Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Would You Fix the Linux Desktop?
itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers are familiar with the Torvalds/de Icaza slugfest over 'the lack of development in Linux desktop initiatives.' The problem with the Linux desktop boils down to this: We need more applications, and that means making it easier for developers to build them, says Brian Proffitt. 'It's easy to point at solutions like the Linux Standard Base, but that dog won't hunt, possibly because it's not in the commercial vendors' interests to create true cross-distro compatibility. United Linux or a similar consortium probably won't work, for the same reasons,' says Proffitt. So, we put it to the Slashdot community: How would you fix the Linux desktop?"
I've been using Linux on my desktop for 13 years now. It works just fine for me.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I would shut linux down and give the money back to its shareholders.
Put Linus in charge of everything.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Fix all the drivers for basic stuff like WiFi and graphics cards FIRST. I'd rather have a desktop with little bugs and more basic features than a laptop with only partially-functioning WiFi and reduced battery life due to a poor graphics driver (as I do now).
By adopting the Android desktop.
will fix the desktop.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here's how to fix the Linux desktop:
Those are just some minor suggestions.
What, that's not the right answer?
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
The Linux desktop is far better than Windows used to be.
But we already know ways to make every desktop, including OS X, far better than what we have today.
The Humane Interface by Jef Raskin gives good ways to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface
I don't see why anyone would want it. I would rather lag behind with open source application support and have security knowing that my apps are not working against me. I want to know that my softwares motives are my motives. So much commercial software now is about artificial limits and openly working against the owner of the PC. Either to sell functionality piecemill or because they are under the thumb of some watchdog like the RIAA or MPAA. I'm not a programmer, but I would hazard a guess that 50% of the coding done in todays software is to LIMIT you in some way, not to enable you to do all you can do even/and especially if it wasn't planned for by the author of the software.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
I know I'll get flamed for this since it goes against the Linux philosophy, but how about getting rid of competing Gnome and KDE (and now Unity) desktops and agree on one standard desktop with a single API for everyone to write to. And maintain backwards compatibility for the API so an application written for GnoKDE 2.0 still still run unaltered on GnoKDE 3.0.
I know that having multiple desktops gives users choice, but there are many talented developers on the KDE, Gnome and Unity teams, and it seems like they could make a much more polished and usable product if they worked together instead of coming out with separate products. Oh, and stop pushing out alpha releases (I'm talking about you, Ubuntu/Unity) as the default desktop and telling users that it's for their own good.
But hey, don't trust me, I use Xfce since it does everything I need in a desktop.
Normal people don't care about the OS, the "desktop environment," the openness of the kernel or its ABI stability. They don't even know what those things mean. People don't use computers for the sake of computers, only nerds do that. People use computers because they do things like write documents or fix vacation photos. If Facebook only worked with Linux, then everyone would use Linux. Writing some killer app and only ever releasing it on Linux is the only way a programmer can get people to switch. Otherwise your best bet is a businessman like Steve Jobs to come along. Look at all the people using iOS. Do you think people are buying iPhones because OMG iOS!!! No.
I have been using linux ubuntu/gentoo/redhat/centos for years as my main os. Heres one thing I always see with entry level users they cant simple connect their network drive and access it easily. My parents have a network drive for all their photos and of course they can find it on the network but cant have it mount at boot without scripting/editing and once its connected they mainly use firefox so attachements and downloads cant save from firefox to the network drive if you simply connect to it, it has to be properly mounted. This isnt a issue for me but for them they dont know how and want to know how to just in case.
I love my linux world. The only part which I would appreciate is more polish in the software. Most software has a great set of features but it seems that all these suites are always missing the last 5% of development (e.g. making the application feel very polished).
To me it seems that the only way we can fix the desktop is to throw money at it. The last 5% of development work is usually boring (finding and fixing all the corner cases, etc...). I think that the only true consumer ready desktop right now is Ubuntu (yes, with the Unity interface). It has become a very polished and stable package with a lot of focus (maybe a bit too much?) on the right things. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge KDE fan (I contributed code), but to me it seems that it is missing the last 5% of development work (e.g. Kwin crashes occasionally, the panel wont stick to the top and will sometimes be in the center of the screen, Kwin seems to be slower than compiz...).
Canonical has the resources to provide a really solid desktop experience (and it already does) for most average users. For the rest of us, there is still Arch, Mint, Fedora, etc which allows for more customization. The problem is, that most people want their machine to just "work" and not tinker with the OS to just get it perfect.
Good job Canonical!
How about trying something that other people are not really doing? Let's get radial menus (there was one WM that had this, but I forget the name) instead of continuing to cling to inefficient linear menus. Let's find a way to make arbitrary compositions of GUI applications, the way we can arbitrarily compose applications in our terminal (KDE3 was a step towards this, but we could have done a whole lot more).
In other words, let's take a risk and try being innovative. What is the point of copying Apple? Let's do something that Apple will want to copy.
Palm trees and 8
It is not "We need more applications" -- that is easy enough.
Getting people to create hundreds of (cr)applications for Linux is trivial and is not a solution and may in part be one aspect of the problem.
A somewhat more accurate strawman would be "We need more *good* or *compelling* applications" -- that's challenging. Still only a part of the answer, but closer. It requires answering "What does 'good' or 'compelling' mean in this context?", etc.
The one thing Linux does not need is more applications - how many DVD rippers or MP3 players does one desktop O/S need (BTW, the answer is: just 1. But it needs to work intuitively, simply and flawlessly - not attributes Linux apps are known for).
What Linux needs is professionally designed and written apps. Ones that preserve a "look", a common and familiar set of controls and deep, deep integration. It would also be nice if there was documentation, starting with an idiot's guide and going all the way up to "this is how to modify the automated test suite" (and to actually HAVE an automated test, and acceptance suite).
However, we'll never get to that level while the distributions are reliant on hobbyists writing code because they like to, then tossing it over "the wall" and calling it a Linux application. That's what distinguishes Linux and the apps it comes distributed with from commercial operating systems and the apps people are willing (and, admitttedly, have to) pay for. The old excuse of: hey, don't complain, it's free! is no help whatsoever when the time-cost of getting some downloaded junk to work is far higher than the price of a piece of commercial quality software.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Fix the damn audio and stop shoving a new sound daemon/system down our throat every year.
Goat bollocks.
