Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

Posted by Soulskill on from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

darthcamaro writes: Linux has clawed its way into lots of places these days. But at the LinuxCon conference in Chicago today Linus Torvalds was asked where Linux should go next. Torvalds didn't hesitate with his reply. "I still want the desktop," Torvalds said, as the audience erupted into boisterous applause. Torvalds doesn't see the desktop as being a kernel problem at this point, either, but rather one about infrastructure. While not ready to declare a "Year of the Linux Desktop" he still expects that to happen — one day.

100 of 727 comments (clear)

  1. Nobody else seems to want it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he waits a little longer, he can probably just take it without anybody noticing.

    1. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

      I'm a Linux (and UNIX and Windows) user, but I honestly know very little about how drivers in Linux differ from drivers in, say, Windows, or any other OS for that matter. Could you explain what the issues are? I Googled for "Linux driver model" but didn't find anything particularly enlightening.

    2. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Skarjak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm always puzzled to see these kinds of posts. Do you do your work on a tablet? "Desktop is dead!" is a lame cliche the media came up with that everyone can parrot to show how "knowledgeable" they are about the industry, when a simple inspection of the facts shows desktops aren't going away any time soon. I'm writing this from a desktop, with a confortable mechanical keyboard, a good mouse and a widescreen monitor, cause that's what you need if you want to get shit done.

    3. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by bADlOGIN · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a monopoly, Microsoft gets to hold the proverbial "gun" to device vendors heads and say, "support our OS on our schedule exactly how we say we'll fucking destroy your market and feed you to your competitors". Thus, Windows drivers get support from device manufacturers. Linux device drivers come from begging, pleading, and sometimes reverse engineering and all volunteer efforts of the open source community. Sometimes this happens despite hostile responses and legal threats from device vendors. My hope is that some day Linux will get to wield that gun...

      --
      *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
    4. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Iniamyen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This doesn't sound like a design decision, though. At least not directly. Still wondering what the parent is talking about.

    5. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Ost99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The desktop IS dead, at least in one sense.
      If you buy one now, you might never have to buy one again.

      Acknowledging that I might be pulling a "640k ought to be enough for everybody", I predict that a current generation mainline i7 and i5 will be sufficient for any "desktop" task more or less for ever (or until we move away from a physical interface like keyboard / mouse and touchscreens).

      My 5 1/2 year old desktop is still a solid workhorse and significantly faster than my new $3000 ultrabook.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    6. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Uh, DOS most certainly did have drivers. I know for fact you weren't plugging an SB16 into a DOS machine and expecting it t work just by modifying your autoexec.bat and config.sys files. You had to install the drivers for it, first.

      I'm sitting right here on my 486DX4 75MHz Toshiba laptop playing Doom on it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 3, Informative

      So what you are saying is that NVIDIA and ATI don't release closed source binary-only drivers? I wonder what this whole tainted kernel thing is about then?

      I wrote a FUSE driver for a toy fs in Linux a VFS driver to do the same thing in kernel-space, and it's funny, I don't remember getting cooperation "from the " whole "Linux kernel team". Apparently Basil Brush and hairyfeet are involved in anti-Linux FUD.

    8. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Well, actually, if mobile, the cloud and chromebooks take enough of the market away from the traditional desktop, Microsoft has 2 choices. Either raise the price of Windows to make up for the declining market or lower the price of Windows to fend off the competition. If the price of Windows goes up - and the traditional desktop is only necessary for a limited kind of user, then Linux wins what's left of that market by virtue of the cheap price. If the price goes down, Microsoft may continue to dominate, but they're going to have to make up for it somewhere - in which case LibreOffice wins.

      Of course, there's a major chicken-and-egg problem here. And if the first egg doesn't crack (the inability to buy an OEM desktop machine without paying for Windows), the others probably won't either...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    9. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Skarjak · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am getting shit done! Correcting people who are wrong on the internet is a noble and worthy endeavour. :p

    10. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Skarjak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. Fridges haven't really been getting any better for a while, but no one claims that industry is dead. You'll have to buy new desktops because like everything else, they'll eventually stop working. And I wouldn't be so quick to say extra power will never be needed. The average computer has been fully capable of doing all tasks the average user needs to get done for a quite a few years now, but they keep getting stronger anyway. That's because you can find new things to do with that power. And of course, work computers or gaming computers can absolutely make use of extra power. Finally, companies can still work to make computers more silent or power efficient. I think there's still room. What we'ere seeing is a diversification of ways to interact with technology, which inevitably means a reduction of market share for the older products, but as long as these products are still needed, the industry will be in good shape.

    11. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by exomondo · · Score: 2

      "support our OS on our schedule exactly how we say we'll fucking destroy your market and feed you to your competitors".

      Actually it's more just basic economics, if you want to sell hardware to people who run Windows then not supporting Windows isn't going to be a good choice now is it?

      Linux device drivers come from begging, pleading, and sometimes reverse engineering and all volunteer efforts of the open source community.

      Obviously, since Linux has like 3% of the market. Again basic economics dictates that you wouldn't put anywhere near as much support into it, not to mention one of the biggest selling points of Linux is that you can use it to repurpose old hardware. Did you know very few hardware vendors support Minix? Or Hurd? Or Amoeba? Or Mach? And nor should they, there's no reason to put resources into doing it.

      My hope is that some day Linux will get to wield that gun...

      So it isn't the attitude that you have a problem with, it's the just the one with the power is the one you don't like.

    12. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Linux, there is no ABI. Drivers have to be accepted and included in the kernel source tree. Yes really. It's that fucked up.

      This is complete BS. Drivers can be delivered as source and built on the target machine or as binaries with the appropriate packageing. For example, drivers can be delivered like the ElRepo kABI-tracking kmods (this includes such things as the Nvidia drivers), or installed via DKMS.

      What is true however is that, without an open-source shim layer, drivers have to be delivered as source, which some closed-source bigots hate.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now you got Windows 8 because desktops aren't as important a market as mobile phones and tablets.

      Uhh, no. Don't run that garbage except for testing (and laughing at its craptastic-ness) on a VM. I'm sure that Satya Nadella does *all* his work on his Windows phone. Please.

      Is your data in the cloud yet?

      Uhh, no. why do I want my private data hosted on "someone else's servers?" (that's the phrase you should substitute when anyone *ever* says "the cloud")

      Is your email client a web app?

