being brought back into the Linux family- if Android could make it into the desktop market- it could probably inspire software companies to consider Linux more seriously because of the mass-market already available. If Android gets a foothold- it would benefit other Linux flavours to get a proper foothold.

A third option would be for another "big player" to sponsor a Linux variety and aggressively advertise it and champion it.

I want Linux to succeed and become a major factor in desktops... but I'm not willing to switch sides until it gains more traction.

Re:Linux should be appealing to me

[Chuck Messenger]

The thing to understand about Linux is that you _don't_ buy software off the shelf. Instead, all the software you need is available - for free!

This is great for many reasons - besides just the reduced cost. For one thing, it's much easier to install software on Linux: just go to Package Manager, select what you want, and press Install. Takes a minute or two. The Windows alternative is to go buy some software, put the disk in, then press Install. That takes alot longer.

And because the Linux software is free, you don't feel constrained - if you're curious about a software package, just go ahead and install it, and try it out!

Because there is no corporate interest behind the software, it won't try to screw you over in some way which is designed to get you to cough up money. For example, it won't try to force ads on you (at least, I've never seen it). It won't try to prevent you from un-installing it. It won't do nefarious things in the background (spyware, or other virus-like activity).

Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[unixisc]

There are 2 answers to this one:

• The risk factor - the fact that for the users existing hardware, a Linux driver may not exist, or that future hardware that intrigues him may not have a Linux driver. More often than not, they'd have to buy more expensive hardware to be ensured of its support. In other words, Linux may be free or cheap, but the things that would support it or work well w/ it ain't, like sound. Also, if the networking doesn't work, the user is SOL, since s/he can't even download the correct drivers.
• The choice ceiling - if someone is going there from Windows, then one has to make sacrifices during the move - it's like when one moves from a bigger house to an apartment. Few software titles in Windows have Linux counterparts. So it only makes sense if one knows what one wants to do under Linux, make a list of what one needs, and then go w/ it, knowing fully well that that fantastic game just released will probably not run under it

I think Linux could be more successful if computer vendors bundled complete Linux solutions w/ their systems. Something like say a laptop or netbook preloaded w/ Linux, along w/ things like printer, wi-fi and so on, working right out of the box. But Linux needs to have as complete a driver model as Windows. Right now, since Windows is the default, if a peripheral doesn't work under Windows, its manufacturer knows that they have a problem. But if it doesn't work under Linux, it doesn't apply, since a manufacturer can credibly claim that they never claimed to support Linux.

The other aspect is the risk factor for any PC vendor who might preload a PC w/ Linux and sell it. Problem being that if the customer buys something else to work w/ that PC, be it a new printer, stereo speaker or so on, and it doesn't work w/ the Linux PC, while it's not a problem for the vendor, the result is an unhappy customer. With Windows, this is never an issue, for what I said above, but for Linux, it very well is. That's why Apple limits what they claim will work w/ it, and explicitly tell their customers to buy only their stuff if they want it to work. Which PC manufacturer can do that, unless we have a re-incarnation of Sun or SGI?

As a result, if a vendor decides to sell Linux, they inherit all the problems that come along w/ it. While Windows support is provided by PC vendors such as Dell, there is an organized chain of command to go to, if it doesn't work. Here, even if one ignores the gazillion distros, the fact remains that support for Linux when things don't work is limited, which is why the scalability is just not there. As a result, Linux continues to be a case of pull rather than push marketing.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[Oswald McWeany]

Problem being that if the customer buys something else to work w/ that PC, be it a new printer, stereo speaker or so on, and it doesn't work w/ the Linux PC, while it's not a problem for the vendor, the result is an unhappy customer. With Windows, this is never an issue

Whereas I agree with most of what you said- the above quote I don't. Windows Vista is an example of that. I "upgraded" to Vista and none of my peripherals worked. I didn't blame the vendor- I blamed Microsoft.

It is possible Windows could do "another Vista" with Windows 8. Granted most hardware these days does get tested for compatibility with Windows- and usually gets "approved" for them- this doesn't always happen with Linux.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[cfulton]

I think Linux could be more successful if computer vendors bundled complete Linux solutions w/ their systems. Something like say a laptop or netbook preloaded w/ Linux, along w/ things like printer, wi-fi and so on, working right out of the box.

Take a look at System 76 they ship a complete system with Linux installed. All the drivers (including sound) are already configured and working. I have two of their systems at home and have been really pleased. I tend to agree that for the average user a Linux desktop may never be suitable but, If you just need a browser or are a developer looking for a light weight operating system to use then it is a good buy.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[Shadowkahn]

You didn't have to upgrade to Vista close to launch. You could have waited until your peripherals were supported, and then upgraded, which would mean you'd be doing the same thing some might be doing with Linux - waiting until they know it supports their stuff before they switch.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[Oswald McWeany]

I didn't. I upgraded after Service Patch 1. There were still major issues. Vista never worked right for me- it took Windows 7 before things starting working again- before my computer stopped freezing, etc.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[jedidiah]

> I like how Linux users say read the HCL but when they upgrade Windows they never do that

Why should we have to be bothered? It's the monopoly OS. What's the point otherwise?

On the one hand you have a minority player that doesn't even try to have a stable kernel level driver interface. On the other hand, you have the multi-decades old monopoly that every 3rd party vendor supports by default.

The idea that Microsoft is creating artificial driver churn is just mind boggling as is the fact that older devices aren't being handled better by the 800lb gorilla and all it's minions.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[wierd_w]

The fundemental problem with drivers on linux (which I do use at home as a desktop) is that there is a decided conflict between hardware vendors and the linux kernel developers.

The linux kernel philosphy is that you are open, straight forward about what your hardware does, what resources it needs, and how to access it.

The hardware vendor philosophy is that you keep all of that secret, create a potentially encrypted or obfuscated blob driver that hooks documented interfaces, loads special proprietary magic code into itself on init, or some other "clever" thing to frustrate people emulating or counterfieting their product, and refusing to budge from it.

The linux devs say "we won't let you make binary blobs, damnit! Not only is that against our project's development model, it is also a violation of our software license! Doing this makes it so we cannot distribute our software legally if you don't comply! To frustrate you and keep you from doing that shit, we will PURPOSEFULLY change our binary ABI for kernel mode drivers on every release, to force you to work yourself to death trying to catch up, until you see the light and just fucking release the driver source already!

The hardware vendors say "if that's the way you want to play, we will go over to microsoft's place. They know the value of a good stable ABI, and the importance of keeping secrets. They also have the lion's share of users, so you linux dweebs can go fuck yourselves. You will take binary blobs and like it, or you can go play somehwere else!"

A small handfull of hardware OEMs "get it", and see how opening their surce code for the linux market, especially in server hardware circles, can firmly cement them as a desirable brand name for hardware that "just fucking works!", like IBM and pals, but for the most part, it is the former, which causes the linux user community (since the line between linux developer and linux user is purposefully blurred by design) have to reverse engineer all the behaviors, quirks, requirements, and secrets of the "oh so secret!" Mainstream devices in order for them to work. Since the users doing this are basically trying to reinvent the wheel with that hardware, they can and often do get things wrong in their reversed driver implementations, and screwy things happen as a result.

Sometimes hardware makers purposefully try to thwart such reverse engineering, like fucking broadcomm. Their wireless chipsets have to pull a secret binary INTO special memory inside themselves from the driver stack in order to turn on. These binaries are signed, and copyrighted. The card won't accept binaries that aren't blessed with the magic number. As such, you have to cheat and use fwcutter to rip the magic blob out of a windows driver, or load the windows driver fully using ndiswrapper.

Either that, or spend a few centuries trying to derive the magic key, by which time nobody will care anyway.

Unless linux reniggs on the open driver requirements (at which point, how is linux different from any other kernel again?), or the hardware companies stop being little bridge trolls (there are some signs on the horizon that show that they might be slowly coming around. A major offender, nvidia, recently said they would start contributing to nouveau, the reverse engineered community driver for their cards. High profile OEMs changing policies and embracing the linux model will only improve adoption, and we can hope more follow nvidia's lead on that), then linux will never have the same direct to market hardware compatibility as windows boxes do.

It's just the sad truth.

Re:Linux's hurdles are different from Windows

[RoboJ1M]

There are about 2 billion internet users in the world (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)
Android will cross the billion users mark in about November 2013, 1-2 years after that it will be 2 billion.
So Android-Linux will be the dominant computing platform sometime in 2014.
Closely followed by iOS, which is also POSIX compliant.
Another way to answer the question is never, Linux will never sell on the desktop because the desktop will cease to exist before it has a chance to.

BSD

[unixisc]

Given that BSD doesn't have the same compatibility issues, and that it has a driver ABI, I wonder how much of a hurdle would it be for BSD distros like PC-BSD?

Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[echusarcana]

Ten years ago, applications might have mattered. However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office. Gimp and Inkscape are great drawing programs. Casual games tend to be cross-platform while hard-core games don't universally work on Windows anyway - this is what a game platform is for. The printer "just works" without any need for the user to fuss with drivers. The good tax programs are all web-based now. Sharepoint - seriously? - does anyone use that pile of crap? Most importantly, videos and music plays without a fuss. NFS networking actually works all the time, unlike tempermental CIFS. There are no virus worries. And Linux is so much simpler to use than Windows.

We have 5 computers in the house. My household was purged of Windows about 3 years ago and it was the best move I've made. Maintenance is low. No one is complaining, except the Windows users I know that want me to fix their computers.

Windows is still dominant because Microsoft uses its monopoly to force manufacturers to charge for it and preinstall it. End of story.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Ihmhi]

However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office.

OO (and the much better LibreOffice, which is what they're calling the good one these days) are very solid but lacking in more than a few features compared to Office. They're not necessarily essential features, but a lot of it is useful stuff. I would strongly disagree with them being called "superior" - I'd say they're more "adequate" than anything else.

Gimp and Inkscape are great drawing programs.

But neither of them stack up to Photoshop in features, speed, or usability.

Casual games tend to be cross-platform

Yes.

while hard-core games don't universally work on Windows anyway - this is what a game platform is for.

No. That stopped being the case years ago. A low to medium end PC will be able to run most games nowadays pretty decently, barring extreme stuff like Crysis.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Moryath]

Ten years ago, applications might have mattered.
They still do.

However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office.
That's fine for your opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion is solidly in the minority and you need to do more than just scream "IMHO THIS IS SUPERIOR" to get people to switch. WHY is it superior? WHAT makes it a better, more user-friendly program? WHAT can it do that MS Office can't?

Gimp and Inkscape are great drawing programs.
Great. I can run GIMP on Windows just fine. I can also use Paint.Net. Or any of a number of other programs. Including, if I care to shell out $50, Adobe Photoshop Elements.

Casual games tend to be cross-platform while hard-core games don't universally work on Windows anyway - this is what a game platform is for.
Actually, Windows is the platform to target for hardcore games, they don't target OSX.

The printer "just works" without any need for the user to fuss with drivers.
Until it doesn't, and then you're up shit creek without a paddle, likely to find some Linuxite telling you "STFU Noob, ur printerz not supprted, go buy a diffrent printer nstead."

The good tax programs are all web-based now.
Sure, until you get into filing anything more than the 1040EZ.

Sharepoint - seriously? - does anyone use that pile of crap?
You're not going to get people to switch to your alternative - wait, what was your alternative anyways? - just by calling their current solution a "pile of crap."

Most importantly, videos and music plays without a fuss.
Some of the time, other times not. Which is a lot like OSX and Windows come to think of it. Best experience I've had with video is running Windows with VLC 2.0.1 installed.

NFS networking actually works all the time, unlike tempermental CIFS.
Right until you try to interact with OSX or Windows boxes.

There are no virus worries.
Because so few people on the planet use Linux as their desktop that no sane virus writer would even bother. Get yourself any appreciable market share and watch that change in a nanosecond.

And Linux is so much simpler to use than Windows.
Bullshit.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[tepples]

A low to medium end PC will be able to run most games nowadays pretty decently, barring extreme stuff like Crysis.

Or any title that happens not to be ported to PC "due to piracy". Or multiplayer in some games that are ported. There are games where you have to buy one copy for two to four players on a console but two to four copies for two to four players on a PC.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[cpu6502]

Thanks I bookmarked this.

Since Windows died on my P3 laptop and I rescued it with Lubuntu Linux, I will have ample opportunity to see if the alternatives really do work as sufficient replacement for Acrobat, MS Office, et cetera.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Kurt Granroth]

The good tax programs are all web-based now.

Sure, until you get into filing anything more than the 1040EZ.

This isn't accurate. Web-based tax apps are now easily as full featured as their desktop variants. I've used TaxCut Online for some years, now, and have been able to do so relatively complex returns that way (investments, small business employer, etc).

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[apcullen]

However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office. That's fine for your opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion is solidly in the minority and you need to do more than just scream "IMHO THIS IS SUPERIOR" to get people to switch. WHY is it superior? WHAT makes it a better, more user-friendly program? WHAT can it do that MS Office can't?

It doesn't have THE FREAKIN' ANNOYING RIBBON BAR!!!
This makes it superior for me. And to counter your argument, I'm still looking for the feature or features that Office has that Libre Office lacks. I do a lot of documentation at work, where office is the rule, and I frequently work on them at home using Libre Office on Linux without any issues.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[iksrazal_br]

I haven't replied to "why not linux" topic in so long, because it really doesn't matter anymore. Linux is everywhere and people don't even know it.

Ten years ago, applications might have mattered. They still do.

However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office. That's fine for your opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion is solidly in the minority and you need to do more than just scream "IMHO THIS IS SUPERIOR" to get people to switch. WHY is it superior? WHAT makes it a better, more user-friendly program? WHAT can it do that MS Office can't?

Office imho is likely to become mostly obsolete, much like the desktop. I don't even bother with libre office and just use google docs. The desktop and Office will probably always be around for the minority who can't live without it. Anyways doc creation is headed for the cloud as a free feature for most people.

Gimp and Inkscape are great drawing programs. Great. I can run GIMP on Windows just fine. I can also use Paint.Net. Or any of a number of other programs. Including, if I care to shell out $50, Adobe Photoshop Elements.

Casual games tend to be cross-platform while hard-core games don't universally work on Windows anyway - this is what a game platform is for.

Actually, Windows is the platform to target for hardcore games, they don't target OSX.

Drawing programs are a dime a dozen, and Gimp is an also ran.

The printer "just works" without any need for the user to fuss with drivers. Until it doesn't, and then you're up shit creek without a paddle, likely to find some Linuxite telling you "STFU Noob, ur printerz not supprted, go buy a diffrent printer nstead."

That may have been true 10 years ago, and yes I was daily user then and still am. However, I seriously haven't had anything else but plug and play printing via usb for at least 5 years. I've only used hp printers, and have had drivers pre-installed every time. HP seems to have done well here.

The good tax programs are all web-based now. Sure, until you get into filing anything more than the 1040EZ.

This has been in the cloud for 10 years and is more so every day. Much like the desktop, how many need more is a small minority.

Sharepoint - seriously? - does anyone use that pile of crap? You're not going to get people to switch to your alternative - wait, what was your alternative anyways? - just by calling their current solution a "pile of crap."

Sharepoint is in the cloud, works fine on Linux and firefox - I use it daily.

Most importantly, videos and music plays without a fuss. Some of the time, other times not. Which is a lot like OSX and Windows come to think of it. Best experience I've had with video is running Windows with VLC 2.0.1 installed.

I have yet to find a file in 10 years that mplayer cannot play. Seriously. That must be one of the most flexible players on any system anywhere.

NFS networking actually works all the time, unlike tempermental CIFS. Right until you try to interact with OSX or Windows boxes.

OSX is based on Unix, Samba has never let me down.

There are no virus worries. Because so few people on the planet use Linux as their desktop that no sane virus writer would even bother. Get yourself any appreciable market share and watch that change in a nanosecond.

And Linux is so much simpler to use than Windows. Bullshit.