Visual Studio is OK. XCode is better, but nonetheless, tooling is not the main focus for the stated problem. Eclipse and others (Anjuta, KDevelop, Kommodo, emacs, etc.) do just fine.
When you talk about "the whole Linux API" you refer to something that not only doesn't exist in the context referenced, it is also nonsense. The user-space application APIs work. There are so many working one's from which to choose!
If anybody - such as yourself - comes forward with authoritative pronouncements, then misunderstands kernel API and userspace, followed by the laughable assertion of a "simple and elegant" Win32 API? Hah!
As they say, "Pull the other one, it has bells on it."
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The problem here is the assumption that something is broken.
Generally, the Linux desktop is fine. There is a choice of UIs, sure - and recent developments in KDE then Gnome haven't helped much. Big changes made people say it was broken - but over time, it seems to settle down.
And with the competition (Apple and Microsoft) also making changes to their desktops, Linux is hardly unique here. We seem to be in a time of change, where people have been challenging the old paradigms. Apple are being the most conservative, Microsoft the most radical, Linux is somewhere in between.
Hardware support? Not necessarily a desktop job, but I'll address is anyway. Linux can't do jack here without more support from manufacturers. When I installed Windows 7 on a (then) new Sandy Bridge motherboard, it found NOTHING. It literally booted into a low res desktop with no sound or network. Only the large collection of driver CDs saved the machine - Windows had nothing to do with it.
Support of Windows from the manufacturers was the key factor.
So let's not bitch about Linux's support of hardware - let's get it right, and bitch about hardware manufacturer's support of Linux.
Apps? We've got plenty, and are getting more. Some commercial apps (Corel Aftershot Pro, Sublime Text 2, VMware are ones I personally use) support Linux as well as Mac/Windows. It gets better every month, when it used to get better every year.
And I guess that's my key message. "You've never had it so good". You may not feel that way, but Linux is on a roll right now, and the question is not whether or not it becomes a 'usable second option'. It's already usable.
The question is whether or not it becomes a SUPPORTED second option - by OEMs, hardware manufacturers, and software companies.
And the signs are getting more positive as time goes on.
By which I mean, instead of the sort projects have now, that say "I am a ux expert, and I like [insert totally unintuitive feature in the name of "prettiness", or "looking like [Apple|chrome|a phone|whatever]", so that is what it has to look like"... instead the real kind, that goes and does useability tests with a wide range of its potential userbase, and then designs based on that.
Once you have a great product that people actually want to use (and yes, I know Linux is technically the kernel, not its window/file managers/etc., but the UI is what people actually -see-), more people might actually want to use it (I am aware that this is a tautological statement, but shut up.) More people using it = more desire for programs = more better. At least assuming some of those application developers also go the route of doing proper useability testing.
That's frankly the biggest load of crap I've heard all day. You're comparing a professional development tools to Anjuta and KDevelop? For fuck's sake.
The attitude that these half-baked, ancient development tools are as slick as what MS and Apple are offering sums up the problem with the Linux desktop: a steadfast refusal to stay competitive and serious delusion about why the Linux desktop hasn't caught on.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I can still recall when it was described as being the graphical environment for GNU software.... lost a lot of interest when that went away.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I have been installing linux on the desktop for the last 12 years and some things are just as broken now as they were then. For example: I have never, and I mean never, in the last 12 years had the mic work after initial install of any distribution on a laptop. This wan't such a big deal 10 years ago but these days it is a deal breaker. I should never have to edit my xorg.conf file in order to get my desktop working properly. The number of times I have updated a Linux OS and it broke what ever graphics driver I had installed and I am dumped at a command prompt on reboot. The graphical desktop needs to always work.
Calling the Windows API simple and elegant is the funniest thing I've heard all day.
For it to take off you need the masses to accept it. Windows has that through usability, brand recognition, and being everywhere. You are familiar with it. Apple, in its comeback, did it by becoming the chic OS. In other words, Windows is the four door coup and wood paneled van. Mac is polished corvette. Linux, however, prides itself on being usable anywhere and workable on everyone. In other words, that thing built on weekend in the garage.
Now it might work great, and does work great. There is one key problem to it. There is a guy I know who is really gung ho linux and open source. Was bashing M$ left and right in how inferior their product was. He needed a keyboard and mouse because in his rush he forget his behind. I offered him what I had on hand as a spare, a wireless keyboard and mouse with a fob. I had used it just fine on Macs and various windows machines from XP to Win 8 preview. He froze for a moment with dread/fear in his eyes.
"You don't have a wired keyboard and mouse?"
"Somewhere maybe, this won't work? You don't even want to try?"
"It will eventually, but it's Linux. Unless I have the driver's on hand it might take longer to check and double check, find, and finally get that working than to do what I need to do."
That's the problem. The people you need to get to use a Linux Desktop for it to take off are the people who are an anathema to what Linux stands for. Linux by design is meant to be fragmented, tinkered with, altered, improved. You need to hook people who barely want to be bothered taking a car to get an oil change, let alone changing oil period.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
The lack of Visual Studios on Linux isn't something that is wrong with Linux so much as it is something that is wrong with Visual Studios. But I think it is definitely a valid point that the lack of some specific software is a deal breaker for many people.
For me, Adobe Creative Suite is the main thing stopping me from making the switch to Linux permanently, and I imagine I'm not alone. Sorry, GIMP is just not a replacement for Photoshop/Fireworks/Illustrator/Acrobat/Flash and the other dozen programs of varying usefulness.
The chance that Microsoft would ever consider porting Visual Studios is probably zero, and even then I imagine it's probably just not possible. I'm not holding my breath for Adobe either, but I have a small amount of hope that someday they may see the light.
Have a universal installer format that will install and run on everything. On all Linux, all BSD, all Windows. A single install file that will go anywhere means developers only need to code once. For a new version of windows you just re-install. Done with full compatibility. If you support all versions of Windows fully then developers will love you.
How about whatever the fancy desktop UI you make you have an option to have a gold old Applications/Places Menu. No search, no frequently used apps display, just a list of whats there where you can select it. After that would be a user configurable bar where they could put in what they want.
I find most of the grief in the new UIs that have come out is you cant get to what you want quickly. Sure floating lists and poofing icons are cool but when I wan to get to synaptic package manager, or qavimator, I don't want to search for it. I just want to quickly launch it - most people have the same thoughts.