      No. And it won't be anytime soon. Why should I? Standalone mail clients have *enormously* richer feature sets.

      Still sure about the future of the desktop?

      Eventually, "the desktop" will be commodity monitors and user input devices which you plug your mobile device which contain all your data, applications and other stuff. As long as there are people who need to crunch numbers, write code, write prose, etc, etc, etc, there will always be a market for equipment to allow people to use computing power in a stationary location. The equipment, software, form factors and input devices may change, but there will always be equipment which provides "desktop" like functionality.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    14. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by visualight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Linux, there is no ABI. Drivers have to be accepted and included in the kernel source tree. Yes really. It's that well thought out.

      This means that you have to have code review from the Linux kernel team. And you have to divulge any amateur or buggy code embodied in the source. Which may compromise the imaginary advantage your marketdroids think they have on other platforms.

      FTFY

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    15. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Quarters · · Score: 2

      The first commercial game I shipped, SVGA Air Warrior (November, 1992) came on five 3.5" 1.44MB floppy disks. Three of those disks contained nothing but drivers for various video and sound cards. DOS absolutely had drivers, they were a nightmare to deal with.

    16. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      BTW what Torvalds SHOULD have said was "I want the desktop....but not enough to give up my shitty 1970s throwback driver model" because you look at the forums and a good 90% of what the problems in linux get boiled down to is that shitstorm of a driver model,

      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. the 70's are gone, but your idea that Linux is still in the 70's shows ye know nought.

      Next up, why don't you tell us all about those stupid 1 button mice that apple is still using....

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      I'm a Linux (and UNIX and Windows) user, but I honestly know very little about how drivers in Linux differ from drivers in, say, Windows, or any other OS for that matter. Could you explain what the issues are? I Googled for "Linux driver model" but didn't find anything particularly enlightening.

      Whne a smug Windows users wants to coomplain about Linux drivers, just ask them about how Vista handled drivers.

      Then sit back and listen to the litany of replies blaming everyone else but Microsoft. Meanwhile a lot of contemporary peripherals were just unusable. ALthough they still worked on Linux.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      As a monopoly, Microsoft gets to hold the proverbial "gun" to device vendors heads and say, "support our OS on our schedule exactly how we say we'll fucking destroy your market and feed you to your competitors". Thus, Windows drivers get support from device manufacturers..

      Now tell us about the Vista drivers

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that as soon as you host data external to your location you add latency and a failure point.

    20. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This means that you have to have code review from the Linux kernel team. And you have to divulge any amateur or buggy code embodied in the source. Which may compromise the imaginary advantage your marketdroids think they have on other platforms.

      God yes this. 1000 times this.

      One particular example I remember well was TV capture cards in the early/mid 2000s.

      Basically the chipset was the Brooktree BT878, which was actually pretty good though remarably cheap. I ended up with a few capture cards what people gave to me because "they didn't work".

      That meant they didn't work on Windows. Every manufacturer wrote their own buggy, unstable, system crashy drivers and put effort into some god-awful shiny TV program which made heavy use of gradients and nonstandard TV controls.

      On Linux, they all. just. worked. There was one BT878 driver that was well written and well debugged and "shitty" capture cards that "didn't work" gave years of stable, flawless performance.

      The same thing cycled around with webcams. It was a wild-west of chipsets. They'd all work after a fashion on Windows. On Linux, they either worked perfectly or not at all due to lack of drivers. The ones that did work were invariable more stable and more featureful because the driver would be written to expose the full functionality of the chipset.

      These days the situation is better on all platforms since the standards people have realised that having standard driver interface makes for a much better experience. xHCI means that any random USB chipset works. Same for bluetooth now too. UVC means any camer works and so on and so forth. It's like magic. You can buy a cheap-ass piece of crap from any random vendor and it will just work, no drivers, no hassle on Windows, Linux and OSX.

      The thing is vendors are almost uniformly bad at writing drivers. On Linux this means they don't bother. On Windows the drivers are a pile of crap. Having centrally maintained drivers is in fact a large improvement on BOTH operating systems.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 2

      I agree 100% with you, to this day I have owned several machines that I need to manually download and install wifi and ethernet drivers for them to work on windows, in linux they just work. As matter of fact the only drivers I ever had any problem with in Linux were video card drivers.

      I always forget to download the drivers before formatting and then I am stuck with a box that can not get into the internet to download them.

    22. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2

      I think it's funny that you'd say this.

      DOS had drivers in the form of Terminate and Stay Resident (TSR) programs.

      For instance, you had Microsoft's mouse.sys or mouse.com for standard serial port (and later PS/2) mice.

      CD drives required config.sys to load a vendor-specific CD-ROM driver followed by autoexec.bat executing mscdex.exe.

      From memory, sound cards notably didn't have drivers built-in, or rather the only startup programs they had just set the ports and interrupts the cards used. (i.e. sb16set)

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    23. Re:Nobody else seems to want it by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      There's nothing wrong with drivers in Linux; hairyfeet always bitches about drivers in Linux but he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

      The main controversy with Linux drivers is that they're tightly tied to the kernel, and maintained with it; there is no standardized API or ABI for Linux drivers, so a driver for one kernel version will likely not work with other versions; drivers have to be ported between kernel versions. In addition, drivers are absolutely not binary-compatible between kernel versions, and have to be compiled for them. In practice, this isn't a problem except for proprietary vendors who don't want to open-source their drivers. For everyone else, they just contribute their driver code to the kernel tree, it's integrated into the kernel, and maintained with the kernel. If an interface changes in a new kernel version, the maintainers update the associated drivers accordingly. When distros build kernels, the build the kernels and drivers together. So the only problem is a few proprietary vendors who don't like this model, and want to keep their drivers closed-source. Windows itself is a prime example of why this approach is bad: Windows has a terrible reputation for reliability, and much of the reason for this isn't actually Windows itself, it's shoddy drivers from various vendors, especially small Asian vendors of low-cost peripherals, but also big ones had problems. Drivers operate at the highest privilege levels, so if there's a bug in them, it can easily crash your system, so code quality is paramount. Crappy drivers crashing gave Windows a terrible reputation, and MS had to fix this by instituting their "WHQL" program, whereby vendors had to submit their drivers to Microsoft to be certified. This is a big reason why Windows is now fairly reliable. However, it's not something Linux can do; there's no single company behind Linux, and certainly not with the financial resources, or marketshare clout, to force vendors to go through such an expensive and onerous process. No company is going to pay millions of dollars to have someone certify their Linux drivers, but to run on Windows, they will.