I've seen the argument made before and it doesn't make sense to me. I suggest having root separation and such a wide variety of distros make narrow targets. I have seen server worms from Java, but that's not a Linux only problem.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Moryath]

It doesn't have THE FREAKIN' ANNOYING RIBBON BAR!!!
Funny, I don't find it annoying. I actually like having it, rather than umpteen dozen dropdown menus and confusion on what could and couldn't be made into a control bar of its own.

And to counter your argument, I'm still looking for the feature or features that Office has that Libre Office lacks.
Fine. But you are trying to get people to switch to your preferred software.. "It does everything your current software does" isn't enough of an argument. You have to argue for why yours is superior either in ease of use or by doing things theirs doesn't.

Libre Office has gotten almost feature-compatible with MS Office and that's great for you. Now if you want to get people to switch you should show them what it does better, what it does faster, what it does with more ease of use, or what it does that MS Office can't do at all.

Oh, and the reason I use the word "almost": the moment you get beyond a bare-minimum spreadsheet and into any heavy duty stuff (actually, fuck the heavy duty stuff, just use some color coded cells) Libre Office will barf trying to import that Excel document, and will barf even harder trying to export it to something the MS Office user on the other end of the email needs to be able to read. So, if you want to be compatible with the people you're trying to work with or do business with using spreadsheets, Libre Office isn't up to the challenge yet. That's just one good example for you, your turn. Try to reply without frothing at the mouth and screaming this time.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[tepples]

Casual games tend to be cross-platform while hard-core games don't universally work on Windows anyway - this is what a game platform is for.

Actually, Windows is the platform to target for hardcore games, they don't target OSX.

I believe grandparent was referring to the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles.

Get yourself any appreciable market share and watch that change in a nanosecond.

Case in point: the recent claims of a malware explosion on Android.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[rev0lt]

However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office

That's your opinion - fine. I work with both everyday, and I strongly disagree.

Gimp and Inkscape are great drawing programs.

They are good programs, but not great. And while you can cite 2 popular graphics programs for Linux/Unix (that also run on Windows, btw) there are hundreds of options Windows-only, ranging from Paint.net to Photoshop.

Casual games tend to be cross-platform while hard-core games don't universally work on Windows anyway - this is what a game platform is for

I'm not a gamer, but I'm pretty shure those DirectX9/10/11 games won't run in anything BUT Windows. And are you actually recommending the aquisition of a _proprietary_ gaming system so people can run Linux on their desktop?

The printer "just works" without any need for the user to fuss with drivers.

Just because it prints, it doesn't mean it works, specially when talking about multi-function devices. If you only have a generic driver, you won't get access to specific options on your printer. And I'm still waiting for decent ICC profiling support for CUPS - which, btw, is an Apple product.

The good tax programs are all web-based now.

So, one should trust their tax details to a 3rd party via a webinterface, so one can enjoy the freedom of Linux?

Sharepoint - seriously? - does anyone use that pile of crap?

Considering the amount of development effort made by thousands of Microsoft partners all over the world, and the hundreds/thousands of applications in market today based on Sharepoint, you can bet many many companies rely on Sharepoint.

Most importantly, videos and music plays without a fuss

Except when you try to play those encrypted DVDs you bought. Or decode H264 video files in some countries.

NFS networking actually works all the time, unlike tempermental CIFS.

This one actually made me laugh. Not that CIFS isn't bad, but I guess you never tried to use NFS with auth in mixed environments. Or over VPN links. I guess you are really talking about how shitty Samba is (I use it everyday, and it baffles me how many enterprises rely on it).

And Linux is so much simpler to use than Windows.

It's a matter of opinion. I find multi-monitor support better on windows, with better font rendering, decent dpi settings, usable colormanagement, and a GUI that doesn't look like it was drawn by a preschool kid.

Windows is still dominant because Microsoft uses its monopoly to force manufacturers to charge for it and preinstall it. End of story.

If you're happy with Linux, fine. But Windows is dominant because it's mostly "idiot-proof" (virus aside). And the argument of the OEM deals is a fallacy - most OEM manufacturers do prefer to maintain exclusivity with Microsoft so they are eligible for a discount, not because Microsoft forces them. I can assemble and sell all the computers I want (laptops included) and ship them with FreeDOS, Linux, BSD, Haiku or whatever I want to put on them.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[apcullen]

Now if you want to get people to switch you should show them what it does better...

That's a good point. I'm glad you like the ribbon bar. I hate it. A year or so on now, I'm used to it. I still hate it.

Oh, and the reason I use the word "almost"...

I'm an electrical engineer. I don't, as a rule, do "Bare minimum" spreadsheets-- though I've learned to steer clear of adding serious visual basic scripts. Also, everything I edit needs to be readable by office users-- I don't put together documents, spreadsheets, or presentations for my own viewing pleasure-- no problems yet. The documents I edit have to be automatically importable into other software that my company uses. Haven't run into a problem there yet either.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[LordSnooty]

Ten years ago, applications might have mattered. However, OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office. Gimp and Inkscape are great drawing programs

I had to do a Google search and read a random blog post to find out how to add shapes to a picture in Gimp. This and its stupid name are some of the things which prevent mass adoption of such products. The response from the Gimp authors on the shape issue was according to the blog, "we don't think you need that function". This is a third reason why mass-market adoption is but a pipe dream.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[XsCode]

"Until it doesn't, and then you're up shit creek without a paddle, likely to find some Linuxite telling you "STFU Noob, ur printerz not supprted, go buy a diffrent printer instead."
Unlike M$ who just tell you that the latest update means your printer's driver isn't supported any more, go buy a diffrent printer instead.

"Best experience I've had with video is running Windows with VLC 2.0.1 installed."
Using your logic, you can also use VLC on Linux, your point?

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[tibit]

I agree, the GP is not accurate at all. I use TurboTax Online and it supports pretty much every tax form and tax deduction out there, including lesser known things like mortgage credit certificates. About those: if you're lucky and have one, you may end up with a nice negative federal tax rate, as in "in soviet USA they pay taxes to the citizen!" -- YMMV of course.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Stormwatch]

Actually, Windows is the platform to target for hardcore games, they don't target OSX.

He obviously meant consoles, dummy.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[DaveV1.0]

I have to agree with you. I file a straight 1040 and use TurboTax online.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Oligonicella]

"OpenOffice (or whatever it is called today) is IMHO superior to Microsoft Office."

Opinions vary. I write books. Open/Libre *still* have not corrected a number of notable bugs in Writer. Bugs which do not and have not existed in MS Office, Lotus Word Pro and others I have used. Simple, basic shit like auto cap working correctly or not pulling you away from the page you're looking at because the app did a temporary save. (The two I find most annoying).

"Windows is still dominant because Microsoft uses its monopoly to force manufacturers to charge for it and preinstall it. End of story."

FUD. EOS.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Oligonicella]

You cannot blame the OS for a game company's choices. The low-end PC *would* run those, if they were designed and developed correctly.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Rary]

Sharepoint - seriously? - does anyone use that pile of crap?
You're not going to get people to switch to your alternative - wait, what was your alternative anyways? - just by calling their current solution a "pile of crap."

This, right here, is exactly the main problem with Linux advocacy. Linux advocates are mostly people who hate Windows for one reason or another, and assume that everyone else hates Windows as well, but just haven't figured out that they have a choice.

But the problem is, in actuality, most Windows users are quite happy with it. Sure, people love to complain about it, and given the incredibly large number of people actually using it, there's bound to be a large number (but small percentage) of people who are vocal about what they dislike about Windows. But for the most part, people are content with it.

I love Linux. It's my all-time favourite server OS. But my all-time favourite desktop OS is Windows 7. So, when a Linux advocate comes along and tells me that my OS is buggy and unsecure, and insists that I can do 98% of the things I use a computer for with some open source alternative running on Linux, and then either use WINE or dual-boot for the remaining 2%, my response is, why bother? I can just continue doing 100% of the things I do on my existing Windows machine with zero effort on my part.

They need to demonstrate why it's better than Windows. And opinionated rants about how "buggy" or "unsecure" or just plain "crappy" Windows is isn't going to cut it. Neither will "free software" ideology, for most people. And this is where the advocacy fails. Because it's actually not better. It's just different.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[ohnocitizen]

Ten years ago, applications might have mattered.

They matter today. I am on the cusp of switching from Linux exclusively to Linux and Mac. I need to be able to edit videos easily, and none of the solutions linux offers have the stability and ease of use found on mac equivalents. I also want to be able to easily mix quality soundtracks on my own - again - the mac wins. I also have an HD webcam for a webshow I've been working on - no matter what program I try on linux I always get choppy lower res playback. Linux is fantastic for web development, and its great to watch media on. But for creating quality media - it just isn't the right tool for the job currently. Hopefully one day it will be.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[knarfling]

There are no virus worries. Because so few people on the planet use Linux as their desktop that no sane virus writer would even bother. Get yourself any appreciable market share and watch that change in a nanosecond.

Not quite true. You see, Linux has a feature that prevents programs from automatically changing system properties without human interaction. Yes, you can trick someone into running a virus by asking them to run a program that they downloaded, but you can't automatically run a virus just by loading a picture file, or by loading a document. (Actually you can get a kernel mod that will let viruses do that and it is a required feature of most Linux virus scanners. So the people least protected on Linux are the ones running the virus scanner.)

Does market share have anything to do with the fewer viruses for Linux? Yes, it does.
Does the fact that it is much harder for a virus to spread itself around also have something to do with the fewer viruses? Yes, it does.
Which one has the bigger effect? I have no clue.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Tetsujin]

You cannot blame the OS for a game company's choices.

Well, it's not fair, but yes you can, and people do. "Linux sucks because I can't play my favorite game on it." There you go, Linux blamed for a game company's choice.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[zlives]

ever try filing/modifying a previous tax year...

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Moryath]

Yes, you can trick someone into running a virus by asking them to run a program that they downloaded, but you can't automatically run a virus just by loading a picture file, or by loading a document. (Actually you can get a kernel mod that will let viruses do that and it is a required feature of most Linux virus scanners. So the people least protected on Linux are the ones running the virus scanner.)

Virus: "You need to install this kernel mod for the free puppy screensaver."
User: "Ok. I want my free puppy screensaver! Yay puppies!"

Does market share have anything to do with the fewer viruses for Linux? Yes, it does.
Does the fact that it is much harder for a virus to spread itself around also have something to do with the fewer viruses? Yes, it does.

These are intertwined. I have no doubt that there are exploits to get around the "feature" you mentioned earlier. Why do I have little doubt of this? Because there have been privilege-escalation bugs that existed for YEARS in the linux kernel before anyone got round to fixing them. And a lot of that has to do with the complacency of most of the linux community thinking that their OS is "secure" when that's a load of bullshit.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[firefrei]

And to counter your argument, I'm still looking for the feature or features that Office has that Libre Office lacks

That's easy - there's no way to easily vertically/middle align text in Open/LibreOffice writer. In Word 2010 you can simply click Align Text -> Middle on the ribbon and that's that. In Open/LibreOffice writer the closest and quickest alternative I've see anyone manage to do this is as follows:

Write your text and select it ()
1.) Insert Frame by typing
M
2.) Set width automagically:

3.) Select vertical align
C
4.) Select reference:

select 'entire page' or 'page text area' - as you wish
5.) confirm by pressing

Even then you still aren't done, since you have to remove the frame's border if you want the result to be the same as the one in Word. People have asked for this, but it hasn't been implemented yet. Perhaps one day, but still it's little things like this that you only discover once you find a need for them, and you realize why people might be inclined to just pay money for the market leader and get on with life.

Note: I use LibreOffice at home since I want cross-platform support between Windows and Linux, plus I don't want to pirate Office and yet don't feel it's worth buying for the little I use it for. At the same time, if Office were cross-platform and really cheap (and didn't require activation and instead just a serial), I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[firefrei]

Apologies - Slashdot ate the keyboard shortcuts in my post. For reference the steps came from http://en.libreofficeforum.org/node/498

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Blackjetta]

Excellent answer to all of his points. You thoroughly dismantled his argument.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[dosware]

Gimp, Inkscape, VLC,, and other great free cross-platform programs do run on Windows because, unlike MS, these projects seek broad, free distribution. Sorry, but MS utterly fails in that area, understandably so. As a business user, I cannot survive without MS and Adobe. As a home user, I do survive with Linux...very comfortably and very cheaply (vs. 10 years ago). The Linux Desktop quietly arrived a few years ago. My Dad is 85, and happily and ignorantly browsing the Internet and reading email using Debian. He used to be a black hole for viruses on XP, but no longer....mission accomplished

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Daniel Phillips]

OO (and the much better LibreOffice, which is what they're calling the good one these days) are very solid but lacking in more than a few features compared to Office. They're not necessarily essential features, but a lot of it is useful stuff. I would strongly disagree with them being called "superior"

Libreoffice has some features Microsoft Office does not have: stability and compabilitity. I would also argue that Libreoffice has better usability, having used both of them quite a lot the couple of years. For example, I just hate the way Ctrl-C/V/X works in Excel. It actually does what you expect in Libre/Openoffice. I would not say that Libreoffice has a huge lead of Microsoft Office overall, but it has a lead, and the lead will widen. Some specific feature you're hurting for... did you try Googling to see when its scheduled to arrive in Libreoffice? I just don't run into such reatures myself.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[Daniel Phillips]

opinionated rants about how "buggy" or "unsecure" or just plain "crappy" Windows is isn't going to cut it

No, but calm statements of fact that all those things are true carries considerable weight. After all, most Windows users can corroborate this from their own experience.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Drawing programs are a dime a dozen, and Gimp is an also ran.

I'm just curious, what do you recommend instead of Gimp?

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

If you select a square of your image in Gimp, to drag it somewhere else you have to hold down Ctrl-Alt while you drag it with your mouse. I'm not kidding. If you just drag it, it only moves the selection square. I love Gimp but this is strange. And I agree that shapes are not easy

That is just one oddity though. Since I got the hang of Gimp, it has been great. It did have a bit of a learning curve. I actually have not used Photoshop because I never felt the need to buy it.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[gr4nf]

If I was able I would never install another OS outside of linux, but alas, I am not. There isn't a DAW (like Logic or ProTools) for linux. There just isn't. There probably never will be, what with the massive amount of varied hardware and plugin support necessary, and regardless, all my clients send me .ptx files. Applications still matter. Everything is not "moving to the browser" just yet. Word processing, perhaps. Games, why not. Pro audio/video? Not in this decade.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[HapSlappy_2222]

I like just about all the points you make above, but I'll make one more: Perception is EVERYTHING. Even if the GP was correct about all those things you successfully refuted, there are no Linux famous spokesmen out there touting the benefits of switching.

Push for change in the middle of The Walking Dead. Insert some mindshare by paying Peter Griffin to use Linux at home. Have American Idols sing into Linux branded microphones. The public is inertia, defined, and isn't going to adopt anything new unless they have what THEY see as a kickass reason to do so. "Free" and "word of mouth" isn't enough. Get some commercials done. Push it. Sell it. Find a way to change public perception about things like "simpler to use than Windows" because it doesn't matter whether it is or not, anyway. What people want to hear is "This is so way awesome that celebrities and football players use it!".

Do you think zombie Apple reanimated itself by arguing about Windows on Slashdot? Hell no - they did it by screaming at the top of their lungs about how much better they are than Windows. Linux needs to do the same thing. "I'm a nerdy PC. I'm a hipster Mac. Yeah? I'm the fucking Linux T-Rex. I'll eat your enemies, save you from terrorists, defend your online liberty, let YOU tax the GUBMINT, make it rain 10 dollar bills in your backyard, and babysit your kids all the while." There's the first one; consider it a freebie.

Oh, and dump the silly names for more marketable ones, unless your marketing folks are so good they can turn a fun-but-unprofessional word like "Gimp" into the commercial powerhouse that the word "Photoshop" has become. Yeah, I like saying Gimp too, but seriously? That ain't gonna fly in prime-time without some serious spin (think "Bing". I cringe every time I hear it, but the MS marketdroids are making it happen anyway). Names like OpenOffice are a start, but people want to know exactly what a thing is by hearing the name.