Should not have a fancy search up-front for installed apps, that is only useful for the first time you are looking for something, once you are there and decise to use it, all you want is to quickly launch it. The fancy searches should be part of help not the major application launching component of a UI.
Lastly I want user configurable boot animations and startup sounds like the computers hackers - that would be awesome!
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
IMHO, I've not seen a better desktop for my needs than Ubuntu with gnome-shell 2 (not Unity). There's always room for improvement for certain kinds of apps (like compatibility with MS Office apps - and even those have improved by leaps and bounds in the past 5 years), but I'm certain I'm in the minority who feel that UIs have become too complicated and involved. Everything's automatic now, there's a widget for everything - the last thing I want is Desktop integration with Twitter and Facebook. No thanks, I'll take a nice clean desktop that works well, open source, and reliable.
Actually, the Zorin distribution already has a very nice Windows 7 like interface, with Wine, pre-installed.
The real problem is the Linux community attitude. Linux users like to solve problems and know how things work. Everyone else wants to think about their computer in the same way they think about their toasters (i.e. Not much as long as they work). They want it to turn on immediately without a log-in, work, connect to the internet reliably, not shove message dialogs in their face, run everything, including their Windows programs and shut down immediately.
Linux tends to serve its own user community at the expense of regular (i.e. nontechnical) users. Many Linux users have contempt for non-technical users and/or people who do not have an "always on" internet connection.
So Apple wins, in the long run. They serve users, not themselves. Jobs enforced that maturity on the Apple ecosystem and it paid off. I doubt that anything comparable will happen with Linux.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
A successful computer needs SUPPORT from the manufacturer.
The users NEED a place where they can get their problems fixed.
This is why Apple succeeds, despite their prices. They provide clear avenues for help and assistance, both hardware and software.
Linux has no such support from manufacturers. If you put Linux on your computer, they will void your warranty and/or find reasons to avoid dealing with you, if you've installed Linux on their hardware. Their tech support people are not trained to deal with you. You are a total money sink as far as they are concerned, because every support call must be escalated.
OSX is stealing away the desktop by nothing more than basic competence.
When I fire up my Mac and run software updates, I am confident that my system will keep running. When I have Linux on my desktop, software updates are always frightening. Will my wi-fi adapter still work afterward? Will the VMware drivers compile? I've lost many hours of work, backing out linux software updates that trashed my ability to get work done.
For another, every single terminal program on Linux is just crapola compared to OSX terminal. Really even the old-fashioned shell users are much happier on OSX. Try developing on OSX for a few weeks, gnome-terminal seems little better than xterm.
Until these problems are fixed, linux on the desktop is doomed.
Is this a good or bad thing? It depends on who you are. If you are one of the people who dreams of everyone happily using Linux on their desktop, it's horrible behavior. If on the other hand, you're a Linux desktop user who just wishes a specific set of features would be implemented, or bugs to be fixed, then yeah, it's probably no big deal if you dismiss them as a troll or idiot, or shill, or whatever.
... and then I erased it, because I don't feel like having this same discussion that I've been having since 1998 again.
Short version: make refinements--not drastic changes--every year. But that's boring, so no one will do it.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The problem with Linux on the desktop is seen in a microcosim with the question asked. The post suggests that we need more apps and that we should make it easier to build them. That is only half right. Sure, more apps would help a lot. Sure, making them easier to build would be nice. However, even if they are enormously hard to build, developers will flock to Linx in droves if it is PROFITABLE to build apps for it.
So, does making it hard to build apps cut into profit? Sure. But what really cuts into profit is the fact that there are so many different versions of Linux out there. Think back to the bad old days of CP/M. There where lots of flavors. Then along comes MS and creates DOS, of which there was essentially one flavor. The functionality of MS-DOS was not a lot greater than CP/M, but it sure garnered a lot of interest from developers.
So, to make people write apps for Linux, thereby driving the adoption of the Linux for the desktop, you must solve the economic problem. Making it easier is a small component of the economic problem, but making Linux uniform is the bigger issue. If you make Linux simple to install, and uniform from a developers point of view, then it has a chance. If you have a million different libraries, you are dead in the water.
You need to be asking this on some other board. Slashdot users are power users and thus cannot bring themselves to get into the 'everyday' user experience. I know they use systems other than Linux, but it's the mindset that is different. I teach this very thing at a University and it is extremely difficult for developers to get into the 'user' experience. That's not a bad thing, it's just a different animal - most users don't understand the things that most Slashdot users will take as common knowledge. If you really want to know then take a survey on a more general site.
I know Slashdot hive mind thinks M$ is evil (i think it too), but even Microsoft knows it's not about the OS, it's about developer tools (developers, developers, developers).
Unix API is nice. Sockets? include sys/socket.h plus a couple of other headers and you are fine. Graphics? include opengl/gl*.h. But how about other things? Playing sound? Choose between OSS, ALSA, JACK or dozens of sound servers. KDE x GNOME war? Both lost.
I love linux, but it's truly is a PITA using and programming for it's desktop environment.
how to get linux widely adopted as a desktop solution.
i have been using both windows and linux for some time and i have to say im not ready to switch 100% because of the lack of quality apps but also that linux just can't match some of the things in windows that are very handy and very easy: such as remote desktop. its so easy to use and so handy. with linux, i still struggle getting a vnc connection run smooth, stable and easily. also, linux just isn't as convivial. windows and linux are exact opposite: windows is a gui first and a patchwork command line second. linux is a solid command line first and gui second. so long as people still HAVE to know about manually editing the configuration file and such you know that linux won't be going mainstream. its getting better though. so, how to fix the desktop? well, to begin with, make the desktop itself a managed experience that doesn't require the least bit of command line.
second, in my opinion, the way to fix the linux desktop is by making people want to switch to linux, use whatever mcguffin that works... gaming is one of them, get good games on linux and not thru wine! once people (young first) starts spending $$$ on linux games, the rest of the industry will follow, they just go where there is good money to be made after all. facebook and smartphones have this in common that they benefited from games to expand. perhaps linux could have a unique twist on its app store?
Third, make it clear that not all software on linux needs to be open sourced. Free (and more importantly, open) just isn't a model that works for most private companies yet, so if they cannot sell their software on the linux platform, they just won't go. Most people associate linux to free and open source, so if they want to develop a software they intend to sell, linux is not the obvious choice.