      The Linux driver model works just fine for Linux, and it's part of why Linux is so reliable and easy to install on most hardware. Instead of hundreds of drivers for simple devices running on the same chipset, for instance (a common happening with things like SD card readers) there's only one, maintained by the community, with high quality. The main problem is with video drivers (NVIDIA and ATI), because these are far more complex than an Ethernet or USB driver, which a few motivated programmers can write a driver for in a short time on a volunteer basis. This is why Linux has had trouble with video support with high-end video chips. These two vendors have closed-source drivers, but to get them to work with Linux and its frequently updating (due to security fixes) kernels is a little awkward and has caused problems in the past. However, open-source efforts including "Nouveau" have made a lot of progress and are pretty close to replacing the closed-source drivers.

  2. Why focus on the desktop? by timrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linux has so much going for it in the device market that I don't see why Linus doesn't just double down on it. The future of Linux seems to make more sense as a kernel used for other things (like Android) rather than trying to break into the standalone desktop OS market.

    1. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's he doubling down though? That term implies some stakes are being allocated.

      It goes on to say he doesn't think the desktop is a kernel problem. Well, that kind of means he's not spending specific resources on desktop, which means that wanting the desktop doesn't contradict "doubling down" on the device market.

      The actual part of the article that talks about investing is when he talked about shrinking Linux and about addressing the embedded market.

    2. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by bulled · · Score: 2

      Because Linux started as a project to fill a need he had, a Desktop OS that he could afford as a student. I presume he wants to see the desktop continue to because he still wants to work with one and I applaud that because I do as well.

    3. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by bird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need a free desktop OS. Linux is the only contender.

    4. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well first of all Linus has never been overly concerned with market share, just building a technically damn good kernel so I doubt this will have much practical influence on his work. It's got to be frustrating though, Linux works on massively huge and complex servers. It works on the smallest mobile and embedded devices. But a regular desktop that from the kernel's side is rather simple, one CPU and usually one GPU and pretty much no exotic devices (from the kernel side all USB devices look the same, for example) and no absurd limits being pushed in any direction.

      I think the last real significant desktop feature was when they increased interactivity by changing the default time slice from 100 Hz to 1000 Hz and that was in 2004 or so. Heck, I would say it was at least as ready as the BSD kernel was when Apple created OS X in 2001. It's quite telling that the one thing Google did not want to rewrite when they made Android was the kernel. All else they ripped out and replaced with Apache licensed code, but not that. Well that and a bunch of Google proprietary APIs, but that's another flame war. I think I'd feel just the same in his shoes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by worf_mo · · Score: 4, Informative

      We need a free desktop OS. Linux is the only contender.

      Is that so?

    6. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by Lisias · · Score: 2

      Because he needs a functional to develop the Kernel! :-)

      He used to use Gnome Desktop 2, and I prefer not to reproduce what he said when Gnome 3 was spilled out from the Gnome Foundation.

      (and I totally agree with him)

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    7. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by Lisias · · Score: 2

      [...]Moving from Snow Leopard to Lion was my greatest mistake. Up to that point I had been a satisfied, kool-aid drinking, cash-spending Appletard.

      I totally agree. I miss Snow Leopard very much. Lion was a piece of shit.

      I'm currently using Mavericks, and I finally started to like Mac OS again - but I still miss Snow Leopard. Apple managed to dumb down the Mac OS X to a level that, frankly, offends me : why I can't use Expose? I was happy with it.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    8. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by aaronb1138 · · Score: 2

      Horribly ineffective, but that hasn't stopped the iOS fandom from embracing the iPad as a poor substitute for a content creation device, including software development.

    9. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Well, Gnome always was a piece of crap in terms of internal structure and finally that project is imploding. About time. KDE/QT always was the technically superior approach and with Gnome fading it does look like we are heading in the right direction. Of course, we a monoculture would be horribly counterproductive for long term evolution, but there is obviously no danger of that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:Why focus on the desktop? by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      " there never will be a Linux desktop."

      because linux is a kernel, any desktop system that uses linux as its base OS is by definition a "linux desktop"

      "KDE/Gnome don't work with each other without both being installed.

      bollox, you only need some libraries from either system not fully installed desktops if you want to use a gnome app on KDE (can you do that with OSX and Windows without installing a virtual machine?).

      "you need to install everyone's flavor-of-the-week libraries and frameworks, so you end up with a much more bloated mess"

      again bollox

      "so .... you simply developed the application for OS X if you needed UNIX support or Windows if it's not important." so simply develop the app for KDE or Gnome if its too complicated a paradigm for you.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  3. Oh, the timing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Working out of a coffee shop - just hit the slashdot page when one of the passer-bys looked over my shoulder and said "Slashdot? Is that site still around? Are they still talking about the Year of Linux on the Desktop?" ... and then we noticed the first story simultaneously...

    1. Re:Oh, the timing... by namgge · · Score: 5, Funny

      And a techie's definition of 'working', i.e. drinking coffee and reading slashdot is still the same too.

  4. Re:Torvalds is true to form.... by i_ate_god · · Score: 2

    perhaps you can enlighten us as to why he's wrong, and what the linux kernel has to do to better support desktop environments?

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  5. Would be awesome by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    Would also require that people be able to run most of the apps they want in Linux. Note that though this has long been a problem, the increase in web-based apps is slowly eroding the relevance of any specific OS. Even for games, though the quality of web-based games will always be inferior. And (nearly) everyone likes to play games.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re: Would be awesome by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Why does point and click make the OS less reliable? In any case there's been a GUI free version for 5 years if you want to put yourself through that.