Re:Applications Don't Matter Anymore

[djnewman]

Spoken like a true hater. Show me how using open office will allow me to collaborate with Microsoft office at work where it counts. Show me how open office runs Excel macros or how I can drag and drop my files into whatever open source sharepoint replacement you pick. I guesss this makes me a hater as well, but I just want to get my work done. All of Microsoft productcs might be crap, but until Linux has a killer app that only works there and is necessary for business it will always be a hard sell.

Functionality, convenience and ease of use

[lightenergy]

Linux is a great tool and the FOSS approach can sometimes generate good products but that's the beginning and end of it for me. Most people do not give a hoot about FOSS ideology. They want a computer that does what they want without a bunch of ideological crap or crap of any kind for that matter. It is a losing proposition to install second rate software in a default Linux install when better commercial alternatives are available. FOSS is a good idea that will succeed on its own merit to the extent that it has merit and no more. The ideological component of the Linux community needs to back off and let FOSS succeed because people like what it delivers and not because they are argued and bullied into it. My use of Linux has declined in inverse proportion to the influence of ideological kaa kaa on the distributions.

Why does this matter?

[Nathaniel]

You might as well ask what it would take to get people to switch from religion A to religion B. You could point out all the similar features, and all the potential advantages to having more people use the same religious services, but it wouldn't help, and it's simply not going to happen.

People prefer the things they know, and regardless of everything else, change involves effort, so if there's not a really clear and significant benefit, why would anyone bother, just so you can be happier? Why do you care what religion or operating system someone else uses? How does it impact your life? Why does it matter to you?

Figure that out, and you can focus on the issues that are important to you.

Apple got that market

[geoffrobinson]

Circa 2007, when XP ruled the land, I made the switch to a Mac. I was tired of dealing with Windows, wanted the stability of Unix, and didn't feel like fiddling with Linux.

If Windows 7 was the OS back in 2007, I'm not sure if I would have made the switch.

Anway, when that window was open, I think Apple grabbed people like me. And then Apple really caught fire.

Linux desktop had a good start, but it fell over.

[sl4shd0rk]

Back around the time XP came out, the windows masses were ready to try something new. A lot of them did try the linux desktop but the problem was there wasn't anybody to call when there was a problem. Normal people's eyes glaze over after 10 minutes of googling an error message.

Those were the days of Ubuntu Dapper and Edgy. Upgrading and installing patches was a friggin nightmare. Entire systems got borked sometimes -- never seen anything like it. People had enough of the problems and just ponied up to XP. Sure the linux desktop has matured since then but "normals" don't want the hassle and usually once burned, means twice shy.

Linux: great server, crappy desktop

[minkie]

I've made several attempts over the years to run Linux as my desktop. I inevitably give up. Most recently, for about a year, running some relatively recent Ubuntu release. As a server, it's an excellent platform, but the desktop tools just suck. Every X11 app is just a little bit different in how it handles basic things like window management and copy-paste. It drives me nuts. I think I've found the sweet spot. I run a OSX on a Mac Mini for my desktop and do all my work on a Linux box. I get the best of both worlds.

The truth you don't want to hear

[concealment]

A commercial model works better for desktop software. That way, developers are paid to fix problems even if those problems aren't fun or interesting. Open source is great, but programmers often work on the fun and interesting problems, not the day-to-day stuff including boring little bug fixes, documentation, interface, etc.

Linux is great but the only software that really works is the server-oriented stuff like Apache. The desktop software is not up to par with the Windows and MacOS equivalents, and the developer community is generally hostile to those who point out its flaws. Shocking truth: users don't want to stop everything they're doing, learn to code and devote the next two years of their lives to fixing your bugs. The arrogance of the developer community is its greatest turn-off, especially when they're shouting "learn to code!" at architects, attorneys and doctors who want the software to just work right.

The Linux community also has to be more realistic about the state of its desktop software. We all want Open Office to be the equivalent of Microsoft Office, but it's not. KDE should be the equivalent of the Windows 7 GUI, but it's a far cry away. The Linux community has difficulty facing these difficult facts because someone can always say "That's just because Microsoft has gazillions of dollars, it's the only difference between our software and theirs," and lots of people want to hear that so they'll agree with that message. But it's not true.

I don't recommend Linux to the average user anymore. It's too expensive because you're going to spend a lot of time fiddling with the settings to get stuff to work right, where if you install Windows, it just works out of the box. There are far fewer glitches.

Instead, I tell the more advanced users that they should set up a server for home use. Use it to stream your audio/video, or to store important files, or to have a home webserver. Whatever.

The point is to get them involved with the "arts and crafts" mentality that Linux requires, which is that you think up a need and start playing around to get the software to do what you want. This is the only way to get people involved with programming or computer science. They want stuff to just work, unless it's a new frontier for them, and then they want to roll their own.

Re:Why? I have reasons...

[Lumpy]

"We have had one virus infection in the last couple of years. "

In the 5 years she has ran Linux we have had NONE, zero,Nada.

And a re-install of linux takes 32 minutes flat. NO "re tweaking" at all. I haven'/t had to tweak a linux install for over 5 years now.

As for "volume shadow copy". Linux has had it a very long time. I have used LVM for quite a while with a lot of success.

I cant see how you can extrapolate a "much better from the user perspective" out of that..

Content

[CFBMoo1]

Content companies don't like how free and open it is to people. They want control and Linux can't really be controlled like they want. That is just one reason though but it's a good one.

Re:games

[omglolbah]

I took me several weeks on and off to figure out what was causing a similar sound issue.
After murdering pulseaudio the sound issues went away.

After messing around with drivers for the nvidia card and forcing the use of a certain playback device in mplayer the machine
could mostly play 1080p. Not the highest quality stuff though, I'd have to enable framedropping there :(

true story

[misfit815]

I helped a friend transition from an old XP laptop to two new Win7 laptops. He bought Office 20-whatever. I didn't open the shrink-wrap. I put LibreOffice on and told him to try it for a few days. I also pulled up his old version of Excel on his old computer, showed him a screenshot of Excel 20-whatever, and then opened the LibreOffice counterpart on his new one.

After a week, I've heard nothing about LibreOffice, but he doesn't like Win7 at all. I would've put Ubuntu on, except for two reasons: 1. He runs QuickBooks, and I was not in the mood to try to get that to play nicely under wine or some other hacky route. 2. Even though I run 10.04 LTS, I've seen Unity and absolutely don't like the direction they're going. Had they stuck with the interface in 10.04, I probably would've at least given QuickBooks under wine some thought.

This friend is not particularly computer-savvy. He runs an HVAC business. He doesn't want latest and greatest. He wants something familiar, and he wants it to just work. I think the open source community in general, and Ubuntu in particular, missed a golden opportunity when Win7 hit. If your product matches what the user was already using more closely than the next version of what they were using, you should be pushing that. Hard.

I have contact with lots of small business owners. If I suggested to them an OS that was free, looked and acted like their existing 2000/XP OS, and still ran their office suite (or a free 90% look-alike), and still ran their accounting/bookkeeping software of choice, they'd be all over it.

If it's a Desktop OS...sell on desktop choice

[phands]

So, as this topic is about Linux as a desktop OS, and the vast majority of users only ever deal with the desktop, why not market the wonderful choice of desktops? All the distro vendors could chip into marketing funds for the various desktops - don't know on what basis - and they would all benefit from the visibility.

Here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

For years I wrestled with my family's computer needs, as simple as they were. Type up stuff for school, browse the web, manage photos from the digital cameras, and the always painful "make a photo DVD for the grandparents at christmas". I tried dozens of things on the Windows platform for YEARS, and it was always pain and suffering. No matter how much I knew, it was always a pain for everyone else. Things constantly broke, didn't work as expected, malware screwed random things up, etc.

Then one christmas I decided to get my wife our family's first Mac running OSX. Within 20 minutes of pulling it out of the box we made the infamous "Photo DVD" with built in tools, and I didn't have to explain anything. We now have 4 Mac's, and no windows PC's in the house. Everyone can do everything they want, and it's extremely rare for someone to come to me asking how to make anything work (and 99% of the time it's something like "How do I export this file so it can be read on a Windows machine?"). The most recent mac was given to my 11 year old. She has never asked me how to do anything on it, everything just works, she can figure everything out, and I don't worry about malware. (Now if I can only get her to stop watching inappropriate youtube content...)

For fun recently, I fired up a VM at work to install the latest version of Ubuntu. Install seemed fine. I went to install my first piece of software, and immediately went into the utter unbelievable hell that is installing software on Linux. Eventually got it working after hours of screwing around. Never in a million years would I give this OS to my family.

In my opinion, every OS has it's place, pros and cons. They are all fantastic at different things. They all have communities / companies behind them that you can love and hate for various reasons. But when it comes to the question of the OS on the desktop for the average user (which for me means someone who is trying to do something with the computer, much like most people driving cars are simply using them to get somewhere), if they need to ask someone else constantly how to do the simplest things, then it sucks for them. For my family, you can pry the Apple machines from my cold dead hands.

No USP on the Desktop

[itsdapead]

Unless you value Free As In Speech Software as a matter of principle (nothing wrong with that - but understand that many potential users don't care) then there is no particular "unique selling point" for Linux on the desktop.

On a server, an embedded device - completely different issue: Linux or BSD FTW unless you're absolutely forced to run some proprietary Microsoft service.

On the desktop, however...

Cost - for home/small biz users: you get Windows or OS X bundled with your computer. OEMs that sell "bare" PCs for less money than ones with Windows do exist - so its not quite hen's teeth - but you'll have a restricted choice. You also might find yourself paying extra for the privilege of knowing that your WiFi card, TV tuner etc. are supported by Linux c.f. the cheap no-brand ones - and with some things, e.g. high-def terrestrial TV (at least in the UK) you're SOL. Now, if you're a larger business paying per-seat licenses for Windows, this may be an area where you have an "in" provided you don't need any Windows-only software for interoperability with clients - but once more than a certain proportion of your seats need Windows, the economies will change.

Free Applications - most of the big-name free applications are available on OS X and/or Windows anyway.

Paid Applications - many of the big-name paid-for applications, are only available for Windows or, in some cases, OS X. Sadly, sometimes you need Office or Adobe CS, if only because you have to interoperate with others. Please don't say LibreOffice etc. will open/save Office files: most of the text, some of the graphics and precious little layout doesn't cut the mustard. Not the developer's fault - the office formats are effectively undocumented, but that doesn't make the problem go away.

Ease of user - contrary to popular belief, you can have ease of use in Linux: just apply the zenfoobar_5_12_14 patch, recompile your kernel then open a shell and do 'apt-get --neutron-flow-polarity=reverse ease_of_use_21234298745 | tachyon_burst > front_deflector_array' ... and if you can't do that then you're too bloody stupid to use a computer.

Seriously - Linux was making great strides towards ease-of-use, hampered by three competing desktop ecosystems/UI styles (Gnome, KDE and old-school-X) but just as they were getting somewhere near maturity and almost as good as Windows and OS X they were pretty much dumped by the major distros in favour of immature tablet/netbook-inspired front ends. (Windows may be about to make the same mistake, OS X, despite the fuss, has largely limited the iPadization to optional features that you can ignore if you don't have a 13" screen and a touchpad).

Lets face it, in a corporate environment, unless the Powers That Be have an evangelical conversion to Linux, its the Windows way or the highway. Elsewhere, Windows XP and 7 are in a different class to the old DOS frontends that we loved to hate, and (if you don't mind the premium-but-cool hardware) OS X offers you a decent GUI running on top of Unix, native versions of quite a few of the big-brand paid apps and native versions of major FOSS projects like Firefox and Libreoffice (...plus pretty much everything else via MacPorts, but we're talking desktop).

Re:The hypocracy of the FOSS world

[smash]

Its worse. I had less software instability under Linux in 1996 than I see today.

Linux is about freedom

[Chuck Messenger]

The reason you would use Linux (and Open Source tools in general) is that it gives you total freedom. The users are in control - not corporate interests.

There's something very liberating about that. Once you've tasted freedom, you never want to go back into the birdcage...

eliminate the install tax

[__aaltlg1547]

Most computer users wan a preconfigured system. Intalking an OS is a time consuming hassle that consumers don't want to deal with. It's the opposite of what they buy computers for.

And it needs to be $100 cheaper than a PC with Microsoft software.

I *AM* a grandparent....

[SwedishChef]

And I've used Linux since 1994. Although Grandma still uses Windows. Go figure.

Re:I *AM* a grandparent....

[WrecklessSandwich]

OK, obvious exception for slashdot posters. =P

Re:Why all the FUD about Linux

[drjones78]

Not to mention.... why are slashdot commenters complaining about the command line? Are we serious here? What the hell?

Just don't do it.

[KGBear]

Linux is what it is because it fills a niche, the niche of people who want to be free to tinker. That is incompatible with marketing. Marketing is about making a product appealing to as much people as possible - and then maximizing the profit derived from it. This means branding, limiting, artificially segmenting, making it fit into help desk scripts. In other words, this would kill Linux.

Make it binary compatible with Windows software.

[darkwing_bmf]

Ideally, a better consumer OS combine the ability to use any hardware built for Windows, any software built for Windows or Mac and the User Interface simplicity of a Mac.

I don't see this happening.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Linux on Desktop

[LittleImp]

Finally an article about linux on the desktop.

Video Games

[Tyr07]

If I could play all my video games without any performance issues or lack of features compared to running it on windows, I'd never run anything but linux.

Like ubuntu or something. The problem is, after a long day, I come home, and something doesn't work. I don't want to f*** with it.
I want to spend my time using X program before I head to bed etc. Not fixing it.

Part of the problem is a large portion of PC users also play video games, maybe only once and awhile, but the point is, it's another app that doesn't run without configuration, so people won't use it.,

Lot of other programs do work well under wine or have great linux equivs. That part of the problem then comes to marketing. Not enough people are aware of the compatible programs available to them.

The final thing I think is device integration. People I feel often have a misconception that they can't plug in their MP3 player and load on tons of music and things like that on to linux.`

Windows has the best of both worlds right now. Applications can be configured to install everything a person needs without any technical readouts,
silent installs etc. At the same time, you can do it the hard way on windows if you need to.

Linux runs into dependency issues and other things depending on your build that you need to configure.
If you could have packages auto-install dependencies almost always it would be better.

It's getting way better than it used to be, but, yeah.

Forced Upgrades

[bornagainpenguin]

no forced upgrades

I'm sorry but this is simply not true at all. If you want the security fix for an application or if you need the latest version of an application, then sooner or later you will be forced to upgrade. Windows allows you to use new applications on even an incredibly older version of it, for quite a long time--on Linux you must stay on your distro's upgrade treadmill or forgo your applications.

And if this means that you are subject to Gnome 3 instead of your preferred version of Gnome 2.xx or that you must abandon KDE 3.x in favor of KDE 4.x there is nothing you can do but either hope for a community package (Ubuntu's PPA) or accept that you have no choice but to upgrade. This is made worse by the package manager system, not better because at the end of support not only do updates and security fixes cease--so does access to the current system's applications should you wish to do a reinstall for whatever reason.

And if the new version simply doesn't support your current hardware as well as the older version, you're SOL pal. You'll be told to toss out the offending hardware card or buy a new machine by people who think everyone has millions of dollars at hand or has access to unlimited credit without ever being expected to pay back what they've spent...

There are plenty of advantages to Linux--I'm at the point where I only have one computer that I own running Windows and I'm at that sweet spot where I no longer immediately run over to that box to do something I can't (read that as didn't know how to) do in Linux, because I've learned how to do those things now and know what applications will work best for me. Just don't pretend that there isn't a forced upgrade in the Linux world too. You may not always pay in cash, but you will sooner or later have to upgrade at times where you really don't want to and have no recourse....

Well this is easy

[treadmarks]

The platform doesn't matter. Nobody cares about computers enough to care whether it runs Windows or Linux. All the things you find great about Linux are boring and worthless to the average person because their life does not revolve around computers.