Fourth and not least, stop the elitism. Granted, Linux communities have evolved but it is at least still composed of 50-50 between genuinely helpful people and those thinks newbs are simply intruding on their turf, are clueless and stupid - even on help communities. Because, again, not everyone has an interest in getting up close and personal with sudo, nano, ls and chmod many help request end up with very common replies such as "Search the forums" or "man up".
On a closing note, given all this, i think the linux community needs to answer this question: do you really want to be mainstream? Is it in Linux's best interest to become even more popular /user friendly, going this road obviously leads to a heavier OS, more complex, more bug-prone... I think linux's popularity to those that can handle it is the level of control it provides and inherent's security model. As linux works toward mainstream acceptance, its going to have to let go of some control precisely, to the detriment of its original user base. is this what linux wants?
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
Funny, because I still HAVE to use it to get somethings done in Windows and OS X....
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Seriously, you need to work to either 1) get Visual Studio working and fully supported in Linux or 2) develop as good IDE as Visual Studio.
Try KDevelop.
For that matter the whole Linux API needs work. It's simple and elegant under Windows and Mac OS X, but not under Linux.
Use Qt. I have never seen a better designed and documented API.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Different user interface configurations such as the standard Unity, Gnome, or KDE desktops, should be relegated to some sort of theme file that describes what assets to load and where to put them. Plugins should be used to supply the various functions. That way if you want a lightweight desktop that loads fast like XFCE, you can have one. If you want a more full featured desktop, or one designed to make the best use of screen real-estate for touch devices, you can have that too. I think E17 actually covers most of this, and it is highly optimized, and doesn't rely on 3D for fancy effects but can still take advantage of it.
But the important part is there will be one environment to target, and eccentricities/nuances won't vary like they do between the desktops we have now. The same should go for the file manager/Open dialog/etc that is used, it should be standardized and support plugins/theme descriptions as well. If I start typing a folder name in the window, and then enter a folder and back out of it, will I still be highlighting the folder name I started typing or will I be brought back to the top of the list again? As the directory is read, will the window dynamically display as it is loading in, and jump around when I am typing said folder/file name, or will I stay focused on that area?
I just want this to be the same on every desktop I use, so that I don't have to second guess myself if I'm using a QT or GTK or whatever else app. There can still be different toolkits, but if they are all targeting the same environment, they will behave the same and it will only be the developers that see the difference. If I want to open files with a single click, everything should pay attention to that preference, etc.
Maybe the solution is to extend the reach of the free desktop initiative. But we should be able to mix and match any desktop component, and every toolkit should pay attention to the preferences we set and be able to behave the same if it is specified.
Twinstiq, game news
Preinstallation, preinstallation, preinstallation. That's all that matters. Preinstallation with icons already on the desktop. Why do you think Microsoft fought so hard and long to keep anybody else's browser icons off their precious desktop? Why is the stupid desktop icon worth any price to companies who want their commercial crapware pre-installed?
People will use whatever is in front of their faces. Linux is never in front of their faces. It's not commercial, there are no kickbacks, so it's never going to be in front of their faces. Business IT departments want an 800 number they can call and scream at when things go wrong. Linux has no 800 number. Business IT depts aren't going to demand it, no matter how much sense it makes for the business.
So is it all hopeless? I don't think so. The only thing we can do, you and me, is hold installfests. Help people over that initial hurdle. I've gotten about ten people moved over to Linux (ubuntu) in the last four-five years purely by doing installations for them. And they're thrilled. No more virus problems. Everything works. They're not worrying about the artwork or whether it's a "modern" interface. If we could propagate the get one - install one meme, you can calculate how long it would take for every desktop and laptop to run linux.
All modern desktops are more or less equivalent. What matters more is software compatibility (can I run app Y and game X on my OS?), hardware compatibility, and support/user experience (bring your Mac into the Apple Store and get a replacement the same day). Even if you made the Holy Grail of desktop UI/UX perfection, no one would care, because your Linux OS won't run Call of Duty 5 (or whatever they're up to now) and doesn't have an associated store in the mall.
Stop alienating power users. We're not the problem. We're the beginning.
If I and hundreds or thousands of others tell you that your desktop doesn't provide the configuration capabilities we need then listen and provide the configurability we're asking for. If we tell you your crazy bloated akonadi/nepomuck/whatevertheflip is too big (a mysql instance in my home directory??) then listen and rethink your design. When we complain that your latest major release is a fabulously buggy mess (KDE 4.0) then listen and don't do that to us again. When you hear from people that want a regular orthodox file manager then listen, provide one and don't deprecate it in favor of some granny-safe photo album browser.
It's not hard, really. It just isn't a lot of fun. Which is why it doesn't happen.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Linux suffers from diversity... Seriously - it's a bad thing sometimes. If you want Linux to succeed on the desktop then take one distro and kill the others. It won't matter which - just so long as there's one. People will bitch and complain but it would simplify *everything* (package management, sound systems, GUI layout and functionality, etc.).
When sound isn't working you shouldn't first have to figure out which of the myriad sound systems you're using. When you want to install an application from a site you shouldn't need to figure out how to convert RPMs to .DEB or tgz's.
The community can't consolidate around a single path forward. This is what happens when there is no clear leadership. And this is exactly the way the community likes and it and why it will continue to be third-rate as a desktop platform.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
A friend of mine uses Ubuntu & his wife has a Windows machine (just married). She bought an all-in-one for its scanner. After hours of both of them fighting Windows drivers, they were out of time so the plugged it into Ubuntu, opened "Simple Scan" and hit scan. It worked of-course.
Plug-in a new mouse while you're in a game on Windows 7? It won't work. Works fine in Linux (for any game ran in any way).
WinTV card? I have my choice of apps to use it with in Linux that cut commercials, reencode, etc. In Windows it's WinTV.exe (worthless) or nothing. (and most of those cards work despite being obscure hardware).
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
(Sigh) I guess I'll just have to rewrite the whole thing from the ground up. I'll just avoid making any bugs or bad design decisions, and make sure everything loves all aspects of everything I code. I'll just write a new bootloader, kernel, drivers, utilities, compiler toolchain, windowing system, desktop productivity software, and some cute cat apps.
Should take a week or two.
Volunteers view their time as hobby-time, which means they want to work on what interests them.
Paid employees do that, and also the un-interesting stuff, like documentation, drivers, non-critical bug-fixes, interface standardization and so forth.
If you want to fix Linux on the desktop, imitate those who are succeeding (Microsoft and Apple): be customer-driven, not developer-driven.