    2. Re: Would be awesome by TWX · · Score: 2

      The problems with point-and-click, as I see them, are first that there's generally less understanding of the underlying configuration and how things actually work, second that people that really aren't qualified to be administrators end up playing admin and doing a poor job of it, and third, a pretty GUI is meaningless in the way most server functions work, and the entire underbelly could be a disgusting morass of barely-functional code that is chock-full of vulnerabilities or bugs but sells because the untrained buy it based on its prettiness rather than on how solid it is.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re: Would be awesome by kesuki · · Score: 2

      What really kills open source is that it doesn't have a functional GUI or a dearth of useful apps. It is because it doesn't have what marketing is looking for, vendor lock in for not giving competitors access to the same tools/data sets. It doesn't guarantee high profits, on low margins. It doesn't offer a user base of clueless clickers, who will pay because everyone else is charging for software, and think software means paying money...

      --
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    4. Re: Would be awesome by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try opening some of the larger, more complex Pages and Numbers docs and seeing what Word and Excel do with them. Or try opening Word and Excel, saving your complex documents in ODF, and opening them in LibreOffice for Windows. Let me know if that works any better.

  6. Linux could own the desktop... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All Google has to do is dump that stupid steaming pile called ChromeOS, and admit that Android wins. A desktop customized version of Android (complete with a real desktop) is still based on Linux (at least Google's fork of it), already has hundreds of thousands of apps, and could be better in nearly every way than Windows or Mac OS-X in 2 years, IMO.

    The other broken OS, GNU/Linux, needs a major overhaul before it will ever be popular among anyone but geeks who are willing to accept that their OS is hostile to sharing new apps, or too blinded by fan-boy-ism to notice. I write this from my Ubuntu laptop, where my code contributions are far lower than Android or even Windows, even though I put in most of my effort here. It's just easier to publish an Android app. It's even easier to publish software for Windows. If Mark Shuttleworth were just a bit smarter, I think he'd realize he needs to abandon managing .deb packages and start this whole mess over based on a more git-like aproach. He's done a lot in that direction - user PPAs for example, but it's still not there. No RPM or .deb based Linux OS will ever become the basis for the Year of the Linux Desktop.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    1. Re:Linux could own the desktop... by jcdr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Packaging is a very big achievement. Even Android use packaging with APK file. Really, packaging is not the problem. I remember systems before packaging, this was a nightmare. Never return to this hell...

      The problem is to have popular tools able to build and publish proper *.deb package as easy as for *.apk packages. For example a good IDE where you find a "new C++ Debian package" button (and others language option of course), fill a simple form and start coding your application from a functional template. Then a "build" button should create the *.deb package and you should be able to debug it. The IDE should have a "Add Debian repository" button with a simple form to create a remote Debian repository using FTP or SSH. Finally the IDE should be able to publish your packages in your remote repository. Like for Android, the IDE should be able to build package compatible with a choice of releases.

      From my point of view, the packaging is not the problem. The lack of competitive developers tools advancement in the Linux distribution compared to Android is in my opinion far more the root cause if the problem. While structured very differently, *.deb and *.apk packages target almost the same goals from the system and user point of view.

      The situation in creating and publishing *.deb package is actually like if you create and publish *.apk packages all by hand using a lot of command line, instead of a easy and shiny IDE.

  7. Well, you have mine. by doti · · Score: 2

    My desktop computer at home is running Linux for more than a decade now.

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
    1. Re:Well, you have mine. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. Without never shutting down or rebooting.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Well, you have mine. by BringsApples · · Score: 3

      Same here, Slackware (14.0 now) at that, running KDE (installed by default). I work with many clients using this as well. I can connect to their windows servers via remote desktop (KRDC) (installed by default) if need be. I haven't had any issue conversing with, and/or sharing notes with any microsoft office users, (calligra suite) (installed by default). I'm browsing with firefox (installed by default), run my own email server (sendmail) (installed by default) and view mail with thunderbird (installed by default). Sometimes if I leave k3b (DVD burning software installed by default) open for to long, it causes KDE to go full-on rahtard, and has been known to require a reboot. Other than that, once you get used to it, and learn a way to do things that produce the results that you're looking for, it's quite nice.

      Every time I upgrade to the latest version of slackware, I'm able to simply copy data and I'm right back in business. This matter of having the same data for 10+ years is extremely important to so many people. I wonder how many windows users can say that they have data (and I'm talking about personal files as well as other files, like config files for programs to run as you like them to run - not music, movies etc...) that's 10+ years old. I ran windows for 15+ years prior switching completely to slackware. I ran slackware for more than 6 years before I ever typed 'startx' at a prompt.

      I'd also like to point out that fixes for security issues and/or any other update that's required, are almost always released prior to any microsoft fix. Pretty important stuff, especially if you're running any type of server out of your home.

      I point all of this out, not out of egoism, but to really say that even running slackware, probably the clunkiest way to run the linux kernel, the X environment is pretty damn stable, and very adapted to the rest of the world. Of course, slackware IS known for it's stability...

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  8. Linux fanboys ftw by rcht148 · · Score: 2

    We Are the Linux fanboys.
    You Will be Assimilated.
    Resistance is Futile.

    - Linux fanboy :)

  9. Oh it'll happen... by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The day that the various desktop environments decide to cut out the middlemen. When I can go grab an official KDE install disk that gives me a polished KDE experience with the latest kernel and Wayland from kde.org, that's the day Windows will start really hurting. Then I can say to my relatives "Linux? Just go get KDE" and there'll be no confusion anymore. If it's KDE compatible, it's KDE compatible. Load the binary, off you go. Just like OS X and Windows.

    1. Re:Oh it'll happen... by armanox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They used to have a link to an OpenSuSE live CD to do just that (well, with XFree86/X.Org. Wayland isn't a priority for KDE). It would appear that is no longer present on the site. Also, KDE doesn't really care to be Linux - they target UNIX compatible systems (AIX, FreeBSD). GNOME, on the other hand, wants to be just Linux, and is largely in bed with the Fedora Project.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:Oh it'll happen... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The day that the various desktop environments decide to cut out the middlemen."

      Right. Because a Window Manager is the OS. All that threading, management of processes, filesystems and the like are just uneeded cruft!

      "Then I can say to my relatives "Linux? Just go get KDE" and there'll be no confusion anymore. If it's KDE compatible, it's KDE compatible."

      You have what you are asking for available today. You just don't know which distribution to recommend. Your recommendation to relatives should be: "Find someone with a clue and they can help you." Your problem is that you are pretending to have when, when you actually don't

      Give your relatives a computer sans OS and try recommending : "Just go get Windows!" and see how far they get before they ask Which version? Home? Premium? 7? What is this Server 2008? Or should I get Server 2012? Maybe I want MS-SQL? What's the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit? How many Gigabytes should be CPU be? The Hard Drive is the box with all the cables coming out, right?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Oh it'll happen... by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      What's with all this KDE shit? We all know GNOME is the real package to go with. Only losers use KDE.