You might be able to get people to convert if Linux had some killer applications that Windows didn't. People do actually care about what they can and cannot do with their computer. You can do far more with a Windows computer than you can do with Linux. Many powerful and important applications are not available on Linux. But this isn't likely to change, because most people who have great ideas want to make money off of them, and there's not a lot of money to be made on Linux.

What can it do

[Muramas95]

I am a network eng & gamer and I often find that I want to use a nix system more often but I find that everything I want to do on a nix system I can do on windows but often it is not the other way around. Until they make it so that I can play games with ease on it or until windows fucks up royally with windows (8 is totally going to fail) I will stick with it.

Education!, Education!, Education!

[wunderliebe]

Windows receives billions worth of free State funded education. Spent on every child from 4 to 18+. After that, changing to anything other than Windows requires strong will (Linux) or a relatively large sum of money (OSX).

Why Android can not success on the Desktop ?

[martiniturbide]

Android is succeeding in Phones an tablets. But I don't see a strong effort to succeed on the desktop (with mouse and keyboard). Sure, it runs on x86, but it does not seems that someone is thinking on Android on the PC focused on the mouse and keyboard as input devices. But I think that Windows 8 is screwing things up, so it may be a better chance to put more Linux on the desktop when Windows 8 came out ;)

My question to all

[Stan92057]

My question to all is why do you care so much about people who don't want or need a desktop Linux. Its very apparent Linux is not an alternative OS people want.

solution is in better hardware support

[Eravnrekaree]

I dont think the article is correct. What Linux really needs is a lot of good applications, games and great hardware support. Sure, Liinux works fine if you are lucky enough that your hardware has a driver and you dont want to play any games that are sold in stores. But, its pretty much unuseable if your hardware is not supported or you want to play a game that is sold in stores.

I think to get these things Linux has to welcome more hardware vendors to providing drivers, even if they are binary only drivers, understanding that looking at this pragmatically, a few binary drivers goes a long way to overall increasing deployment of an open source operating system. As well, the user could switch to open source drivers when they become avialable.Binary drivers could actually boost open source development by increasing demand for Linux and ways to monetize that for providing support services andn so on that, leading tio more revenue into Linux companies that can be used for open source development.

A key to any useable OS is backwards compatability,. Users dont want to have to worry if a specific driver or application works with their version of the OS, they just want to install the application and use it. So binary compatability layer for older binary drivers would pretty much be a necessity.

Probably two projects that could really harm windows and boost Linux would be support Windows drivers and for WINE to actually be able to run over 99% of Windows applications. PC vendors might cionsider actually replacing Windows with Linux on the computers they ship.

It's not consumer, it's manufacturer

[mar.kolya]

Why would anyone want to use Windows (Mac OS X) as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system? Really, why? :) Windows/Mac OS X do not have less problems, they just have different problems, lots of them. And 'they' (MS, Apple) make you pay time after time for a chance to get those problems solved, and new problems created. Why anybody on earth would want this? The only reason - people are forced to used WIndows/Mac OS by hardware manufacturers vast majority of which doesn't offer OSless options. Imagine what would happen if Windows/Mac OS X would not be included into each PC/laptop price, but sold separately? Right, their market share would go down very-very quickly. So, it's not an average consumer choice it use Windows/Mac, it's that an average consumer doesn't really have other options.

Application Naming + Games

[millhouse513]

To get on the desktop Linux needs to really get behind a single (or very few) "desktop" distributions like Ubuntu. Distributions that are designed to be extremely easy and try to do as much guesswork for the end-user as possible. I'm in a local user group and everytime this topic comes up, distributions like debian or centos come up...Those are great distributions for advanced users and implementions, but not for that person who just wants it to run on their laptop so they can play World of Warcraft and check facebook. The applications also need a major revamp. This has actually been a ranting issue of mine. Having "qApplicationX" or "gApplicationX" to show if it's a QT/KDE app or GTK+/GNOME app just doesn't work for the end user; they want "ApplicationX". The hardware for Linux requires marketing and would probably take years to make major headway since you really have to have existing marketshare or loads of money to pay the manufacturers. The nice thing about Linux though is its hardware compatibility has come A LONG way in the last 10 years, so supporting Linux companies like system76.com or zareason are good for the community and as long as those companies support some of the more popular, user-friendly distributions, you can safely say "hey, go to this site and you're good to go". You need games too, but this can come from expanded OpenGL support which I think is coming from Apple's and the phone fronts since none of them support DirectX any developer looking to write a game for those platforms will have to learn OpenGL. Lastly, it's okay to mix Windows with Linux. Look at Apple. It's come A LONG way since 2000 when Mac OS X was just coming out and while it has A LOT more games and applications being offered today, many people still purchase a copy of Windows and run it in a virtual session (or dual boot) to compensate for applications and/or business requirements that Mac doesn't have (yet). It's okay for Linux to do the same...

Pre-install

[Cro Magnon]

If I want a Windows box, I can go to the nearest WorstBuy, buy a machine and it has Windows on it. If I want a Mac, I can go to the other section of WorstBuy, or to an Apple Store if I can shove past the iPad 3 fanatics, and it has OSX. If I want Linux, I have to install the expletive deleted thing myself, and risk "bricking" a machine that's already working with the OS it came with.

Until you can buy an Ubuntu box at WorstBuy, it won't be the "Year of Linux".

Re:Nope, fewer viruses because Linux is harder

[kenh]

Linux deskop usage has been clocked at around 1% of market share, with Apple OS X having around 5-7%, depending on the survey you look at, with the rest being various Microsoft OS. (Remember, this is desktop, not all computers, typically determined by browser stats on widely-visited websites)...

Lasty time I looked, There were twice as many people running Windows Vista than Mac OS X, and ten times as many people running Windows Vista vs. any version of Linux.

Windows XP just recenlty dipped below 50% of the desktop users - and it was introduced almost 12 years ago (August, 2001)...

I am a truck driver

[Zigurd]

I am one of the people Steve Jobs said would continue to need a fully general-purpose computer, which he compared to people who need to drive a truck. I make software for a living, and Linux is a great platform for software development. The point Jobs was making is that it isn't appropriate to try to make personal computers as simple to use as mobile devices. And while ease of use has many virtues for both the mainstream consumer and the "truck driver," ultimately, the way products are designed will diverge.

Android is the consumer's Linux. Android took the step of discarding much of the Linux userland and starting afresh, with a software platform that is both powerful, and designed for finger-friendly mobile devices. That turned out to be a very successful approach. Trying to evolve a desktop OS to do what Android and iOS do is very difficult, and there are no successful examples. Microsoft has repeatedly tried to make Windows work on tablets, and failed repeatedly. It's an open question if Windows 8, even though it contains a finger-friendly UI system, can straddle the two worlds without creating situations where the user is dumped into finger-hostile territory at inopportune times.

While making desktop Linux more user-friendly remains a worthy goal, it may turn out that Windows 8 is a cautionary example: When the world is dividing into PCs for people who really need them, and mobile devices that are a radical step forward in ease of use, trying to be both at once could result in being neither fish nor fowl.

Solutions

[DarkLegacy]

Regular people don't care about the operating system, hardware, or what the underlying technology is. They just want to browse the Internet, talk to their peers on Facebook about XYZ, and read/write e-mail. My grandmother is using LinuxMint on her wireless workstation. She has no idea, what in her words "A Linux" is; but she knows how to click the "Internet" square, and it browses her favorite news sites.

Let us look at this way:

[Hymer]

You buy yourself a brand new car... but the car has Good Year tires and you prefer Michelin tires, what do you do ? You sell Good Year tires and buy Michelin tires.
You buy a brand new PC... you do not want Windows so you sell... oh wait... you can't sell your Windows, can you... got the point.
As long as the anti competitive and almost illegal practice continues nobody will try to put anything else on a brand new PC.

UDF support on Windows

[tepples]

Except exFAT, UDF and ISO9660.

As I understand it, exFAT is unpublished, patented, and licensed incompatibly with any implementation in free software. ISO 9660 is structured to be append-only, which is fine for WORM media such as CD-R but not for flash or hard disks. I was under the impression that Windows couldn't mount UDF on USB mass storage devices (i.e. flash drives), only on optical discs. What does one need to install to enable UDF on USB mass storage for each supported version of Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7)?

Re:UDF support on Windows

[TheRaven64]

I believe that it only works for optical drives. My point was that users typically only care about filesystems on media that are handed to them. Windows users are likely to come across FAT on SD cards, ISO9660 on CDs, UDF on DVDs, and exFAT on SDXC (I said SDHC, but on further checking this was wrong) cards. Support for other filesystems is completely irrelevant to most users. Conversely, support for these is very important to users and it's quite frustrating that exFAT was accepted as part of the SDXC spec because this means that only operating systems that pay a Microsoft tax can implement it.

Re:UDF support on Windows

[tepples]

it's quite frustrating that exFAT was accepted as part of the SDXC spec because this means that only operating systems that pay a Microsoft tax can implement it.

And this is exactly what I was referring to. I was trying to obliquely suggest UDF as an alternative to exFAT, which Linux won't be able to use until 2029 when the patent runs out.

Re:UDF support on Windows

[shutdown -p now]

I was under the impression that Windows couldn't mount UDF on USB mass storage devices (i.e. flash drives), only on optical discs.

It can both mount and format them just fine in Win7 (you get the option in the list of filesystems when you use the standard GUI formatting tool opened via right-clicking the drive and selecting "Format"). Probably not in XP, though.

To much arrogence and not enough out of box.

[negativeduck]

The biggest hurdle comes from the community and the source of the systems. There is an arrogance about Linux users that (I'm better than you) that doesn't come along as strong when needing help from others as it does in other operating environments. It also comes from distributions not picking a "white horse" and sticking with it, not providing a clean migration path from to the other which is the effect of the //free// nature of the OS.

Take sound drivers as a simple example. There are several infrastructures for sound control and functions, because "linux" is made of distributions who do their own thing this causes people to have to have to many choices, there are large swaths where things "don't work" as you would expect. You take the forums to find a solution to find that the forum goes back 6 years. With out-dates posts relative to your problem but not a solution that's applicable. It might have been discussed recently but burried, you get the response "Search!" or RTFM!. Sorry, I wanted to use my microphone, not invest 4 hours into getting my microphone to work. Then when I find the solution I have to edit asound files, maybe recompile a module, maybe update dependencies, maybe change a library, This is stuff that all truly makes it a really tough sell.
When you find a problem, that truly kills a function, the solution to //fix it yourself// is good for some but certainly not all. Consumers want it to work, they don't want to learn to write code to fix something or get it usable. And at the same time even among those of us who //can fix it// we simply may not have the time to backtrack a very large program to add that much needed feature / function because it's not a project we are on. We have to learn that code tree from scratch and start working in the change. This makes it impossible.

Ubuntu has done good with their LTS version's in my opinion, but I think the question is going to be what //breaks// or stops working when the next release comes out. Knowing today that if I leave LTS to the normal current version I lost features and found bugs that broke atleast 25 *KEY* features for me. This is not something I can willfully recommend to anyone who isn't wanting to be involved in every aspect of their computer.

Take sound, I want a voip client, ok this one uses pulse, this one uses asound, do I have them them both? Do I have one and not the other, does the program conflict when I have both of them installed... again, not consumer friendly, Linux is a popularity contest, who does it //better// right now... and if you aren't willing to wipe and upgrade to the next greatest thing you quickly may find that your desired application is left in the dust.

Linux community needs to show more newb support!

[mc4bbs]

PUSH & SHOVE: People resist change -- they become comfortable with what they know, so they are not seen as idiots. Even with Microsoft, there is strong resistance to 'upgrade' from one version to the next without some serious pay-off or pushing. (i.e. "if you want to run 'game x', you must on Windows 9", or "if you want support from us, you must be running on Windows 8 or better").

LOOK HOW EASY IT IS: People want true plug-and-play. Will Linux support all their USB devices? Software? Printer? Scanner? They want assurances! Perhaps if there were a simple install for Windows/Linux dual-boot system where changing environments was as easy as changing a T.V. channel. In this case, the Linux environment should be defined to access their Windows 'my documents' directory and have the look and feel of Windows.

YOU WANT REAL SUPPORT? YOU GOT IT!: People want a support structure that does not belittle them. How many times have you seen a UNIX PRO depicted on television and silver screen alike as an overweight social reject that compensates their lack of social skills by "talking down to" or insulting newbs? I clearly remember the early usenet and IRC days when anyone new was considered fresh meat for the kill. I know that's not what it's always like, but that's the impression the general public gets.

MADGE, YOU'RE SOAKING IN IT!: A public awareness campaign that shows your android smartphone, tablet and other devices are ALREADY RUNNING on Linux might allow someone to look closer. Many people don't realize how much of what they do on their computers nowadays is actually online and isn't dependent upon what O/S they're running.

Just my 2 cents on this issue.

Works for me

[OhHellWithIt]

Linux works for me. I've been using it exclusively for home use for about 8 years now. I don't try to "sell" it to other people beyond an occasional nudge because it would be obnoxious in the way that pushing one's religion on others is obnoxious. If someone is interested enough to ask, I'll tell him/her about the benefits I get from it, the same way I would if asked about my religion. But it's a personal choice.

I frankly am tired of these "Linux desktop is dead" trolls. The user base seems to be growing, and aside from the travesty that occurred with the introduction of Gnome 3, it's getting better and better.

Linux misses some key points

[belgianguy]

I'm conflicted about getting Linux to live on the mainstream desktop. Let's for the sake of simplicity assume that Ubuntu is the platform willing to become mainstream.

Here are some of the key issues I see with the current Ubuntu distro:

Unification: Linux at the moment fills a void for people who find value in it that they don't already get from either OS X or Windows. It's very technical and bars noone from tinkering with whatever he likes. Sadly, Joe Citizen breaks more than he fixes by tinkering, and usually wants to use his device to do some predefined task. Say they want to adapt Ubuntu to get more market penetration, wouldn't that risk moving it so close towards Windows and OS X that the original benefits disappear? (e.g. losing the techie crows by dumbing it down). But at least for Unity they have taken a page out of the Apple playbook. No more sudo unless you root your computer or you get to at least click "I know what I'm doing, leave me alone!".

Attention to detail: Application quality control, either it's 100% finished and polished or it shouldn't appear in the 'main ppa'. If people want to experiment, let them hook into experimental ppa's but assure that Joe Citizen has access to applications that have been tested over and over, and provide him with what he needs.

No overcompensation: While GIMP is a wonderful tool and has a huge toolbox at its disposal, it offers too much to be efficient. So much even that it's not unlikely someone will not understand how to do something and look for something simpler with less options, but a clearer 'clicking-here-does-that' approach.

Agression: Linux isn't being marketed aggressively, at least not in the commercial sense of wooing people to leave their current OS for it. As I see it, it's something techies pick up by reading up on technology, and finally decide to give it a try. But there's no driving force to push for said aggressive market penetration and as it stands, there are still quite a lot of drawbacks that put Linux at a disadvantage vs OS X and Windows. But "more features" is not the answer to everything and doesn't ensure success. Ballmer was laughing at the iPhone when it yet had to be released, and said the WinMobile devices did everything the iPhone did and more. I don't think Ballmer's laughing now, though.

Litigation: While the perception of Linux on the desktop is seen as small and insignificant, litigation isn't likely to occur in the domain the user-oriented Linux distro's. But seeing what Android already had to endure and what kind of shitstorm only recently appeared on the horizon with the forming of Rockstar patent troll (Apple and Microsoft even joining forces!), I'd be very wary of any Linux project ever getting a substantial market share. It'd become the target of frivolous patent suits in no time, and while it may be hard to find something to attack it with, lawyers can get very creative (Exhibit A: the US patent system). Also, many corporations might pull their patents (Mono from Microsoft) once their own products are threatened.