Work on what the customers need. To do that, you may need to make the volunteer community a paid one, or at least one where there are consequences for not doing what is necessary, and leaders to implement those strategies.
Heresy, I know. But heresy that works, and would have avoided the absence of market share that Linux desktop solutions now experience.
For a little bit of background:
Futurist Traditionalism
the same set of things I suggested above. Kudos to you.
I started using Linux in '93 but stopped in 2009 because, frankly, I was exhausted. I had forgotten that in 1993 I started using Linux because it let me do the things that I wanted to do at a cost (free) that significantly beat ($thousands) what was on offer in the Unix world at the time.
In 2009 when KDE took a shit on everyone and news that GNOME was about to do it, too, hit the netwaves, I suddenly realized that the situation had become inverted. Now being a Linux user kept me from doing the things that I wanted to do—not in theory (in theory, everything is possible—hell, you can design and fab out your own damned CPU and architecture and create a platform port for it if you want), but in practice. I was spending 10 percent of my time re-learning every major subsystem in Linux that changed every 6 months to 1 year, and another 20 percent of my time constantly fighting to get apps installed, keep them installed across distro releases, support my slowly evolving hardware (which required upgrading to new distro releases or doing backports by hand), and getting those apps to do the things that commercial apps could do easily.
Linux was no longer saving me many $thousands, since consumer-level OSes were now adequate to my needs and the applications I needed to use were only in the $hundreds camp. The capabilities that I wanted—working multimedia, powerful apps that shared file formats with the rest of the world, set it and forget it tools that I didn't need to build myself and that could manage my data—were right there, on the shelf at affordable prices, in every way that they weren't in 1993.
It was like a light bulb went on over my head—and I suddenly realized that Linux was holding my real career back, rather than enabling it as it had done in the early '90s. Bye-bye, Linux.
The culture of Linux remains the culture of 1993 mid-range computing—but we no longer live in a world in which CS students can't afford the hardware/software they use at school and mainstream OSes can't do the fun stuff. Quite the opposite. It's funny to think back at how thrilled I was to have X11 on the desktop (compared to Windows 3.1) versus how I feel now, twenty years on, comparing KDE or GNOME on Fedora or Ubuntu to OS X 10.8. The tables have been exactly turned. Linux is still essentially the same in architecture and philosophy, while the rest of the world has moved to a completely different paradigm in which computing is essentially appliance-driven. In 1993 Linux was ahead of its time. In 2013 Linux is a decade behind.
These days, I want an complete, polished, turnkey appliance at low cost and with no labor time investment, not a set of building block. Today's appliances are fast, intuitive, stable, durable, powerful, and integrated like the iPad (which I do, yes, use for serious work about 5-6 hours a day). For most users (which is where I have always ultimately fallen), Linux is solution in search of a problem that no longer exists.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Really? What late 90's desktop looked like unity, gnome3 or kde4.x?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I dunno about everyone else posting above but I agree with you on this point. I don't think *anyone* who has succeeded in using both Linux and Windows for gaming and multimedia would disagree that the hardware vendors have been holding out on us. The problem is that the average newcomer to Linux isn't going to have the patience to even sympathize with this plight, even if they can understand it - which most won't. Most people will just see it crash when they try to install or start it the first time on their brand new shiny shit and just go straight back to Windows, resting assured that Microsoft was right all along about open source not being a viable approach to software production.
And the sad truth is, for them it effectively does suck, regardless of whose faul it is. For them, its effectively true. From their point of view there's no distinction between the outcomes regardless of where the blame lies. The question is: How do we fix that?
You can write proprietary software which runs on Linux. I don't know what you are talking about here in terms of "getting rid of the GPL" other than a massive misunderstanding of what happens in Linux. Almost all APIs are LGPL anyway (any software, including something with a Microsoft EULA, can use those libraries). The only difference is for those who want to steal Linux and make their own operating system and violate the distribution license.
Go knock yourself out. Make a proprietary license operating system. Nobody is stopping you, and there are hundreds of them available including several that work with current hardware.
As for a "write & compile once, run anywhere" type of software, that is the point of dotNet/Mono and Java. I've seen it work pretty well... and again you aren't locked into any particular license if you want to write an application using those tools. If a commercial developer wants to have their applications spread around as far and as wide as possible, they shouldn't be tied to a particular API architecture that pushes them to a particular platform or CPU architecture. The challenges of different distros is that they really are different operating systems even though they have a common kernel (thanks to the GPL I might add). Both dotNet (as Mono) and Java work just fine on Linux (in several different distros). There are some problems with a few dotNet applications because of vendor tie down as some APIs in dotNet are proprietary to Microsoft. The Mono guys work real hard to maintain compatibility, but they are only a group of volunteers working on a moving target.
The only other thing that impacts commercial developers is simply market share, pure and simple. From personal experience, I can say that I find it damn near impossible to get a quality computer running Linux without having to purchase MS Windows in the first place. I've asked, and been stonewalled basically being told to buy Windows and that I can wipe the hard drive if I want to install a Linux distro. That is what keeps Linux as a fringe market rather than something in the mainstream. A few brave companies sell their computers without Windows or the Microsoft tax, but they are too few to be competitive with the mass vendors. You certainly can't go to your local Wal-Mart or Costco and purchase a Linux computer right now. Wal-Mart did sell some Linux computers in the past on its website, but those have been phased out for whatever reason you can come up with.
If you're using legit adobe software that costs hundreds or in some case thousands of dollars, what the fuck do you care if you spend 100$ more on windows ?
Because both Windows and OS X, the two platforms on which Creative Suite is available, have multiple issues surrounding effective ownership and control of the computer. The future of both operating systems seems to be a both a dumbing down and locking up of the computer hardware and software. Many people would love to have a Linux version of CS to escape from having to deal with those issues. Adobe is bad enough by themselves, thank you very much.
However, I don't see this as a likely development in the near term.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
it needs more desktop applications that have well designed UIs and that WORK RIGHT.
Linux is fabulous as a sever OS at almost every scale.
But most desktop users don't care about running their own servers, and those that do can generally get the few services that they want in a set-it-and-forget-it appliance from the Best Buy or the Apple Store. And even Windows and Mac OS offer much easier-to-manage implementations of (for example) Windows file sharing and web services. Why would I want to install and configure Samba by hand when I can just check a box to enable file sharing in OS X? Even better, why do either when I can get a router with a USB port and a file server inside it for just a few dollars, stick it in the corner, and forget about it.