      Yes, I'm kidding, but now you know exactly why we don't have Linux on the desktop. Linux Ignorance sat around for the better part of a fucking decade bitching back and forth over which desktop package to go with.

      Desktop schmesktop. I want to use an application, not stare at some fscking icons, menus or panels all day. Fluxbox with no panel and a dozen virtual screens gives me just that. I basically have one v-screen for each task, for 100% focus. Out of sight, out of mind. The point of a computer is that it can handle much more information than me -- I'd just get lost in all that, instead I'll just do one thing at a time, and do it well.

      Of course, that's just, like, my opinion, man. If someone wants to recreate the Windows experience on Linux, by all means, just do it. That's the whole idea of open source, use your computer the way you want. (Why "PC" means "Windows" in common parlance is beyond me -- Linux and other open OSes make computers much more personal.)

      As for binary compatibility, just by assuming x86-64 (or just x86?) you're breaking a whole lot of opensource/unix tradition. The portable way of installing software involves ./configure and make, and it doesn't care about architecture. Unfortunately, most distros break this by not including basic stuff like compilers by default. The distros themselves are pandering to the Windows way of binary assumptions.

      Linux on the desktop won't have much hope unless people get the whole idea of open source. With the typical binary distro, it's not much better than Windows or OS X. The kernel won't matter that much when the user experience is crippled to that Fisher-Price level where you're allowed to do these certain things, and not be the master of your own machine.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:Oh it'll happen... by Dimwit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a much bigger deal than people seem to think. I tried getting my father set up on Linux not that long ago.

      "I need help, this says GNOME needs updating, I thought I was running Linux?"
      "You are, Linux is the kernel, but GNOME is the desktop environment."
      "Well, what's Debian? It says Debian needs updating."
      "You're running the Debian distribution of Linux."
      "I thought it was GNOME?"

      --
      ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
  10. And Russia wants to be the USSR again ...... by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 2

    Neither are going to happen, so move along and focus on something that CAN happen.

  11. careful what you wish for by slashdice · · Score: 5, Funny

    Linux "won" mobile in the same way Michael Moore "won" the war on anorexia.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  12. Re:Infrastructure? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, to an extent he's right; the kernel does what kernels do, and that is, talk to the hardware at the lowest level. It does that just fine.

    Unfortunately the stuff piled on top of it is either not keeping up with trends (X and the way modern video changes on the fly), or not really good at handling what a user would want automagically.

    I attempted to use the most integrated desktop with vanilla Ubuntu 14.04, but I found its window manager to be so restrictive as to be useless to me. It handled a lot automagically, but not what I wanted, and it was also very unclear how to go about getting to what I needed to change. It wasn't even intuitive on how to bring up a terminal window, for example, which is basically the bulk of what I use Linux for.

    The lack of documentation is also hurting, badly. I'm working on building a multiseat box at home and LightDM was redone sometime between Ubuntu 12.04 and 14.04, and there wasn't any good support documentation explaining how the configuration files now work. I ended up switching to kdm even though I'm not using KDE, just so that I could configure a display manager that would actually work right.

    I think that the golden age of FOSS documentation is over. For a long time Linux and other FOSS docs were based on how commercial UNIX documentation was written, but slowly more and more developers aren't creating volumes of use or configuration docs in the UNIX model anymore, and as few UNIX-era developers work on Linux and other FOSS, there are less people who remember how those documents were made and why. I think that is what will hurt FOSS the most, simply being unable to figure out how to do the things that one wants to do because the docs don't exist.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  13. It's not a kernel problem by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Successful desktop operating systems have been based on various kernels. Apple used a pretty crummy one before switching to a BSD derived one. The Atari ST and Commodore Amiga each used their own, and they had certain success in their niches.

    The problem is the GUI. People don't like X, and Linux people have no desire to give us anything else. Engineers and enthusiasts may well argue that it's better from various objective reasons but the end user doesn't care. They use it and they think it sucks. Perhaps the problem is that it still pretty much needs the shell. Perhaps it's large, slow and clunky. Perhaps it's the poor support for games.

    Android doesn't have these problems because the developers didn't cripple themselves with X. TiVos and Tomtoms (before switching to Android) used Linux without X and people were quite happy with them.

    Give us a nice, simple, standard GUI without a bazillion customisations, and with the ability to to just install an app from the GUI and run it from the GUI, and Linux might actually work on the desktop.

    1. Re:It's not a kernel problem by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > The problem is the GUI. People don't like X

      A stupid noisy minority of techno-hipsters don't like X. For the rest of us it's invisible and no more bothersome than the graphics subsystem on any other platform.

      The problem with your rant is that the still marginal market share of Apple refutes it. Linux in other forms was able to gain traction because of lack of an entrenched monopoly (or being the monopoly).

      Apple demonstrates that applying the "one true way" approach to the desktop won't help you get away from Microsoft.

      So there's no real point in sabotaging Linux just to suit some delusion that ignores reality on the ground.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:It's not a kernel problem by r_jensen11 · · Score: 2

      The problem is the GUI. People don't like X, and Linux people have no desire to give us anything else.

      I seriously doubt the premise that the common user cares about X enough to not like it. The operating system is a platform for people to run the programs they need to accomplish certain tasks. Windows will continue to be the heavyweight champion because there is so much legacy crap out there which nobody cares to port over to other platforms. It's not a matter of saying that Linux has application A which is fully compatible with application B on Windows; it's a matter of saying that a user can accomplish everything s/he needs to within a single platform. For many of the people who make the decisions in the enterprise environment, that means people can accomplish everything they do in:
      Excel
      PowerPoint
      Outlook
      and *maybe* Word

  14. Re:Torvalds is true to form.... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's GNU/Linux's fault. Android, still based on Linux, could likely win the desktop if Google got their act together and stopped pushing ChromeOS. Notice how my binary applications run on *very* many Android devices without recompilation, even when I write in C using the NDK. Notice how Android does not introduce bugs in my applications by swapping in a buggy shared library which I never tested. Notice how nearly impossible it is to publish a GNU/Linux app in comparison. In one case, you just publish your app to Google and wait a day or so. Notice how my app simply installs in a comparitavely secure jailed directory rather than having to disperse crap all over the file system. For Linux, you need to write and test different and binary incompatible installatoin packages for RedHat, Arch, Debian, Suse, then wait a few years for your package to be accepted and migrate from unstable to testing to stable, and even then you don't run everywhere.