As both Apple and Microsoft already have their own desktop OS, I could potentially see Android bringing in a breath of fresh air. If Google really wants to, they have the power to address the above points. While I don't see where they were going with Chrom OS, I could see Android OS becoming something viable, as the worlds of mobile and desktop seem to be headed on a collision course (seeing recent Windows 8 and IOS developments).

Seems to Me As I Read These Posts

[turkeyfish]

That there are a fair number of things that the Linux community could do to address the issue, but also for a variety of reasons, some discussed above, they probably won't and will be left next year making the same comments and lamentations as they would have last year.

Why not, rather than a long list of posts that amount to little more than hand-wringing, redirect this discussion toward the top 10 issues that make Linux on the desktop suffer/suck relative to Windows/OS, with finally some votes to establish the true "top 10". Then after that, set a broad community wide goal of addressing each of the top 10. At least one year latter Linux would be better for it and some additional cohesion would have been created for the community as a whole.

One of the most wonderful things about Linux is that anyone can do whatever they want with it. One of the worst things about Linux is that anyone can do whatever they want with it. If the Linux community is to ever see an increase in its use as a desktop environment, it has to find a happy medium between these two extremes, which is not the same as saying that one has to give up one's freedom to do what they want. However, interoperability and some standardization are essential for common solutions across a broad range of approaches that will address the "dearth of good applications issue" and the "different ways of doing things issue (ie hardware/software incompatibilities issue)". Being owned my monolithic and single-minded organizations, MS and Apple don't have these problems, at least not to the same degree.

My sense is that the Linux community might look at the entire approach of modularization, with some effort being directed toward making various "modules of functionality" interoperable, when different "functional modules" are switched in and out. That in itself, would do much to better stabilize the application level, while still permitting lots of experimentation across a range of activities. Perhaps those who work on the OS itself might do well to make it easier for higher levels of functionality to be more interchangeable, including more standard automated ways to recompile higher level code.

Rather than making this the "Year of the Desktop" or some such make this the year that at least some of the top issues actually get addressed across the entire Linux community. If nothing else, it would make Linux better and perhaps lead to improvements at both the OS level and at the applications level. Make this the "Year that a few more fundamental issues got solve". Do that for a few more years and then look back and have this discussion again. My sense is that given the nature and advantages of Linux in many areas, the entire community would benefit, including for many who are not now using Linux.

no hdmi audio output killed ubuntu for me

[fmoliveira]

Tried ubuntu for a media box, hdmi output had video but not audio. Ubuntu web site said it was not a priority at the time. No time to lose with linux anymore.

Re:Clearing up a couple misconceptions... apk

[hawkinspeter]

I can't believe I'm replying to *THE NAME THAT MUST NOT BE SPOKEN*, but here goes:

I'm well aware that you can add all kinds of software to Windows, but that doesn't mean that it's included with Windows (on the disk or in the standard software repository). Cygwin provides an entire userland of linux software, but I wouldn't consider that to be part of a standard Windows install.

To take it to the extreme, I could download, for free, a Linux CD and run it within Windows, but that doesn't mean that Windows includes those features.

Search slashdot history for linux desktop 1999

[minniger]

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/98/12/30/193209/linux-desktop-is-doa

Folks. It's not going to happen. OSX is the unixy desktop. Nothing anyone has said for the last 14 years on slashdot is going to change that. It's not an issue of technology or 'just marketing'. It's because desktop linux has always lacked a large enough organization building a 'whole product' around it.

On the bright side, linux is well represented with Android. IMO this is due to mobile forcing linux to be wrapped up as whole product. Just like apple did with darwin for iOS and OSX.

Simple answer

[mgcleveland]

Gaming. I'm a Linux guy. I've had it on all my computers since I can remember, use it at work, and even got my wife using it. However, recently I wanted to play a new game (Starcraft 2) and the support on the most "friendly" distributions (Ubuntu and Mint) were shotty at best. Sound problems, video inconsistencies, you name it there were problems. Emulation (with WINE) is buggy and virtual machines introduce a performance bottleneck. Until games companies support Linux or vice-versa, the Linux desktop will not be used by a large segment of computer enthusiasts: gamers.

I am not a salesperson.

[iceaxe]

I happily dual boot Win 7 and whichever distro I happen to like at the moment (currently Xubuntu using lxde, might do Arch soon). I find that I default to Linux, but I don't freak out if I have to boot up windows to do something. I am able to use my computer to do the things I want to do with it.

I long ago quit giving a rat's hindquarters what OS other people use, as long as I can use my machine the way I want.

So, if you feel like being an unpaid salesperson for a product that is given away for free and doesn't need your efforts, knock yourself out. I hope you find great success and happiness. But I have no advice to give you.

There are onyl two good reasons:

[scorp1us]

1. Safer web browsing.
2. UPDATES! A unified system updater exists. No more having a Java updater, an AIR updater, and various other updaters. It's all in one place! This seems small but it's huge to a noob that is bombarded with updates to install on what seems like a daily basis these days.

Re:It doesn't "Just Work"...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently gave up my Dell Mini with Linux and got another netbook with Win7. Why? Because I got tired of dealing with basic fundamental stuff that was broken. Originally my Dell Mini came with Ubuntu v8.04. I guess I should have stayed on that release, but I decided to "upgrade" and that's when my fun started. v9.04 broke microphone audio, so I was unable to use Skype until someone posted a forum article on how to disable some audio driver and reinstall another package. v9.10 broke microphone audio again and took out my webcam. v10.04 fixed the audio, but still no webcam. v10.10 same deal. v11.04, no changes, stuff was still broken. Apparently there was some way to get the webcam to work, but you had to hunt down sources for various USB library pieces and that was just more than I wanted to deal with. So while I liked aspects of my Linux experience, ultimately I just needed something to work rather than spending my time tweaking with stuff that should have been working to begin with.

It's the... eh?

[mitzampt]

Linux can't become 'the PC OS' by following three fundamental axes: costs, consistency and substance. Following the cost axis, on your left, you see free software, open, with some documentation and inconsistent support. NO WARRANTIES AND NO MARKETING. It is not a cow so don't try to milk it. As for consistency, freedom made it so colorful and chaotic it's really hard to get around or use it as a base. On the other side it's very flexible, customisable and powerfully diverse. It doesn't have a head to decapitate, it's like a commie hive, based on equality of itches to scratch. For the final axis, it lacks the solid state and logic Windows or Mac has, that one direction, that one single point of delivery, it's divergently creative, it's really "meta" so you can't envisage it as a product, or an array of products and so it cares less about that and if it runs products or not. Linux stopped being just one penguin the second Linus shared it's code. I actually use only Linux at home because it costs me less, gives me freedom and it never stops challenging me. Now if you would stop these damn articles and let me fix my Xorg.conf it would be wonderful.

Re:first post

[e70838]

Hello, I use Linux as my everyday desktop (ubuntu LTS) since 2.5 years. I have switched for many reasons (missing drivers on Vista64, openoffice and chrome identical on Linux, I know unix, religion, ...).
My return of experience is that Linux works fine enough for usage, but there are many strange "feelings".
- It is strange to not always be installing software found on internet, deinstalling them because they are crap and then having to fix issues related to bad deinstallation.
- On linux, there is no problem to find and install powerfull packages, but there is a step learning curve. The documentation is either not up to date, incomplete, not existant or does not go beyond basic stuff. On windows, I complain about bad software, on linux, I complain about my ignorance and the lack of time to learn. This is not good for self estim.
- There is a feeling of loneliness. There is almost nobody I can ask when I have a question. Sometimes, I find a question on internet about a problem I have already encountered and solved. But once a problem is solved, it never occur again. I do not remember exactly how I did solve it. I can almost not help. Maybe I should search for a LUG to share my experiences. I have nothing to discuss with people having windows problems.

The main positive points that balance these negative feelings are:
- that my disks are far easier to backup because of the clear separation of data and programs. It is trivial to mount backup images, rip DVD....
- I can access my computer from anywhere (if it is on). I would like to setup the wake on lan, but I have not found clear documentation
- My computer is as fast as 3 years ago, I have no need to change.

For me, the main problem of Linux usage is that there are too few of us.

Yup, this.

[aussersterne]

I began life on Sun3 workstations running SunOS and when Linux came around in 1993 I was thrilled. I can remember the excitement of running Emacs at home, on a cheap PC with 4MB ram, a 150MB ESDI hard drive, and an EGA card (all of which were an order of magnitude cheaper than the Sun4 workstations that were around at the time).

From then until now—nearly 20 years now—Linux has been in various states of "we're finally almost there!" but it never actually gets there. We were "almost ready to take over the world and displace Windows" all the way back at the KDE 1.0 beta-3 release in 1997.

The pattern goes like this:

1) New project! We will copy and improve upon the shiny proprietary thing in the market now!
2) Code 80% in 2-3 years, leaving 20% buggy or incomplete or listed as "ToDo" or "FixMe" or "ImplementLater" (goes for docs, too).
3) Look over there! There is a NEW shiny proprietary thing! We are behind the curve!
4) Discard all and start again at #1.

Being "satisfied with old but working" (i.e. the Windows XP phenomenon) doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that motivates FOSS developers to get that last 20% done. So if you're an end user of Linux, you're always stuck somewhere between 0% to 80% working, but you never, ever get to 100% working/stable.

It took me until 2008 to realize that I would never, ever get there with Linux. When KDE3 went to KDE4 and I switched to GNOME only to have GNOME3 be announced as a replacement to GNOME2, even as things like Pulse were coming down the pipe that broke audio yet again and driver changes in recent kernels were rendering the laptop hardware I was using at the time unsupported... A light bulb finally went off over my head:

"I've been here before. Over and over again I have been 'almost there' with Linux... and now I'm not again. If I stay, I will spend countless hours and nights over months or even years yet again kludging and coding and submitting and configuring and kludging and, most importantly, waiting on others and on the "community" to implement/fix/document stuff, working hard to continuously preserve and backup and migrate my data in an unstable environment. In 2-3 years I will finally be to 'nearly there' again, and then... No. I will not be fooled/find myself waiting for years for the next major versions to mature yet again."

With fedupness in my soul I partitioned the machine and installed a hackintosh volume, which ironically worked about as well as Linux ever had despite being, well, a hackintosh volume, and which was actually (and again, ironically) somewhat easier to get working right (a bit of futzing around with files and drivers, but no configuration of the runtime, environment, text files, GUI environment, etc., needed).

Within a month I wasn't using Linux at all. Within 6 months I'd bought a MacBook Pro. And that was that.

Now you couldn't pay me to go back to Linux. I need a computer that works 100% and it had been so long by 2008 since I'd had one that I'd forgotten what it was like. Never again.

Re:Yup, this.

[hairyfeet]

Sadly friend you have described the "busted shitter dilemma" which many have run into and simply didn't know it. I think if everyone would accept that name, which I believe perfectly sums up the problem, then at least the community would know WHY things simply don't work, even if they will never fix them.

You see the very name of the thing describes why you can't fix it, with the GPL model you simply can't make money on the desktop, they've tried everything from proprietary bits (Xandros) to selling hardware (gOS and Canonical) to selling "membership privileges" (Mandriva and Linspire) and none of it works. And what the community simply fails to grasp is human nature. Humans will create new things (1 and 4 on your list) because that is FUN, its exciting, humans are naturally creative creatures and so will do this for free. What they will NOT do is shitty thankless work like documenting, regression testing, spending ages conforming their already made program to a UI standard, bug testing, as I said for every single creative job you need done there is 100 that is about as fun and exciting as being the guy that cleans the puke at the chuck E Cheese. does the community HONESTLY think they could get someone to clean their turd filled busted shitter for free? of course not yet the entire premise of making Linux into a desktop depends on thousands of completely unpaid volunteers doing just that, wasting years of their lives on boring, lousy, dreary, thankless work.

Oh and for the one that complained about my commas, I was told I needed to cut back on commas so damned if you do and all that. But it does make for a good example, as since i'm typing this for free i'm certainly not gonna waste time looking for every possible punctuation error,and the community expects someone is gonna write ALL those docs, which is a long, slow, boring job that good doc writers get paid damned good money to do for...what? Someone to say "What? oh yeah thanks"? Not gonna happen. Hell I would argue that writing the docs ought to be a job that even the non coders could do and yet you still can't get them done. What makes you think you're gonna get those jobs where it takes years of schooling and experience to even be qualified to attempt it and that are gonna take years to complete, like a new driver model or rock solid sound subsystem? Not gonna happen.

It's not about cost, either

[Animats]

Exactly. Linux was a lot better than Windows 95/98. Windows 7 is better than Linux. The "day of Linux on the desktop" should have come when Windows XP was late. That opportunity was missed.

It's not about cost, either. Linux has had the effect of reducing the price of Windows on desktops. Microsoft had to cut their price to counter the Linux netbooks.

Re:It's not about cost, either

[Blakey Rat]

The "day of Linux on the desktop" should have come when Windows XP was late. That opportunity was missed.

There was a second chance, just a few years ago when netbooks were on the rise like mad, and Microsoft didn't have an OS that could run on one (instead having to keep pitching XP for netbooks.) That opportunity was missed as well.

Re:It's not about cost, either

[Swampash]

No, because netbooks were an evolutionary dead-end. Even if Linux had taken off and dominated the netbook market it would now be dead. Because netbooks are extinct. Everyone uses an iPad.

Microtek ScanMaker 4850

[tepples]

Pretty good, but for years, I had to reboot to Windows to scan with a Microtek ScanMaker 4850 USB flatbed scanner. It's still unsupported to this day. I eventually replaced my scanner when I replaced my printer with an HP OfficeJet all-in-one, and I chose HP solely because of HP's commitment to CUPS and SANE under Linux.

Windows meets my tinkering desires

[jweller13]

When I'm in regular user mode Windows meets my needs with minimal to no fuss. I'm also a computer nerd, to a lesser degree than most here I suppose, and build my own computers. I really like to tinker and Windows is open enough to fulfill my tinkering desires as well.

Before Linux, the CLI was for getting work done.

[aussersterne]

You know, sh, csh, sed, awk, perl, etc. etc. etc. The entirety of the Unix System V Bible that I used to have laying around on my shelf in the old days is not about "tinkering," but about *working*.

It is only once Linux comes along that an OS becomes a tinkertoy and a CLI the interface to this form of play.

I use the CLI regularly on my Mac for a lot of heavy lifting. But you're right, when I was running Linux, I used the CLI mostly for tweaking stuff to try to get it to work better ("work 100%" always seemed out of reach). To my eye, in retrospect, this is an endictment of Linux, not an ad for it, and says a lot about the relative "can get work done now" vs. "still working to make it work now" balances in both systems.

Re:games

[satuon]

Yes, eventually I figured it was pulseaudio too, so I switch mplayer and VLC to ALSA now. But I haven't figured out how to make Chrome not use pulseaudio so I can watch Youtube videos whistle-free.

#1, Mac OSX

[pkbarbiedoll]

I beg to differ on your analysis of OSX. I would have considered Apple if it weren't for the clunky DE, which is even more apparent in multiple monitor environments. Whoever decided that the application toolbar and window should remain separate is very likely the same kind of person you accuse of being unprofessional GUI designers.

Don't confuse usability with popularity.

Only Macs and home-built desktops lack OEM W7

[tepples]

Yes, you can use FOSS on Windows, but you still have to pay for Windows, for each of your computers, if you want to keep it legal.

This is a problem only if you're building desktops or buying Macs. Pretty much any major brand PC not made by Apple comes with a copy of OEM Windows 7 installed at no additional charge. So if you're buying a laptop, and it's not a MacBook, the sticker price includes Windows.

What is needed....

[Mage66]

Linux needs to stop being a laboratory.

Linux needs to have a UI that regular people want, not what some programmers want.

Linspire had the right idea. Make Linux look and work like what people are used to.

There can be one distribution that looks and works like Windows, including WINE. And, another that looks and works like MacOS X.

These should be packaged and sold in stores, with tech support. As well as bundled with hardware.

There can still be all the current distributions with their different UIs for the Power-users.