Back in the day I had a Linux box running (I forget which) minimal Linux distro as a file server, print server, DHCP server, and NAT/firewall box on my LAN. It was diskless and sat behind my couch and did its job very well for years. Now I just have an Airport Extreme. Uses less power, was infinitely easier to set up, and makes no noise.
You can see where Linux is great by looking at where its marketshare is. You can see where Linux is lousy (e.g. the desktop/laptop everyday applications user space) in the same way. People aren't dumb—they do actually tend to use the right tool for the right job. Right now if you want to set up a departmental server, Linux is a prime choice. If you want to equip your college freshman with a general purpose homework computer for school, it's not even on the radar.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
One thing I will give credit to Microsoft about is their software development tools. It is also useful to remember that Microsoft started out as a compiler developer that happened to end up in the operating system game due to (for them) a fortunate series of events.
I've been using Microsoft products since 1979 in one degree or another, even though I do think they are an evil company sucking the life out of the American computer industry. Still, your comments about the quality of their development tools seems to be pretty spot on with my own experience as well. They use these same tools (Visual Studio) to write MS-Windows, so they get a whole lot of internal attention within the company where it is co-workers complaining about nasty bugs and not just outside customers.
I fell in love with C# because the design team for C# is a bunch of guys that I like and are some of the best compiler/language developers in the world. They were the original developers for Borland Delphi, and if you are familiar with both Delphi and C#, you can find a whole lot of similarities in the language design including underlying philosophies for how they work with data structures. The chief architect of both languages was Anders Hejlsberg, somebody who I have come to admire. What I also like is that Microsoft pretty much let him do what he wanted, and C# has become a pretty successful language on its own merits.
I agree. What additional apps are lacking?
- huge behemoth office suite that interoperates w/the defacto standard? libre office. check.
- popular, familiar browser? firefox, check.
- cross platform gui toolkits? QT, others, check.
- *stable* API? I dunno what people are complaining about. The standard c library and POSIX OS API have been stable for ages. check.
I think the bigger problem is *too many* apps included by default--no defacto standard across distros. (But this is what *choice* brings us.)
Users cannot sit down at any linux machine and expect the same experience. They can't expect to always find:
- IE
- office
- outlook
- msn
- notepad
- ms paint
- solitaire (seriously--it's one of the most commonly used apps in the world)
in the same place and working the same way.
There's no IE browser, but there could be konqueror, firefox, chrome, opera.
There's no MS Office, but they might find kofifce, libre office, abiword, etc.
There's a dozen possible IM clients.
There's a dozen possible text editors.
There's no IE GUI file explorer--but there could be konqueror, nautilus, dolphin, or other
There's a half dozen paint programs that might be there.
There's no outlook, but there could be kmail, thunderbird, or a few others.
And that's just the common apps.
They want to install something else, they immediately find:
- there is *no* consistency between distros
- the app they want is probably not ported to Linux in the first place (guess that answers my question--"what apps?"--well we just don't know, but can't expect every dev to make every app cross platform for our favorite platform)
This doesn't even consider what developers have to do to target different distros. RPM, dpk. portage, etc.
Linux is certainly for the most part *source* compatible with a stable c library and POSIX API. But any number of combinations of library versions could be found on a target system--which is why any time I've ever got a commercial app, it usually came w/static linkage so that it would just work.
I see no difference between linux distros and the developers behind them--they are all cats and you cannot herd them.
It's a problem, that by the nature of it's participants cannot be solved.
Desktop Linux will largely remain for developers, by developers--or for people closely related to developers/admins that will install and maintain it for them, or for tinkerers. But not average-day Joe and Susie--it's not consistent enough.
Users no longer anticipate sitting down to a computer system and having to learn it/figure it out.
They expect uniformity to the commodity systems in existence.
*Unless*, they *know* it's some new system and are expecting to figure it out--but in that case, they *expect* it to be the same everywhere they go.
Thus "Linux" is not the best name to use. Really, you'd have to distinguish by saying the distro name. Eg, "Android"--everyone knows what to expect--there are small variations, but they all work essentially the same--no worse than differences in version of Windows.
Thus, "Linux on the Desktop" is a misnomer. It really should be "Ubuntu on the desktop" or "Suse on the desktop" or "Debian on the desktop". So really, it's two problems:
1) which distro is defacto standard (there will never be one--intractable problem)
2) for said distro, what keeps it from becoming a good desktop alternative to Windows and Mac? (see problem #1, and issues above)
People who care more about "effective ownership and control of the computer' than user experience tend to produce applications and environments that are vastly more configurable, but have much worse UX than those produced by developers who focus on user experience.
That's the underlying problem with Linux on the Desktop.
Between your post and mine, the dichotomy/disagreement has been made clear.
There are two views of users, computing, what computing is for, and what useful computing actually is at work in this discussion. Another way to say what I was saying is that broader Linux community's ideas of what computing is for and what a user is like are very different from the ideas that are in the economic mainstream.
Rather than respond to your points, I'd like to draw them into relief and point to them. You've made good points with respect to a particular set of goals and a particular value system. But the continuous questions about Linux on the desktop that we see on Slashdot suggest that there is some ambivalence in the Linux world about the ways in which meeting these goals and these values does not seem to lead to widespread adoption.
The stalemate (a decade-old, at least, one) is crystallized by the way in which the Linux community does not want to change its goals and values, yet wants somehow to enjoy widespread adoption. The two are not compatible; to enjoy widespread adoption, Linux must share the goals of the people walking around Best Buy right now. If the broader community wants to distance themselves from these people and these goals, it is destined to fight windmills for a long time when it comes to widespread adoption.
Better, to my eye at least, to simply concede on that point and enjoy the system that exists, understanding that for the limited userbase that it has, it is probably currently the best choice.
Or: You can have users that are not developers or you can have users that are also developers, but there is a distinct limit on the degree to which you can have both groups with the same product.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Btw, if you need a great programming IDE, then download Visual Studio 2012 [microsoft.com]. It's just released now and it's free! MAKE SOMETHING SIMILAR!
Eclipse? NetBeans? IDEA? Qt Creator?
I'm one of the people who wrote VS 2012, and frankly I still find your post misleading, trollish and offensive.