    Just freaking stupid.... year of the GNU/Linux Desktop my butt!

    On a completely unrelated note, WTF is up with the new slashdot site? I had the newly dumbed-down ads disabled with a check-box. The check box is gone, and the ads are back, and dumber than ever! I miss the days of Barracuda ads that made sense on slashdot. The new ones aren't targeted at geeks at all.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  15. Apple as a model by LessThanObvious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple's success is an interesting model for what it would take to make Linux mainstream on the desktop. The average non-techie Apple user doesn't know or care that there is BSD running beneath the GUI or that a UNIX command line even exists on their Mac. Granted there is a legacy there where people are already comfortable with the idea of a Mac being a legitimate alternative to the Windows PC, but it is the seamless user friendly GUI and fully developed application ecosystem that make it desirable. The argument can be made that Ubuntu and maybe others are pretty usable and are getting close to mainstream useability, but we aren't quite there yet. Until there is a GUI that is so fully featured and bulletproof that the user never needs to do anything at the command line to achieve reasonable efficiency at all common tasks and the application ecosystem is developed to have decent parity with current mainstream OS in use, Linux doesn't stand a chance in the desktop. I'm not sure that the financial payoff is there for any business to undertake the investment needed, but I certainly hope we get there someday.

  16. Re:Infrastructure? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No. He isn't saying that. Of course, a big reason he isn't saying that is because Linux is on the desktop, and has been for more than a decade. Linux has also been superior on the desktop for quite some time. I have two laptops. One dual boots to Win 7 and Mageia Linux. The other dual boots to Win 8 and Fedora Linux with Secure Boot / UEFI. I occaisonally boot into Windows to apply updates so that if I ever actually need Windows I won't have to wait an hour between clicking "Shut Down" and the computer actually turning off if I ever do need it. I don't use Photoshop, so I haven't actually needed Windows in years.

    Several years ago I installed a new DVD Drive and k3b was crashing. I needed Windows then to see if the hardware was bad or if I had a driver issue. When Windows hung hard the minute I tried to use the drive, as opposed to Nero merely crashing, I knew I indeed had a bad DVD Drive. So yes, Windows has its use, but being productive in 2014 isn't one of them.

    People who purport to know about computers need to stop asking stupid questions like "When will Linux be ready for the desktop ?", and start asking intelligent questions like "When will the general populace get a clue ?"

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  17. Re:Infrastructure? by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the main problem is that Linux is *TOO* configurable. "Normals" don't want hundreds of options. They want people to tell them which of a limited number of options will work for them.

    Which distro should I pick? Which window manager should I pick? How do I configure my computer to be optimal for *ME*? I'm a techie and I can't tell you which distro is really the best for most people. I can tell you which ones are more stable.....but it isn't just ONE.

    With Windows....and even Apple.....those choices are more or less made for you. All a "normal" needs to do is decide which apps they need to run and whether their OS supports those apps.

  18. Re:Chrome OS or Android by jcdr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually Chrome OS or Android are toys compared to a full desktop experience. Gnome 3 and Unity has go into the direction of toys for simple applications resulting in the frustration if so much users that projects like XFCE and Mate get attention like never before.

  19. Linus does not understand the size of the effort by sproketboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft probably has somewhere between 6 and 20 thousand engineers working on device drivers for various windows versions out there making about 80k a pop. Sorry but Linux simply does not have these kinds of resources. It would be nice but I don't see it happening.

  20. Re:Torvalds is true to form.... by orasio · · Score: 2

    It's not his fault.
    Linux is a kernel, an a great one at that.
    GNU is a desktop, and isn't dominant right now, but it's very popular among large groups of users, some corporate included.

  21. Re:Infrastructure? by Wycliffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linux has also been superior on the desktop for quite some time.

    Superior by what definition? Stability? sure, I'll give you that. ease of use? I doubt it.
    I've been a linux only user for over a decade but it still doesn't work as smoothly as windows out of the box.
    I occasionally still run into random problems like wifi failing to connect, can't read a cd which windows has no problem with,
    wifi card is not supported, etc... Granted most thinks come with windows drivers but even when they do happen to
    include linux drivers the linux drivers are often an afterthought and subpar. These small little rough edges are a fine
    trade off for a geek but a huge turn off for a "normal"

  22. Re:Infrastructure? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    When I had my first linux installation, Slackware, 1992 or 1993, I ofc. had a desktop ... X Windows, don't remember which windows manager. And I believe I also played with OpenView, or at least a windows manager that looked like it.

    However I never really worked with a linux desktop (except in companies where my Java Development environment ran on a Linux machine, and Firefox and Thunderbird, ofc.).

    The main reason is they brain dead idea how yo configure such systems.

    If you edit a config file, next boot some automatism overwrites it, because it gets regenerated out of a DB which is managed with a GUI tool, e.g.

    Then there are linuxes where you still can edit the config files, but every distro has a different idea how services are configured. (And I'm an old *real unix* programmer)

    So bottom line I'm tired in the moment to find a distro that suits me, as I'm back on the mach since 2003 or so ...

    Otherwise I basically use linux only on servers ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  23. Buy a chromebook and install Linux on it ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I've been using Linux part-time for twenty years. I build my own desktops so its been easy to build systems that are compatible between windows and linux.

    However laptops have always been very troublesome. I have figured out a solution. Buy a chromebook and install Linux on it.

  24. Device market does nothing for Linux ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    The device market does nearly nothing for Linux as a consumer brand, nearly nothing for the promotion of FOSS. People don't see the Linux embedded in their router, they don't see and can't even get to the Linux that hosts Android on their phones. Most Android developers don't even touch or see Linux during development.

  25. Re:Infrastructure? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Superior by what definition? Stability? sure, I'll give you that. ease of use? I doubt it."