But if you want to sell Linux to desktop users (who don't care about the 'coolness' of Linux) it simply has to run the software they need to run, in a way they're familiar with.

People are going to have to give up the egotistical stand that says Linux shouldn't work like Windows.

If a car manufacturer made their cars as different from other cars as Linux is from other OSes, they'd have very few sales too.

My 2 cents

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

There are certain demographics for users of Linux on the desktop. If you have to ask the question "Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system?", then you are probably not part of those demographics. Most desktop linux users are academics, hobbyists and people who are just motivated to tinker and learn about computers and operating systems. I imagine there is also a smaller portion of people who use linux purely out of financial concern (its free, as in beer). Anyway, I'm quite happy with the level of desktop penetration linux has now. Its enough that there is a worldwide community of support and plenty of competing projects to some of the best commercial software available (ex: LibreOffice). I don't think linux needs the hype (or reputation) that Microsoft Windows or IOS has.

Its because

[future assassin]

>> Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system?

we can....

Saw this in the OS/2 newsgroups

[lwriemen]

It's an interesting pathology. Former user (often a fanboy) decides to switch operating systems and becomes obsessed with trying to get everyone to agree with them. Posts start out with specious attempts at logic and eventually dissolve into vitriol-spewing trolling.

Lack of software

[magisterx]

First, I would pick a distro, that makes it a lot easier to sell. I unhesitatingly recommend Ubuntu for someone that wants Linux on the desktop.

But as for what needs to be done, while I use Ubuntu I also still use Windows. Windows really is a pretty good OS, IMHO. But more than that, there are several important programs that have no Linux counterparts. There are few AAA games on Linux. Also, as much as I love LibreOffice, MS Office is sometimes an absolute requirement.

Re:Arstechnica eh? Let me tell you about THEM... a

[hawkinspeter]

WTF? I have no idea what you are on about regarding Arstechnica (I know it's some kind of news site, but that's about it). I think you've confused me with someone else.

O/S != DESKTOP

[Sebastopol]

Backend server *Nix is growing.

Mac is *Nix.

Every Linux desktop sucks.

However Linux OS will eventually be the underpinning of all OSes. It is already happening. Mark my words, M$ will one day switch to a *nix kernel. (I'm laughing at me right now, but part of me believes it).

Desktop window dressing will tone down (see: iOS, Metro) even more in the coming years, and the interface will change more and more dramatically.

But ultimately the *Nix will win the O/S war. Leave the UE/Desktop to the artists and the context/usage-model. /endrambling

Development

[edmicman]

"Why would anyone want to use Linux as their everyday desktop (or laptop) operating system?"

For me, I find non-Microsoft web development much easier on Linux that in Windows. I can set up a dev environment with web server and database all native and local and for the most part it Just Works. On Windows I find I either have to still configure a Linux server VM and set up my stuff there to write code on Windows and target the VM server, or go through some sort of WAMP setup. But I never feel like the various pieces running on Windows are as good as their Linux counterparts which is where the final product is going to run anyway. Java development, too, seems to just work better in Linux.

That said, after running Ubuntu for a couple years on my laptop I reinstalled with Windows 7 and have been there ever since. I originally just wanted to play a Steam game and it just wasn't working under Linux. But I also grew tired of having to hack things and run scripts from the Internet just to make things work. Just off the top of my head I remember dealing with:

graphics drivers for my Thinkpad T500
CUPS pdf printing that just disappeared and kept needing to be re-added
wrestling with browser plugins - things would work with Firefox but I'd have to play games to get them to work with Chromium
wrestling with getting any sort of Citrix plugin to work on 64-bit so I could access my employer's network

20 years of Linux

[Dennis Sheil]

Last year Linux celebrated its 20 year anniversary, as Linus began writing it in 1991 and released it that same year. For myself, I'd have to think more deeply about it to determine exactly what year I first started using Linux, but it was definitely between 1993 and 1995. I installed my first Linux on a non-brand-name laptop with the Slackware distribution. It required many, many 3.5 inch disks to install (I forget how many disks it was if you wanted to install X-Windows - it was a lot). It used LILO as the boot loader.

My next Linux desktop I began using in February 1996. It was at a small startup - so small actually that initially the machine doubled not only as my desktop, but as a server of sorts. The machine had a pre-1 kernel, but the previous sysadmin upgraded it to Linux 1.X the first day I began working. The /proc/meminfo file in Linux had recently had a cached column added to it, which broke top and some other things, although the previous sysadmin dealt with that snag as well. FVWM was my window manager. The machine was susceptible to the "ping of death", and this was before firewalls, NAT, iptables and the like were widespread in use.

Linux as a desktop has come a long, long way since then. Even in the past few years, the Linux desktop has come a long way. A lot of people have done work on this, but Ubuntu has been a big part of this, and is what I currently use on my desktop. One example - when installing my new Ubuntu system, it sets up what is necessary to get the disks and network connection in order, and then it simultaneously starts downloading needed packages from the Internet while I go through the rest of the system setup menus. If I finish all the setup before everything is finished downloading, I can cycle through a promo which shows me which features Ubuntu has. This is the kind of thinking that has been needed for Linux on the desktop - every previous Linux install I remember consists in me doing system setup, and then I have to wait for the downloads to start and finish. Even though it is a little more of a pain to implement from the developer's point of view, Ubuntu gets those downloads started as soon a possible, and I don't have to wait that extra time that I'm doing the rest of the system setup - and if I finish before the downloads, I have a promo to look through where I can learn about the system. Not a big thing, but an example of the kind of thinking needed.

To a point others have addressed - nowadays there is server, desktop, laptop, tablet and smartphone. Linux is dominant on smartphone, and has a very healthy-sized chunk of tablets. With the Nook, the Kindle Fire, as well as the pure Android tablets like the Samsung Galaxy Tabs, the Xoom etc., and this year Ice Cream Sandwich tablets coming out, I'm confident Android (and thus Linux) will grab more of the tablet market. What I have not seen mentioned here (maybe I missed it) is that tablets sales have been cannibalizing desktop sales, and the traditional desktop is growing less relevant over time for the average consumer. Just like people here are saying desktop Linux is mostly only relevant for techies like us, in the future desktops may become mostly relevant only for techies like us, or people doing things like 3d modeling and the like. With a Bluetooth keyboard (foldable or solid) and a tablet, you can already do a fraction of what the desktop can do, and that will only increase with more powerful tablets, new software and so forth. And Linux is a big player in this domain. I think the efforts to improve desktop Linux are good, but I think efforts to promote Linux are currently more productive in the areas where it already has a significant position: servers, smartphones and tablets.

Right now Apple and Android are in a real race for dominance over smartphones and tablets, and Windows is throwing its hat in the ring with Windows 8. I think Microsoft realizes it has lost the smartphone race for the next few years, and will be concentrating on tablets, where the

North American video game crash of 1983

[tepples]

Quantity possesses quality of its own

Then explain the North American video game crash of 1983, when excessive quantity killed the market.

Linux is great on the desktop!

[ccanucs]

I've been using Linux as my main desktop operating system since 1993. Didn't have to have it marketed to me - it marketed itself because of its functionality and extensibility at low or zero cost. It was stable - had all the desktop tools I needed at the time and has added most of what I have needed subsequently since. I rarely use anything but Openoffice or, now, Libre Office or sometimes some of the KDE or Gnome counterparts. It ran continuously, did not blue screen, did not require a reboot to update a piece of *application* software, let alone even OS support software, barring perhaps a kernel update. I admit to using Windoze sometimes if there is a piece of software that is not available for Linux, but I don't do so out of choice and mostly don't need to. Only one major area where I play that I concede to other OS's in, is in music applications where Mac and Windoze have the market - but Linux is a serious contender there too for some. I have just spent the better part of 12 days also trying to install a piece of OOS on a commercial variant of UN*X - supported - paid for - will not work. A colleague spent the morning installing the base Linux on the same machine (not x86 hardware) and I spent the afternoon installing the software packages - remotely not needing some GUI front end but simply ssh'ed in - and by evening we had the software that had not worked at all for 12 days on the normal vendor supplied OS working just fine. Having paid for vendor support doesn't necessarily mean things are rosy if you don't want to do what is normally prescribed, and I'm sure we've all been down the support route where you call and you get: "OK sir, please uninstall all your other software first, then reinstall the OS and then our piece and we can then tell you what to do? What? You refuse to uninstall all your other software? Well I'm sorry sir your support 'contract' doesn't cover us being able to help you then..." BTW: If I do use Windoze I make a point of installing the Cygwin suite as a fairly up-front procedure too. Kind regards all.... W

Re:Linux is great on the desktop!

[Un pobre guey]

Hear, hear!

If you don't want to use GNU/Linux, fine. Don't use it. Also, who gives a rat's ass if the general public uses it or not? I certainly don't. Linux is self-sustaining. There are companies that make enviable incomes maintaining, supporting, and extending it. Young computer scientists cut their teeth developing it. Plenty of people use it, as do plenty of companies. Any company with vast armies of servers would be foolish to use anything other than Linux. In practice, you have to justify why you would use Windows and its huge licensing burden, the absolute opacity of its code (and of the commercial apps you'll most likely be running), and your complete dependence on others for code fixes. An average Linux user probably doesn't fiddle much with the code, but companies running tens or hundreds of thousands of boxes certainly will. Who can wait for months or years to get a bug fixed?

The Linux desktop is fine. It is a subjective choice like any other, but many people use it all day every day with no major problems. We all have apps that only run on Windows or Mac so, oh well, you also have to have a box or two to allow that. Computers are cheap enough these days that most households have two or more computers lying around already anyway. Most likely, even your elderly Aunt Tilley.

This is a dead controversy. Nobody gives two shits about it, except people who have nothing better to do than yak yak yak about pointless topics. The year of the Linux desktop came and went without anyone noticing. It's hard to say when it even was, actually, but it is in the fog of the past.

It does not really matter ...

[Coeurderoy]

The only real value of Linux on the desktop are:
- that whatever you put on your machine is "hard to remove by others", normally it's free and you got the source code, the more you use, the more you learn, it becomes easier, and even if your software becomes obsolete it is still mostly avaiable.
- and you know that putting spys, and limiting what you can do is sinificantly harder than with other platoforms. (although not impossible read the thomson paper).

So the only "selling point" is : if you care about your freedom more than about convenience, use linux, if not... well it's your life.

BTW: People who do not care about the level of control proprietary software companies can have on them through their desktop (through spying, control of the media distribution chain, remote data access, etc...) do not really care about their own liberties, they are the kind of persons who believe in electronic voting.
So probably we should just remove the right to vote to microsoft/macosx users, hummm, well the initial bootstrap vote will be hard to get though .. :-)

Re:first post

[cooperaaaron]

Ubuntu, which you use, has PLENTY of users that can help you.

Can you clarify, are you providing factoids or ...

[daboochmeister]

... trying to imply that Windows vibrantly competes with Linux in the embedded or run-on-a-mainframe space?

You have a 4-digit /. member #, Ken, can we assume you're doing the former? :-)

Re:Why? I have reasons...

[Yunzil]

In fact the brand new HP color laser we just bought was EASIER to install on her linux box than it was on the Windows 7 machine I have. Yes, Linux is EASIER to install hardware than Windows 7.

Lies, damned lies, and Slashdot anecdotes.

Linux use in Bioinformatics/Computational Biology

[PythonM]

Every job I got in those fields required Linux skills. Please make great user friendly app to tinker with personal genomic data and people will sped hours searching for ancestry and trying to understand how to tune-up their bodies to improve quality of their lifes. Most of the building blocks (software packages) are GPLed and readily available, but the output of such software is hard to understand in current form.

Re:WTF?

[petit_robert]

Wow! Rarely seen concentration of FUD in this post, you should be up for a promotion, or a bonus of some kind.

Reality is :
-it's way (I mean WAYYYY) faster and easier to install Linux on just about anything than to get windows working
-on the various machines I've used to make a living as a developper over the last six years (currently EeePC), everything worked seamlessly right out of box

To check it out :
Burn a Knoppix CD (or USB key) and boot your machine with it, you'll get a risk free trial (you should have networking and office suite all up and running)
http://knoppix.net/

Once you love it :
install Debian, following instructions here at
http://wiki.debian.org/QuickInstall
(other distributions exist)

This will preserve your Windows partitions, and the content will be accessible easily from Linux

You'll soon discover that computers are actually fun.

Netflix

[erikwestlund]

I built a computer a few years ago for two reasons:

1) to show the class I was teaching how a computer was built
2) to have a computer to be hooked up to a TV for watching TV/movies/etc.

I put linux on it but to my annoyance, Netflix was impossible because of Silverlight/DRM. That pretty much ruined it for me and I put Windows on it. Little things like that, I think, explain a lot of why people won't switch.

Linux fonts are the main holdback for me

[leftie]

I can use any OS for a couple hours, but linux font readability becomes an issue on long multi-hour sessions. The font readability for linux browsers and e-book readers in long term use is still a barrier. I can read MS ClearType fonts almost as well as I can read the printed page

Because it is an unholy mess

[ikekrull]

Personally, I see the biggest problems are the lack of platform APIs, that all filesystems, DEs and applications will use. There is a major issue with desktop fragmentation, with spotty hardware support and API churn when it comes to sound, video and UI toolkits, but these are things users can avoid with testing and careful choice.

In my view, there are more fundamental problems, which leave Linux with a ball and a chain round it's leg - While the core OS remains stuck in the 1970s, Linux will continue to lose relevance. POSIX is obsolete, and UNIX(tm) is dead.

The following is, of course, simply my opinion after having used Linux and attempting to use Linux for various things in the course of my work over the years. I know many will disagree with some or all of it, especially when it comes to file permissions.

Most of these issues are most relevant for a business/workgroup situation, and some of these issues would include:

Authentication system: Secure and easily managed user authentication which works across the network is a 'roll your own' thing under linux at the moment. The platform should ship with Kerberos and LDAP working 'out of the box', and all servers and apps should be able to plug into this without any pain or recompilation with different configure flags.

File permissions: POSIX is obsolete. POSIX draft ACLS suck, thats why they remained a draft. Adopt NFS4 ACLs or a superset, build filesystems (like ZFS) to use them exclusively, and dump the reliance on the inadequate owner/group/everyone structure. This is important when sharing files over a network, or simply for allowing users to do what they need to with shared data on a single machine. chmod/chgrp etc. can be modified to set the appropriate ACLs. Ignore the part of the POSIX spec that requires all other ACLs to be blown away when chmod/chgrp is applied.

File locking: POSIX never anticipated multithreading. POSIX locking is broken, and should be modified so that locking a file in a threaded application on Linux is reliable. The current standard is not something that anyone who wanted to design a working file locking system for Linux could possibly have contributed to or supported.

Network file system: A filesystem that allows secure, high performance sharing of files between Linux systems, that seamlessly supports ACL-based file permissions and file locking is sorely needed. NFS and Samba are both inadequate for various reasons (which would, however, be somewhat mitigated by the above), and its pretty embarrassing.

Filesystem mounting: the kernel/fstab, gvfs, kio, FUSE all do their own thing. You have absurd situations like OpenOffice and gedit not being able to save the files they open. Ability to use URLs like 'smb://myserver/myfile' will only ever work if this support is implemented at libc or similar level. Dump gvfs, dump kio, and build in network url decoding and filesystem mounting at the layer it makes sense to do it on. - the fopen system call should take be able to take a url as a parameter, if this functionality is desirable, we shouldn't duplicate a stack of hacks for each desktop environment to support this.

Gimp as an alternative to Photoshop

[Tetsujin]

The problem with alternative apps like acrobat->gimp is that ultimately software is a tool (and so are some users ;-)). If you are a graphics guy with 10+ years experience using an app, you are very very quick at doing hundreds of different things with the software. Through in gimp, sure you might be able to do all the things that you can do in photoshop but there will be a huge learning curve. If you are billing 100+ per hour for your time and some stupid "free" app cuts your productivity in half for a few weeks that is a problem.