I use LXDE because it is light on the resources. I really do not see why a desktop environment has to use several hundred megabytes of RAM. But even LXDE takes a lot. Needs about 100M. It makes them sluggish. The Firefox developers embarked on a "memshrink" program, and it's yielded excellent dividends. That effort made Firefox faster and more reliable. Seems Linux desktops could benefit from a similar hard look at memory usage.
LXDE has other problems. The file manager, pcmanfm, is still buggy and prone to crashes. Move lots of files around with it, and its stability goes to pot. It'll quit handling commands when it doesn't just crash. I've had to close it and start it up again to get it to work properly. I've not had good experiences with KDE or Gnome's file managers either. The file manager is a core part of any desktop environment, and the ones available in Linux are not good enough. Then there's the window manager, Openbox. Openbox works fine, but it isn't easy to configure. It has unusual commands (Shade/Roll up/down, and Un/decorate) that only serve to confuse the casual user, and which cannot be removed. If I switch to, say jwm, which doesn't have such extraneous features, then I have to deal with lxpanel and jwm's dueling task bars.
The UIs of all these desktop environments are full of holes and missing functionality. Still difficult to do it all and not at some point drag out the old text editor. For an example of a hole in the functionality, in LXDE if you right click on the desktop, a window pops up. Fine so far. Then if you click on the main menu (aka Start) button, that popup window does not go away, and the menu does not come up. You have to click somewhere on the desktop to make that popup window go away, then you can access the menu by clicking on the magic button. Why does it work that way? It's kludgy, that's why. The Linux desktop is still a messy collection of independent apps that don't play nice with each other. It lacks polish.
Peripherals are another weak spot. What happens if you try to print something, but you forgot to turn the printer on first? Depends how CUPS is configured. That job could hang around in the queue forever, and you will not be able to print until it is cleared. And it can't be cleared by any action that makes sense to a casual user. Canceling the job is the way to get printing working again, but this is not so easy. Turning the printer on doesn't work. Even rebooting doesn't work. But first, the user may not know any of this is happening, and will try to print again. Might end up with multiple copies. There may not be a printer dialog in which the user can cancel a job, instead the user has to pull up a browser and navigate to localhost:631. Or bring up ye olde command line prompt and do "lprm *". How many casual users know to do that? Evidently HAL was a wrong turn, and now it's all dbus.
One other thing: games. For games, must have hardware accelerated 3D graphics on commodity low end graphics cards. The open source drivers still can't do it. The proprietary drivers can, but cause other problems.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
You have left the land of sense make. You are too emotionally committed to what you beleive to be true to pay attention large pieces of evidence that contradict your beliefs.
How many windows users are protesting Windows 8's interface and clamouring for the more traditional desktop? Does that mean that the windows community prefers good enough over anything thats trying to move forward?
How many Mac users complain about the Ios-ification of OSX? Does that mean that the Mac community prefers good enough oer anything thats trying to move forward?
There is a large amount of innovation and experimentation all across the linux desktop landscape. That is not a real problem. The real problem is much, much, much more boring: a lack of committed qa and testing to perfect and refine that wildness. RHEL desktop works great and provides a stable platform for application developers, its just years behind the upstream desktop projects as it takes them that long to refine the associated technologies.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Maybe because for my workflow (lots of windows running vim or shells, all open at once, on the same huge screen along with at least one web browser), the new shiny isn't actually moving forward.
1 every X releases have some sort of LTS release and then fix everything DON'T EXPERIMENT WITH NEW BETA STUFF
and have it work as much as possible (so no switching to some new version unless EVERYTHING is working in that version)
then use the run up to the next LTS to get everything ready
2 if you are in the Thou Shalt Not Use the Root Login EVER camp then eliminate every time something needs ROOT you can
(set automount to mount portable drives READ WRITE WORLD not Read Only Root Owned (unless that is set in the drives meta data))
3 even if its a Python clicky shell eliminate the need to go to the Command Line Shell as much as possible
4 have the desktop "control panel" slurp any generic control panels it can
5 God help me for this one: Have in the Help system some sort of Clippy type Agent that you can use to invoke "wizard" type things for the times you have to do stuff across multiple control panel items
6 any person that uses JFGI in your distro forum WITHOUT GIVING A CORRECT SEARCH PHRASE should be banned and if an employee does so that person should be fired.
7 and finally INSTALL A LOCAL COPY OF THE HELP FILE WITH ALL APPLICATIONS never assume that your user currently has a network connection
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This is a classic crossing-a-chasm problem: the next set of users are not like the previous set of users. If you listen to the existing base, then you never make the leap to the next stage, you become pigeonholed and marginalised. When you hit that chasm breakpoint, you can't take all the old users with you - they aren't your future userbase.
I'm not the one to pretend that it doesn't have flaws - heck, since I dogfood it, I probably know more about those new to this release than most people out there.
However, even here on Slashdot, I see far more comments praising VS than those calling it a piece of crap - and that even coming from people for whom Linux is a primary OS. To me, that tells a lot. More, in fact, than glowing reviews in "professional" journals and such.
Besides, I've had that same info publicly visible in my /. profile for several years now, and all I've got for my efforts is one poorly written hate mail, and even that was ages ago. Apparently, bashing Apple is more fashionable hereabouts these days, or so I've heard. ~
For me, Adobe Creative Suite is the main thing stopping me from making the switch to Linux permanently, and I imagine I'm not alone. Sorry, GIMP is just not a replacement for Photoshop/Fireworks/Illustrator/Acrobat/Flash and the other dozen programs of varying usefulness.
This has been my basic argument for years now. Essentially, I've supported loads of businesses where the applications they need at Adobe CS and Microsoft Office, including Outlook/Exchange. If you can get a Linux distro to replicate all of that functionality as smoothly and easily as Adobe CS and Microsoft Office in Windows, then you can grab a big chunk of the SMB office market.
Add in support for games on top of that, and you have the home market. Hit a critical mass on home/SMB, and you'll see enterprise support.
I hope you realize that PowerShell is totally extensible, and totally supports reading / writing text streams as well as object streams. You can do exactly what you described in PowerShell. Your ignorance of that fact doesn't mean it isn't true. So there is no barrier between PowerShell and non-Microsoft technologies. You can either write PowerShell scripts, or you can write PowerShell command-lets in C#, or you can read / write flat text data and process it, exactly the way that you would do in /bin/bash or whatever. If you spent a little time learning more about PowerShell, you would see that it is *not* a walled garden at all.