    You don't know what "out of the box" means. You pick any laptop with Windows pre-installed and buy another and let me install and configure Linux and put it in a box. You will then see how a Windows system when compared to a Linux system is inferior "out of the box". Everybody wants to bundle properly installing and configuring an OS as part of the user experience. It isn't.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  26. Re:Linus does not understand the size of the effor by geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft probably has somewhere between 6 and 20 thousand engineers working on device drivers for various windows versions out there making about 80k a pop. Sorry but Linux simply does not have these kinds of resources. It would be nice but I don't see it happening.

    Try 500-600. Most of those are "project managers" too who farm the work out to Indian contractors. Microsoft doesn't have the development force you think they do.

  27. Re:Linux will NEVER be a Desktop - Every Day OS. by orasio · · Score: 2, Informative

    Feeding the shill/troll here...

    Linux is was not, and is not meant to be anything but a hobby OS for someones spare time, or a companies spare time that they can develop a UI for and deploy their own flavors (android, Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc.) Linux is far too complicated for the everyday user to understand. Even something as simple as entering a static IP address sometimes requires going back to the terminal windows (command prompt) and setting it the hard way. And THAT's the problem with Linux! It was never meant to be a GUI OS just like it's parent, UNIX.

    That's why desktop users use Ubuntu.
    1 - Open network meny by clicking network indicator at the top bar of the desktop
    2 - Choose "edit connections"
    3 - Choose the connection you want to edit - click "edit"
    4 - Click "IPv4 settings"
    5 - Change IP

    Please, remind me how that's done in windows 8.1. Feel free to explain differences with windows 8, 7 , XP.

    The drivers for Linux SUCK and that's because it's an open source OS and there's no one "single" distro.

    Just like any other OS. Supported hardware works, and in this case, backwards compatibility is maintained. Unsupported hardware, shockingly, doesn't work.

  28. I suggest Kickstarter by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    I use Mint 17 Linux daily, but what I miss, what is really lacking are Adobe apps. Someone should start a kickstarter for Linux ports. Adobe is already familiar with Qt ( I think I read Lightroom is Qt) so they have the experience.

    Let's put our money where our mouth is and get adobe to Kickstart the ports.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  29. Android is not Linux ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    A desktop customized version of Android (complete with a real desktop) is still based on Linux (at least Google's fork of it) ...

    Android is not based on Linux. Android is **hosted** on Linux, it is really its own operating system. Most Android apps are Java and have zero interaction with Linux, they only use Android. As for apps that have some native code (c/c++ via NDK) they are usually using legacy c/c++ code that is not Linux based and/or they are using operating system calls that are POSIX based not Linux based.

    Linux is just a host for Android. It could be replaced with some other POSIX compliant OS and the vast majority of Android apps would not know or care.

    1. Re:Android is not Linux ... by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Android is not based on Linux. Android is **hosted** on Linux, it is really its own operating system.

      Complete nonsense. Android is an "operating system" only in market speak. In fact, Android is an application platform, not an operating system. If you doubt me then you need to get an operating system textbook and read for yourself what an operating system actually does. Hint: manage hardware at a low level, presenting a uniform interface for applications; manage memory; schedule execution; enforce security constraints; etc. All of this done by Linux, and not the Android libraries, and much more besides.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  30. Re:Infrastructure? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Informative

    The difference is that Linux desktop comes running out of the box.

    I had to use Windows 7 the other day for the first time in 6 months, repairing someone's failed Windows Update.

    After the system was all cleaned up, I clicked the login button. And waited. And waited. And waited. And watched the disk drive light flicker like nobody's business. And waited. All those "essential" accessories starting up, disk scans, mysterious machine-eating magic, all shouldering themselves between me and being able to do anything.

    I'm not in love with the current crop of Linux desktops, but at least I can begin using the bloody things within a few seconds of logging on.

  31. It no longer matters. by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Total non-issue; the majority of computing consumers have moved on; they're using phones and tablets. Corporate users will use what they're given.

    The days of paying hundreds of dollars for an operating system and compiler are (thankfully) gone. The OS is irrelevant anyways; you go to where the applications are; anything else is just silly...

  32. Desktop by 12_West · · Score: 2

    Dear Mr. Linus Torvalds: I may not like your personality profanity, attitude, etc, but, completely agree with your stance on the "desktop". I am also a fan of your baseline achievement: creation of "LINUX". The "distributions", based on your work, continue to be a valuable component of my overall approach to PC survivability. I feel that I OWE you, and it does not matter whether or not I "LIKE" you, based on some comments posted somewhere on the web. You have a permanent "ally" in me, if you should ever need one at my level. Godspeed, and good health. Sincerely, Robert I. Baker.

  33. Re:Stopping staring at your navals by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Its name comes from the ed command g/re/p globally search a regular expression and print.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  34. Re:Infrastructure? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Superior by what definition? Stability? sure, I'll give you that. ease of use?

    1. Take a random Windows XP user.
    2. Sit them in front of two machines, one running Window 8, one running Linux MATE.
    3. Ask them to start a text editor on both machines.
    4. See which one takes longer, and results in more bitching and swearing.

    I mean, seriously, if I didn't know about Windows+R, I wouldn't have been able to start freaking Notepad on the Window 8 machine I played with in a local computer store.

  35. ease of use by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    I use Linux, almost exclusively, but I can see one of the major problems preventing migration that many linux developers cannot. It's confusing and difficult for the average user to learn where all the configuration files are and what they do. The moment you expect a new user to open a terminal you've already placed a giant barrier to adoption in the way. Certain distros have made giant leaps of progress in this matter but it's still a problem for all.

    Want to make a minor adjustment to how your sound card works? Command line. Want to tell your laptop to ignore the touchpad? Command line. Want to use Tor? Command line. Want to install software that's no on the Ubuntu Software center? Command line. I understand that GUI is a dirty word to some developers. I understand the focus on making things work before worrying about making them easy. But the path to the year of Linux on the desktop is paved with intuitive, simple, GUI driven configuration and computer usage.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  36. How Linux wins the Desktop by Pathway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How Linux wins the Desktop

    1. We need a "Default". Not necessarily a default Distro, but a set of standards that all distros can follow. Of course, other options will be allowed, even encouraged. Rationale: We need the "fragmentation" problem to be addressed, and I would suggest that a good start would to have a standard interface that is common across all of "Linux".