Professional use, I'd absolutely agree. I don't think Gimp is on Photoshop's level at all (though people did tend to call it a "Photoshop alternative" - I think that there may have been some truth to that when Gimp was new - when there weren't a lot of apps out there that did the simpler jobs one tended to associate with Photoshop. These days, free image editors of Gimp's caliber are a lot more common, and Photoshop goes beyond that in a number of ways.

But I think that for the majority of users, an app on Gimp's level is enough.

Because it doesn't just work

[uneek]

1) Does every video card work?
2) Desktop user's shouldn't be expected to recompile a kernel for functionality.
3) Openoffice / Libre Office is not as useful or compatible with Microsoft office.
4) Is there a good / stable finance package for Linux?
5) I want my wireless networking to work without having to know WEP and wireless security in great detail.

License cost

[tommy8]

Linux will become a lot more viable on the desktop when the price of hardware falls to a level that makes the windows license a very significant percentage of the overall cost. In 2002 it costs me 800 bucks for the hardware to build my own system. Now you can pay like 300 for all the parts you need to build a system. Lets say it cost a about 100 bucks to go out and buy a windows license. In 2002 Windows would have been about 11% of my total cost (100 bucks for windows + 800 for hardware is 900 total). Now the total would be 25% if you buy a 100 windows license for 300 hardware. I don't know how much it cost a company like Dell or HP for a windows license (I'm sure it under $100, but I'm guessing it is more than $50, anyone know?) but it is becoming a bigger percentage of the cost of a PC every passing day.

Honestly, I don't care.

[Tetsujin]

What I want from Linux is not a system that necessarily could compete with Windows or Mac, or attract large numbers of "average" users to use it.

What I enjoy about Linux is that it's a system that suits me. I like that it doesn't patronize me, or get all in my face about things I'm trying to do, the way Windows does. And every time I see a Linux app that behaves in a way that I associate with Windows (for instance, warning me when I change the extension of a file from ".jpg" or ".jpeg", or ".htm" to ".html") I get annoyed, and wish people writing Linux software wouldn't fixate themselves so much on creating software that suits the "average user".

I am a computer hobbyist, and that is awesome. Linux is an operating system in which a lot of the development effort has been centered around making it a great system for computer hobbyists. And that is, frankly, a bit problematic. There's no clear direction or leadership, and as such some really basic things have taken a really long time to materialize and/or stabilize. But I can work with that, and I choose to work with that, because most of the system is set up to support me in the way I choose to interact with the computer.

Re:Nope, fewer viruses because Linux is harder

[Shompol]

Anecdote: A few years back I had Windows with SP2 with Firewall behind a router with firewall. Had an antivirus running as well. At some point while browsing an innocent "funny video" website it opended an ad, which opened an ad which opened a cascading window with multiple attack sites, all blocked by Firefox as "this is a known attack site". Guess what, Firefox did not block all of them. Ended up with the magical Windows XP SP2 reinstall and painstaking recovery of my data.

Morale: 1. What you are saying is not true. 2. Firewall is not an "all the security you need" miracle. 3. I expect the same problems in Vista/7/8 because the thing keeps running in admin mode by default. I also suspect that there are multiple loopholes when running in non-admin mode as well.

Xubuntu means ...

[srobert]

...I don't have time to fiddle with with Unity either.

Re:Xubuntu means ...

[pepeperes]

Nice one, and so true, in fact it is in my netbook.

Cause You Can't Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd

[srobert]

I realize that you intend "why do you care?" to be a rhetorical question. The trouble is that it isn't one. It makes a real difference when the people around you create a consensus that this or that is the preferred way of doing things, your way can become incompatible and unsupported. It applies to religion, software, and other choices also. You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.

Re:Cause You Can't Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd

[Nathaniel]

Linux runs on nearly everything, from micro controllers to super computers. The only place it isn't dominating the landscape is on the PC desktop, which is becoming less relevant with ubiquitous computing everywhere. People are carrying around multiple devices that each have more computing power than a desktop from 10 years ago, and this pattern is likely to continue. Linux doesn't appear to be in any danger of going away. Why should we be concerned if people want to keep using the same old operating systems that they've grown used to?

I meant it to be a real question. How does it impact your life if the people around you are using Windows, or Mac, or Linux operating systems? What options are closed to you because of their choices?

Re:Nope, fewer viruses because Linux is harder

[Gaygirlie]

Morale: 1. What you are saying is not true.

Yes, if you keep comparing to XP, which is a 10 years old OS.

2. Firewall is not an "all the security you need" miracle.

I never claimed that. You however claimed that one can get infected simply by connecting to Internet, which obviously isn't true if the user has a firewall enabled and hasn't allowed some weird connections through it.

3. I expect the same problems in Vista/7/8 because the thing keeps running in admin mode by default. I also suspect that there are multiple loopholes when running in non-admin mode as well.

No, they do not run in "admin mode" by default.

Correcting self without moving goalposts?

[tepples]

That was not what you posted originally

Is someone allowed only one question ever? I hope that's not the case.

Goalpost move detected

What is one supposed to do when one realizes that the claim that one made originally is incorrect but can be amended to be correct? For example, one might realize that "no Linux programs support burning on the fly" is incorrect but "among Linux programs that claim to support burning on the fly, they all make failed burns" is correct. How should one make a correction without it being considered a goalpost move?

Sandbox

[tepples]

But the less savvy users when they have a system like Windows PC, or even MacOS, will undoubtedly mess it up by installing some kind of virus, or spyware, or what have you

The proper solution to this isn't a requirement that all code be signed with a paid certificate. It's a capability system that limits what an untrusted program can do outside a well-delineated sandbox. Such a system has been implemented in OLPC Sugar (Bitfrost) and Android, and Mac OS X Mountain Lion will adopt this for the Mac App Store. An executable is signed with a self-signed certificate so that a virus can't infect it, updates to the application are signed with the same certificate (called "key continuity management"), and the user can check or uncheck capabilities for applications on that certificate.

Who needs whom

[tepples]

If Linux does what you want, use it, you don't have to sell it to anyone.

More usage share makes hardware makers more willing to cooperate by providing drivers. Right now, for example, makers of printers and the like need Apple more than Apple needs them, but with Canonical and other desktop Linux distributors, it's the other way around.

Re:Why people like OSX and Windows

[m.ducharme]

I would agree with you, but there's something else that Apple has over Windows (but not necessarily over Linux) that contributes to what causes average (and not so average persons like myself) to prefer Apple over other OSs. Specifically, maintenance costs. I do essentially no maintenance on the family Macs, and these days I don't even do any work on the extended family's PCs, because I can claim ignorance. Minimal maintenance makes my life a lot easier, and gives me much extra time to devote to my other responsibilities. Maybe things have changed since Win XP, but the constant running of various third party applications to scan for virii, adware and assorted scumware, defrag hard drives, clean out the registry, ad nauseam was taking up surprisingly large amounts of time that I now have free.

Linux is a different sort of beast, and I don't know how you'd compare maintenance time with the Mac, since in my experience with Linux, all the maintenance time is front-loaded. After install you spend about a week sorting out drivers, package dependencies, cron jobs and whatever, and then when you're done you're pretty much done until the next major upgrade. Apple maintenance, what there is of it, only really starts to happen when the computer is reaching the end of its useful life, and mostly involves paring down the software and files you don't really need, or finding less-greedy versions of whatever software you can't live without. And it doesn't take much time. When a Mac comes to the end of its useful life, there just isn't that much you can do software-wise.

Contradiction in the summary

[lennier]

"I kind of feel like a car salesman who realizes he no longer believes in the product he's been pitching. It's not that I don't find Linux worthy..."

If you find Linux worthy then why do you no longer believe in it?

For me, I've been falling out of love with Linux for the last two years, and there's one very simple reason: Ubuntu's Unity interface. That right there is what is wrong with Linux.

I'd upgrade to Linux Mint to make the suckage stop, but my main home desktop is dual-boot and I'm afraid the installer might melt my Windows 7 partition. And since Win7 knows about my HDMI TV and can run iTunes and Steam and my Ubuntu can't do any of those, that would hurt.

we target the wrong people

[ozduo]

When other OS users see Linux they groan at the thought of re-learning how to use a computer and believe it will be too hard to change. We should be targeting first timers (children). Once they discover how easy and logical Linux is you have a customer for life!

Re:LOL - Man, thank you (for making my afternoon)

[hairyfeet]

I have to say i find Oakgout to be pretty damned funny AND sad at the same time because of all the people to accuse of being the same person? hell we aren't even in the same time zone! We are as opposite as opposite can be but it DOES serve to illustrate what kind of madness is going on inside his head, as its a classic case of "Persecution syndrome" where they get it in their heads that "They MUST be after me, I'm too dangerous, that's what it is! I know THE TRUTH and they are out to get me for it!"

While I have to laugh at the sheer batshit lunacy of it all the sad part is one day he'll just disappear off of here and we'll not know why, when in reality he'll have hurt someone or himself and been locked away. That is what i think happened to our last resident crazy BTW, I think old Twitter succumbed to his madness and probably hurt somebody and is now in jail or a padded room, damned sad, hate to see anybody get THAT batshit.

Now if you'll excuse me I gotta go look at the tiger sales, my business has been so good lately that after i fix up my dad with a new router I'm gonna pick out my oldest a new Hexacore kit. He is so excited as this will be the first time he has the #1 PC in the family, as its even faster than my hexacore. But I figured that I have been #1, his little bro has been #1, now its his turn. Already got him an HD4850 ($50 at Geeks BTW, great cards and dirt cheap) and when I slap that Hexacore together he is gonna chew through SW:TOR like shit through a goose. BTW the hexacore kit is like $300 after MIR, really sweet deal and I have to say i fricking LOVE my hexacore, that bad boy rips a DVD to AVI in less than 14 minutes flat, just gotta love it. be sure to laugh at Oakgrout for me LOL Peace.

I think the problem is that...

[Red_Chaos1]

...we're all way over-thinking it. "Mom and pop" don't need to "know" Linux to use it. All mom and pop do is surf the Internet, do e-mail, possibly Facebook and flash games (Facebook, Pogo, etc.) and maybe run a few card creation programs, etc. nothing really major. 3 of those 4 things involve the browser, which unless they used IE the whole time, doesn't change. Firefox on Linux looks and works the same as Firefox on Windows. Same for the other available browsers. E-mail might be an issue if you were foolish enough to let them use Outlook Express or Windows (Live) Mail (in all my years of tech support, 90% of folks have no need for it, and so it only added to points of failure in which they need tech support), otherwise they're using webmail, which again, won't change in operation or looks at all. Flash games are a non issue since there is Flash on Linux now, so that takes care of that.

The only remaining issue is other Windows apps like Create-a-card and such the mom might use, or maybe dad's flight sim. It's possible WINE might take care of those, if not you could always set up a VM of XP with networking disabled, and have them run it like it was an app. I did this once for a couple on Windows 7 because an application his wife used wouldn't run even under compatibility layers. All they need to know was how to run it and that was it since they already knew how to operate Windows and applications within.

So now tell me why mom and pop can't use Linux? That it looks a little different is irrelevant, it has enough similarities that they can use it with very little retraining. Everything else is taken care of. All the other arguments made are the arguments of smart people over-thinking it all (IMO).

Free

[Yvanhoe]

It is free. And it is free.

Re:Why? I have reasons...

[Lumpy]

Nope. buttloads of truth.

Brand new Laserjet cp1525. linux found and had the driver without effort. Windows 7 I had to install the 68gb of helper crap on the HP disk just to get the printer to work.

I really hate HP's window drivers and all the worthless software and other crap that has to run as a service they shovel onto the machine.

Commodore Amiga

[hhawk]

Shamelessly... at Commodore USA the only OS shipped in Linux variant (Commodore OS Vision).. Linux's day on the desktop will come..

Simple - THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS

[terjeber]

Despite what a lot of /.ers seem to think, people do not buy computers to run operating systems. They don't even buy them to run applications. People buy computers to do stuff. For private users, what people do is: read email, browse the web, manage their pictures and movies, do some occasional word processing, maintain a few lists database style in Excel. So, for personal use Linux needs: email reader (check), web browser (check), software to manage, manipulate photos (sorry, nothing out there compared to Windows offerings), something to manage and do some edits to movies (sorry, nothing out there for a Linux casual user), a word processing software that works like Word (nothing really, Open Office is a Yugo to the Microsoft Audi, and who wants to struggle with a Yugo), spradsheet software (again, Excel is what people wants - not necessarily needs - and Open Office simply isn't polished enough).

Now, at this point we have not even touched upon the absurdity of having multiple desktop alternatives and the insurmountable hazzles that created for a normal user. You know, the kind that doesn't know that you can use Ctrl+F to search a document for text. Oh, and did I mention Cut/Copy/Paste that still has terrible support on Linux. Yes it does. In Eclipse, for example, you try and hope, but quite often it doesn't work as expected.

For IT departments. You need AD and the management tools. They can be hacked together if you are good, but again, on Linux it is a hazzle. To put it mildly.

Re:Simple - THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS

[crutchy]

i'm a happy user of debian. i can do everything i need, even play my favourite windows games like bf1942, starcraft and gta vice city (thanks to wine). recently i started learning some new tricks in gimp (gimp is written by experts for experts, so don't knock it just cos you can't figure it out). i host multiple websites, including with ssl (lamp, openssl). oo calc shits all over excel (ribbons single-handedly killed excel, word and access for me). file searches are so much quicker by simply using "locate" on the cli, and i don't have to put up with dialog box hell. i also use dassault systems draftsight, which is an autocad dwg compatible drafting program.


and by far the biggest advantage of all... i can browse the internet without fear, and i don't even need to use a virus scanner, or malware agent, etc (except on occasions i have used clamav to scan files downloaded off the web that might be opened on a windows box). perhaps if consumers knew they could buy a linux pc and not have to worry about viruses, that might have them abandoning microsoft in droves.

it would be unreasonable to expect average joe consumer to know the benefits of setting shells for all non-human users in /etc/passwd to /bin/false, or how to put together an iptables script, but for an average user debian out of the box isn't too bad security-wise already.

i also have a samsung gs2 running android 2.3.6, and it is a nice phone.

there are applications for linux. the problem is that they aren't blathered all over the place in tv ads or banners, and they aren't forced on people to have to learn. you just have to figure stuff out using help from forums etc. windows users have taken years to learn windows and office (many have had no choice), and spend countless hours trolling the web for solutions to stupid problems that microsoft would never bother to help with.

if windows users are too lazy to learn how to do things on linux, then good on them and they should stick with windows. the linux community will be better for it.

Re:Simple - THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS

[terjeber]

gimp is written by experts for experts, so don't knock it just cos you can't figure it out

Sigh. Yes, Gimp is a very capable piece of software, but the user interface is a complete mess. Yes, you can do most of what you can do in PS in Gimp, but at a cost. Time and patience. Gimp has exactly one feature where it beats PS, and that is price. I value my time quite highly though, and that makes PS the clear winner. The money I paid for PS is recovered quite quickly in the time I save.

file searches are so much quicker by simply using "locate" on the cli, and i don't have to put up with dialog box hell

CLI in general is always faster than mouse and windows. This is why I install Cygwin as the first piece of software on any Windows PC I have to use. Also, Windows has PowerShell, which, if you take the time to learn it, is significantly more powerful than any shell programming available for Linux. I used to do all kinds of automation on Linux using bash, it can not compete at all against PowerShell.

i can browse the internet without fear

So can I. Given the fact that most attacks today are social engineering, Linux doesn't actually have any significant advantage over Windows here. Sure, I would highly recommend using virus scanning software on Windows, but it will not protect you from the most common forms of attacks today. Also, if users were to abandon Windows in droves for Linux, Linux would quickly be the target of virus writers, and it isn't actually inherently more secure than Windows. Believe it or not. At least not if you run something that is later than Windows XP (which you should).

there are applications for linux

No, there isn't. There is no video editing software for Linux (outside of specialty software). Not professional video editing, nor enthusiast video editing. Windows have many different packages from Adobe, Sony Creative Software, Corel and others. There is not user friendly image editing software for Linux. There is nothing like Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture on Linux. Yes, there is Open Office, but for the average user, they are nowhere near as accessible as their Microsoft counterparts. Most /.ers hate the ribbon, but forget that more than 90% of users do not even know that it is possible to search a document using Ctrl+F (or the menu equivalent). Most users search their documents by scanning through them according to a study by Google. It turns out that these users, the 90%, use the ribbon interface much more, and they actually are more comfortable with it. I think it is a good idea for Microsoft to design their user interfaces for the 90% rather than for you and me. If we don't "understand" the ribbon it is simply because we are obstinate.

if windows users are too lazy to learn how to do things on linux

and there you put your finger on the problem. Linux users thinks that users who are unwilling to put up with badly designed user interfaces are "lazy". That's pure bullshit. In fact it is the opposite. The Linux developers are too lazy and too incompetent to figure out how to create software that is usable by the average Joe. That is why Linux will never be a contender on the desktop.