I don't want linux to be widely adopted. Simple as that. I'm an arch user, and there's a high percentage of fellow users that don't want arch to go the way of ubuntu either. It's simply picking the right tool for the right job. Distro's like ubuntu are geared towards the noobs. Fine. But they still won't learn how to fix xorg settings when unity goes fubar. Frankly, I don't want people switching to linux just to switch to it. It's a choice you make if you feel it can benefit you. Just as I feel I don't want newer ubuntu users to switch to arch. Driver's are tricky. Most of it is OEM related. The rest is kernel related. But as previously espoused from previous posters, try seeing how many drivers you need to hunt down on a clean windows install VS. a current linux distro. The bigger issue is a meta user mindset. Computing & computers(non-commercial) have gone from a hobby to a device that should just work out of the box. PC's have been nearly reduced to the level of a kitchen appliance. I guess thats why linux will run on a toaster :p
For the sake of argument; To get linux mainstreamed to anywhere near the level of windows...It would have to not be linux as we know it. OR at the very least, condense it down to a single sort of distro with options burried cryptically to modify it back to the way we power users find it useful.
The major question we need to answer: Should Linux focus on wide-spread adaption? If the answer is YES then this what needs to be done.
Step #1: A major poll or survey. We must develop a website that allows people to voice their opinion on what they want their desktop environment to do for them. Linux has become a developer’s playground. Most developers are simply experimenting with different ideas or features that they want. We need the input of both users and developers on what features and applications must exist for them to adopt Linux as their primary desktop operating system. Target other major OS users and get their input, figure out why they are not using Linux. Adapt a model of direct democracy with people voting for the things that they want created or fixed in Linux.
Step #2: A source of funding. We need to figure out a way to provide incentives for developers to work on user requests. A service similar to Kickstart but exclusively focused on developing for Linux needs to be established, this is the only way to force developers to stop experimenting and start making a Linux desktop for the users. Generate millions of dollars and focus all the money on the primary issues that must be resolved. Developers of niche or obscure projects will flock. Provide monetary incentives and recognition to developers who solve specific problems or create wanted applications. A separate fund can be set aside to provide monetary incentives for computer companies to sell Linux pre-installed systems for the first x amount of systems. Many users and organizations will be interested, and with this many people we might be able to generate enough revenue to jumpstart a new revolution in Linux development.
Step #3: Standardization. We need to focus on creating a standard model for the Linux desktop. By providing funding to developers, many will pause creating obscure software and help in this process. Furthermore a general plea to distributions and developers to help in the creation of a major set of standard applications should be requested by the community. Take popular projects and advance them to be standardized, fork if necessary. Create a desktop environment that is not an experiment, but exactly what most average users want. Create applications that are polished and provide identical or superior features and usability to their competing counterparts. Provide support for longer periods and interfaces that do not change every few months.
Step #4: The Killer Application. We need Linux exclusive software that is not available anywhere else. 1 or 2 projects that can outperform, provide functionality or experience that cannot be found on any other major desktop environment. Maybe it’s a game, maybe it’s some type of an image or 3d software or a business application. Whatever it might be we need to figure out how to secure it for Linux. This may be very difficult, but it will get a ton of users for Linux. The server side of Linux is already on top of this, we need to do it for the desktop.
Step #5: Media attention. Use generated funding to launch a major media campaign, create a huge buzz. Commercials, billboards, events, etc. Tell users why they want Linux and not something else, explain why Linux is better. When people walk into a Best Buy or Walmart, they should be asking for Linux systems. Major retailers and hardware vendors will follow.
I believe if these steps are followed, Linux may have a chance to become a significant if not the prime force on the desktop. Of course the path ahead is uphill, but Linux has many advantages. If the cause it worthy, we need to band together and achieve it.
If the answer is no to the original question, well then there is no point to this discussion.
PowerShell is great for day to day admin of the Windows-based products, but the moment I find myself with a non-Microsoft logfile or similar, PowerShell is no longer the solution.
By comparison, the other day I solved an issue with reporting via a (slightly convoluted) chain of grep->awk->sed->tr. The issue was getting statistics from "XML" report files that a process dumps when it's completed. My other options were to write an actual program using an XML library and VBscript/C#/$whatever.
Bad example. You should have investigated PowerShell a little more. PowerShell has *built-in* support for XML, even to the point that it has it's own data type. Simply casting a string with XML in it to the [xml] PowerShell type allow you navigate down through an XML document with simple dot-notation. Maybe you could have settled for Select-Xml which lets you query xml using xpath.
Using non-xml tools to parse xml is *really* bad behavior. You invariably make assumptions which may not hold over time. Consider how equivalent XML may be serialized in very different forms - and still be essentially the same XML. I'm not just thinking of line breaks and white space (although that can typically also throw off awk), but namespace qualifiers may change, a different default namespace may come into effect globally or locally, CDATA may be used instead of entities etc.
If the tool producing the XML has been made with proper XML tooling (an XML library, typically) you *cannot* rely on the tool to keep producing that specific serialization. You may very well experience that the library when it encounters certain characters it decides to use a CDATA element to encapsulate text content which until then used to be just plain text.
If you worked for me and produced such a solution, I would tell you to redo it, properly. If it is a one-off report where all the XML files are know, it may be ok. But if you want to push such a solution as "scripting" solution to be reused, it is really, really bad design.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
I have been using linux since RedHat 4.1. Finding a desktop that is usable is not the problem.
.doc and .ppt files correctly. Shortly after OpenOffice got good enough at it, Microsoft introduced .docx and .pptx files. The question of who is responsible for this, or why it happens, is irrelevant. What matters is that I have to ask my colleagues to convert their files from THEIR default format to something I can read. Personally, I like poking my colleagues a bit. But when I tell a friend to use linux, and they can't read the files that everyone is sending them, they don't poke, they just return to Windows.
The problem is that there is no way to seamlessly run Microsoft products. (Yes, I know, it's not even possible to do that on a Windows box, but that's beside the point.)
It took a long time before I could read
At work, I use scientific instruments that are controlled by Windows software. Some manufacturers are gradually providing other options, but for the most part, it's Windows, and it's got to be REAL Windows, not Windows inside VirtualBox. As much as I would like to make linux the operating system in the lab, it's not going to happen until linux can run Windows applications.
Users can adjust to a new desktop, and will if there is a reason, or if it's interesting. But you can't adjust to a system that won't read what you need to read or run what you need to run.