Re:Simple - THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS

[crutchy]

if users were to abandon Windows in droves for Linux, Linux would quickly be the target of virus writers

true, but it doesn't mean they would get anywhere

isn't actually inherently more secure than Windows

if microsoft actually used filesystem permissions to protect system files rather than including it as an optional gimmick, and got rid of their stupid click-through privilege escalation dialogs, then maybe, but without those changes, i disagree, and majority of fortune 500 companies would too. there may be millions more windows machines but majority aren't of any value to malware developers for anything other than building botnets for targeting the much more worthy linux targets. history kind of speaks for itself here; windows has an atrocious track record for viruses, and its primary market is consumer and workstations. if a workstation bombs, it can be easily replaced. i think its generally accepted that linux is trusted for servers for good reason.

There is no video editing software for Linux (outside of specialty software)

...that you've heard of. i'm sure if you went digging deep enough you would find something that could do what you needed. of course you won't find any reference to it splashed all over billboards or on tv, and if you already have vested interest (financial, time, effort, etc) in proprietary equivalents there of course isn't much incentive for you to go looking for such free alternative.

top result for google search of "linux video editing" are:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/top5-linux-video-editing-system-software/
you'll also find linux featured prevalently on the wikipedia page for video editing software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_editing_software

i doubt that you would consider putting as much time and effort into learning a free alternative than you already have learning a proprietary product, because spending money on something offers a fairly good incentive to make the most of it. most people don't appreciate something they get for free as much.

If we don't "understand" the ribbon it is simply because we are obstinate

actually the ribbon is merely for the benefit of new office users. if office is seen as easier to learn than free alternatives, then they will be happier to part with their money for it. users who dispise the ribbon are existing customers who have already paid their money and are stuck with vested interest in microsoft products (having spent years learning microsoft ways). it is also a cash cow for training organisations. many users of microsoft office aren't even aware of the existence of openoffice, but if they were they might find that openoffice suited their needs just fine.

Linux users thinks that users who are unwilling to put up with badly designed user interfaces are "lazy"

this was the funniest part of your reply, because you seem to imply that proprietary windows software interfaces are better designed than those developed by "lazy" linux developers. i actually think that many people (yourself included) have been brainwashed into using poorly developed interfaces for so long that you are simply accustomed to them, and anything different is alien and uncomfortable. linux programs are often used by the people that develop them, and as a software developer who uses his own programs i can assure you that it is very much in my interest to make sure the interface is designed as cleanly and ergonomically as possible for my needs. the big difference is that my needs are of a proficient user, rather than a noob. it would seem that you are an expert in the use of software designed for noobs, and a noob in the use of software designed for experts. how do it

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"Li

[Daniel Phillips]

Linux - essentially - desperately needs a good compatibility interface for DirectX and the gaming-relevant APIs.

It's called OpenGL and it's better than DirectX. Linux already has all the gaming APIs it needs, what it needs is more games and I don't know about you, but I don't want to get my games from the tired old publishers any more. How many ways are there to spell "yet another tired shooter".

Re:Just marketing?

[Daniel Phillips]

Linux is a great product, it's just not aimed at desktop users.

It's aimed at me, and I'm a desktop user.

Re:heh - A alternate history of the last decade

[w0mprat]

Linux is stable, fast, secure, easy enough to use. It's a download away and you don't even need to waste a writable CD anymore. The price is right.

By 2003 This had Microsoft and Apple running scared. How can the big guys compete with something that's free and good? Over the last decade explosive growth of linux distros has seen Windows and Apple marginalised as the desktop OS of choice. In about 2005 it became common knowledge you'd buy a Windows desktop, paying microsoft tax and all, and after a few weeks you'd be shoving in a live CD and with about 6 clicks you have a whole new desktop, bringing across all your files and settings, right down to browser settings and automatically finding an appropriate OSS alternative application for what you had on your existing system. OEMs began installing distros on new desktops and from there linux proliferated in the desktop space to take over as #1 by 2008.

The sophisticated package management system in Linux evolved in to user-friendly App store system. This was highly attractive to developers and users alike and resulted in explosive growth in available software for the platform. This is why when Apple introduced their "App Store" in 2008 they were accused of copying Linux, which had this feature for some time although in a far more open format. iOS failed to attract developers from the much more entrenched Linux App system, and ultimately became a niche product.

So what was responsible for this growth? After all, any novice can shove one these things in to a computer and it's so self documenting they never need to consult a manual or even Google. People struggling with virus ridden crashing Windows machines would be handed a distro disk and have all their computing problems solved. It was the ultimate democratic computing revolution. The shear number of labour hours available to open source development meant proprietary OS vendors just could not compete pace of Linux development.

Despite huge pressure on lawmakers to restrict linux and a well funded smear campaigns to fight it, in 2011 a bankrupt Microsoft was forced to release Windows as open source software. Now a small community of nostalgic enthusiasts maintain the project.

Well at least that's what could have happened. I seriously used to believe this would happen. In about 2005 I started to realise it wouldn't. Why has desktop linux failed in this way?

I'm an OS agnostic, but with a soft spot for Linux it pains me to admit this: Because it sucks.

As I play around with my Android phone I realise the problem. Desktop linux has epic design problems, especially at higher levels. Despite the prowess of OSS at a line by line coding level, the further you get from the Kernel level the more things start to become an ungodly mess. Lately it seems out-of-touch UI designers are trying wreck things further.

Android's recipe got it right: Take the brilliant Linux Kernel and but a really good software stack on top of it and BOOM just like that you have a smartphone OS steamrolling over the competition.

OSS can win - look at Chrome and Firefox vs IE. And Android is Linux done right. But remember it IS Linux. So can Linux win if it just picks up it's act?

More users for linux

[subtypeabstraction]

Windows and Mac might be good to use. But if we have to consider why Linux is better choice. It's free. There are millions and billions people in this world who lives in poor country. Still they are talented enough that they works with computers. Only things that they will lack is fund. Ahead of spending for windows and mac, and their different software they prefer to spend for their basic need. Then comes linux, which helps then to achieve their goals. This would be just reason to start their journey of linux. Then slowly they get used to with it. And out of those people who moves to developed and rich country, they prefer to use linux with whom they are habitual. At that time they will buy software for linux ahead of windows and linux. Even for those people who are from IT field they gets involve into open source community and then they will start to share their idea freely in open source community. So eventually most of the people will be using Linux. I love linux because I can use it as I like.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"Li

[Electricity Likes Me]

Linux - essentially - desperately needs a good compatibility interface for DirectX and the gaming-relevant APIs.

It's called OpenGL and it's better than DirectX. Linux already has all the gaming APIs it needs, what it needs is more games and I don't know about you, but I don't want to get my games from the tired old publishers any more. How many ways are there to spell "yet another tired shooter".

This is the same logic that leads to Linux not having a decent implementation of useful features MS might put into their operating system -- for example the new Start menu.

It's chicken and egg -- no one's going to make games for Linux till there's a market, there won't be a market till you can play most games on Linux without needing to boot into Windows.

That means you need a compatibility layer.

Re:Not going to happen. Windows is "good enough"Li

[Daniel Phillips]

The compatibility layer for DirectX on Linux is called Wine. Personally, I don't care about it, DirectX is highly barfacious compared to OpenGL, which rules the world with the exception of Microsoft fanchises.

GNU/Linux is ideal for end-users

[Cherubim1]

GNU/Linux offers stability, security, performance and a low cost of entry. However, the biggest reason for switching to Linux is freedom - the ability to customize and use the OS as you choose. Using a Microsoft or other proprietary OS makes the end-user a hostile victim to the whims of the (unethical) corporations that own it.

Linux was never designed to be a desktop

[mkruger]

While Linux certainly has made great strides in it's usability, ulitity, and perhaps even it's reliability, it was never really intended to be a desktop. For that reason and many others, it pales in comparison to Windows. Also, how can a fragmented community of developers and users (each with their own vision), ever amount to much? Suprisingly....against all these odds, Linux has still managed to become what it is today....an impressive community effort. Yet, it is also still a real mess in many other ways. For example, what Linux needs is not more alpha code apps each doing the very same thing in some slightly different way. Instead there should be fewer and better apps, in hope that some of them might actually work as well as most Windows applications do. And Linux needs big apps. Without them, users will continue to shun Linux. And the only way these things will happen is with good project management and corporate financing. Without them, Linux will always be just a hackers OS.

So how many "installs" have you done?

[helios17]

I'm not being contrary, I really am curious. I have installed Linux on over 1500 machines in the span of 5 years and since the .27 kernel, wifi, sound and printers just work (TM) OOTB. At least the majority of the time. There are the occasional hiccups sure but I've had way more trouble getting some drivers to work in Windows than Linux. When you are dealing with a computing public that can't differentiate between "download" and "install", or those who cannot understand the concept of a browser, then you are never going to get them to consider another operating system. It takes me about 5 minutes of conversation to decide if I am going to introduce someone to Linux. Sadly, about 70 percent of the time, I decide as a paid tech, to keep taking their money as a Windows User. It makes my life easier and after all, I have a kid to put through college.

Re:So how many "installs" have you done?

[digitig]

I'd guess I've done of the order of 10, none of them to my satisfaction. I've probably done about twice that number of MS Windows installations (and quite a dew MS-DOS, a couple of DR-DOS and one VMS installation), and only one gave me trouble (due to a BIOS incompatibility, and it went fine once I upgraded the BIOS). That's a high number of OS installations if I'm comparing with Joe User. I'd guess that by the time I'd done 1500 I'd be getting good at sorting out installation problems, but that's not the situation most users will be in.

Re:first post

[JasterBobaMereel]

Go and read the documentation for an iPad ... it's a very quick read ...

Lack of documentation is only an issue if the product is not well written, or is written with someone else in mind .... which can be an issue with Linux apps, But is also an issue with some Microsoft applications (which it should not be)

Linux distro FTW

[hicksw]

It's the Year of Android on the Desktop.
--
If work was so good, the rich would have kept more of it for themselves.

Re:Why? I have reasons...

[nashv]

Cool story.

Why I use Windows 7?

I do taxes. I play 3D games. I do coding. I do a lot of scientific analysis and modeling for work. I do a lot of instrumentation control and driver manipulations during work for which I use specialized software like LabView and MATLAB and OriginPro.

Which is the operating system that allows me to do all of those things, without compromise ? You guessed it Windows 7.

How much does this cost me? Maybe a couple of thousand dollars including all the Windows and specialized software licenses, and zero time. How much will it cost me in time and money to replicate OriginPro on Linux or develop a peice of software that performs all those things on Linux?

The oh-so dangerous viruses that supposedly arrive through emails are taken care of by three things.
1. Get MS Security Essentials. Leave it on autoupdate.
2. Don't ever overrride its warning unless you confirm the file is non-executable/safe manually.

That's the thing with Linux...if I need it, I could get it an no cost. It makes infinitely more sense to run Linux on a Virtual Box on a Windows PC than the other way around , if you want to ensure that you never run into a situation that you are prevented from doing 'task x' in the intended way due to OS limitations.

Photoshop? "Insightful?" Really?

[WebCowboy]

I sat Phtotshop on the top of this lost, and I my first instinct was to mod this down as "Troll". Whenever I see a critical post that starts with mentioning Photoshop I immediately think..no, i KNOW... they are being completely full of crap. This is by no means insightful. This poster is clueless or trying to troll. But maybe it would be more constructive to forego modding and comment on this.

OK I understand that Photoshop is a de-facto industry standard amongst graphic artists and such, but seriously how many "normal users" really use Photoshop? Out of 100 maybe three, and two of them are useing a cracked/pirated they found on some torrent site. Photoshop is NOT a "killer app" outside of graphic design, and 99 percent of users have no use for 99 percent of Photoshop's capabilites. Normal users want to crop or resize or remove redeye or apply a set of basic filters and want to do it easily. Photoshop is NOT the answer any more than GIMP for these people. They will use the rinky-tink software that comes with their camera, and would be happs with a rinky-tink photo editing app bundled with GNOME or KDE. In the case of GNOME, the "shotwell" app is probably the best candidate to address this concern rather than petitioning to have Photoshop ported to Linux (which will never happen with sub-5-percent OS market share).

As for the other items on your list:

* Acrobat. Are you talking about the "reader" or the "pro" version? I know even less people who use Acrobat than who use Photoshop--exactly ONE PERSON--a prefessional graphic designer. As for the reader everybody uses? IT SUCKS HARDER THAN A HOOVER AND EVERYBODY DESPISES IT. It is big, bloated slow crapware that continually bugs you with its auto updates to fix nasty security holes. Evince on Linux systems is a far better alternative to view PDFs and there are many alternatives for all platforms to that steaming pile of crap.

* Sharepoint. Perhaps but as a client I've been able to use a sharepoint website from Firefox on a Linux machine well enough to suit my needs. I understand its power exends far past being a fancy web portal but outside of a corporate environment nobody cares about sharepoint in the slightest. As Apple has proven the key to success is to make the public fall in love with your product, which then drives business to accomodate. From a server perspective trying to set up an effective sharepoint system made me want to slit my wrists--it seems like a whole lot of "cumbersome" to do what should be more simple.

* Call of Duty. Perhaps the games issue is the single valid point here, but not "call of duty". Hard core PC gaming is most definitely a small niche market--the market for games like that are served quite successfully by game consoles. If anything though, those consoles represent one of the more serious threats to open computing--MSFT would like nothing better than to make its XBOX the replacement for your home PC. But realistically, for personal computing the games market isn't "call of duty", it is "bejewelled" and "farmville" and the like.

* Quicken. One of the few personal computing apps users might miss if they switch from Windows...oh wait, never mind. The retarded install process notwithstanding, some WINE tweaks/UI improvements could address such things. But there are better programs than Quicken that don't cost a bundle. GnuCash and Money Manager Ex work as good or better, are free (and "Free") and at least the former can import Quicken data. So rather than stuggle to use an inferior product via WINE, use one built for purpose on Linux.

* Turbotax. This is a product that is being reduced to niche or even irrelevancy by web-based applications. I have filed my income tax electronically via the web for four years now from Firefox on a Linux computer.

* As crappy as printing support has been historically, Windows was behind the curve for awhile. when I last installed Debian I didn't ev

Re:Photoshop? "Insightful?" Really?

[characterZer0]

Maybe my perpsective is skewed because I work in the forms industry, but nearly everybody I deal with at work has (and uses) Acrobat for fillable form generation. There really is not an alternative. Sharepoint has a pretty wide install base because any idiot Windows admin can get it working. Use of Sharepoint usually indicates major flaws in your process, and there are much better alternatives that cater to improved processes (focusing on data instead of on documents), but people just are not there yet.

I use it ...

[PPH]

.. and from time to time, I respond to the trolls who claim that no one uses a Linux desktop and challenge users to say otherwise. But they re-post their query every few weeks. And eventually people either get tired of responding or just miss the question. So they can respond* by saying, "I made a survey of Linux desktop users and nobody responded".

See you next month.

*Did you get your free Vista laptop yet?