    2. We need an easy way to manage a large group of computers. Large or small, businesses and schools want to make the configuration of their computers easy. Examples: Mass deploy Chrome. Setup a lab of computers to use a single printer. Setup logins with permissions and shared home folders. Rationale: These features are easy to configure on Windows and Mac OS X, but not so easy on Linux.

    3. Easy Deployment. There needs to be a scriptable deployment that can mass install Linux onto multiple computers easily, including initial setup and joining of whatever management system is being used. While "image based" deployment can work, native installation deployment with configuration would be better. Rationale: If it is going to compete against Windows and Mac OS X, it has to be as easy to deploy.

    I'm sure there are some projects that already fill some of these needs... but it's not there yet.

  37. Re:Too configurable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yesterday.

    Installed Ubuntu 14.04 in a VM - largely pleased with the results, but still hit a few snags in a VM running under Fusion on a 27" iMac.

    Also installed Debian Wheezy (7.6) in another VM, also on Fusion, also on the same 27" iMac.

    I'm a software engineer for pay, and a Debian maintainer for kicks, fwiw - so I also have a decent idea of how this shit fits together. I still ran into issues and annoyances:

    Ubuntu - there's no easy & obvious way to set up an IPSec VPN out of the box. Why not include that with the default networking stack in a way that's easy for users to access? apt-get install l2tp-ipsec-vpn did the trick. Then, once connected to the work vpn, I was getting barked at because the system couldn't resolve hostnames for work properly - turns out it was an avahi-daemon issue that I needed to work around because somebody at my company made the brilliant choice of naming everything with a .local domain name. Worked around that, and noticed that the desktop wallpaper was behaving weird when I'd first boot and go into full-screen mode: the upper left corner would display properly, the remaining 3/4 of the screen would just end up black. Still not sure of the root cause on this one, but opening settings and reapplying the wallpaper selection works as a workaround. Getting chrome working in the dock turned out to be a much harder proposition than it should be, as well - kept clicking my "locked to launcher" chrome button only to have no browser window come up. Got that working with some trial and error.

    Debian - desktop wouldn't even boot into 3d mode because of missing drivers. Desktop resizing issue? check. VPN missing? check. A host of other issues and command line fiddling ensued.

    The net result? Linux, when compared objectively to Mac or Windows, is *much harder* to "just use" on the desktop. And I love my Linux boxes, too. But let's not pretend that there aren't a significant number of issues to getting this working. My bet is that the company that wins the "Linux on the desktop" fight will end up being Ubuntu, because they're devoting so much energy and focus to it. But even still - they're not there yet. There's a lot you can do with Linux quickly on a desktop... but there's also a fair amount of fiddling required.

  38. Neither do some geeks by John+Bokma · · Score: 3, Informative

    Neither do some geeks. I prefer my OS working reasonable well out of the box without the need (!) to have to reconfigure things. I don't want a Lego set for each and everything in my life; thank you!

    --

    Perl Programmer for hire
  39. Re:Infrastructure? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

    The config overwriting used to annoy me as well, but the universal solution is to chattr +i the file that keeps getting overwritten. There's often an added bonus that whatever keeps overwriting it generates an error logged to the console or syslog whenever it tries again, providing a nice breadcrumb to figure out what's overwriting it.

  40. Ugh by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I just started maintaining an old Linux X11 app. A REALLY old app. Some of the function declarations still use K&R. It's all Motif and XT. Looking at it with an eye to modernizing it, well... I guess QT won. Problem is, if I go QT, I pretty much have to drink all the QT kool-aid, since they seem to have tried to re-implement the entire C standard library under their API. Other than that, the field's pretty much right where I left it back in the mid '90's, last time I really looked at X11 programming in a big way. Actually back then GTK and gtkmm were at least looking like promising competitors to QT. Looking around at an even lower level, I can find a rant from Rasterman about imlib being faster than Xrender, and pretty much everyone deciding that OpenGL was a better way to go than Xrender anyway. That's pretty much everything, since 1995.

    I think if you want the desktop it's going to take another linux-kernel-level effort around the GUI. The question is do we keep trying to put more band-aids on X11 or do we design something from the ground up that everyone can agree on?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  41. Multi-window and focused activity by tepples · · Score: 2

    "Linux on the Desktop" is called Chrome or Android and the "desktop" is wherever we are instead of a jumble of wires connected to a monitor.

    Perhaps "Linux on the multi-window desktop" or "Linux on the desktop in a focused activity setting" is a more precise of what some people mean. The Android ecosystem, from the CDD on up, is staunchly opposed to rich window management, instead preferring a paradigm of all maximized all the time that makes it hard to work on one document while referring to another document.

  42. Linus wants the Desktop? by Lisias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I recommend him to start his own Desktop project. :-)

    Seriously, I don't know of, now, any other Open Source leader capable of doing a decent Desktop. Torvalds finishes what he starts, and he finishes it vrey well (see git).

    We had very good Desktops in the past, but nowadays things are just too shiny and too new and... too dumbed down to be useful to me: who knows me from other /. posts about this matter knows why I migrated to MacOS two years ago, and don't plan to migrate back in the short run.

    I still love Linux - all my non desktop machines are Linux, no questions asked. But I just can't handle any of the present mainstream Desktops to use Linux again on my working box.

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    1. Re:Linus wants the Desktop? by Lisias · · Score: 2

      You guys no nothing about Linus or how he likes to use his desktop. It's funny how people export their dreams and ideas to one man like this.

      I follow the guy on G+. I did read what he said about Gnome 3 at that time in first hand.

      But you can read about it here.

      The guy is not remotely qualified to write a desktop. Have you seen all the commands in git? The first round was a usability nightmare. Hell he himself would admit that.

      Linus wrote Linux 0.99, a really little piece of crap compared to any usable UNIX kernel at that time. But yet, he managed to lead this project in a way that now Linux is probably the most used kernel (UNIX like or not) in the world. And the thing is really good (but granted, perhaps not the best).

      Linus wrote git, a really piece of crap compared to any usable DCMS at that time. But yet, he managed to lead this project in a way that now git is probably the most used CMS (distributed or not) in the world. And the thing is really good (but granted, perhaps not the best).

      Did this makes a ring sounds somewhere in your head? Or you need me to draw it to you? :-)

      The guy is a great engineer. Great engineers don't invent great things, they build great things - most of the time, using shitty things as experiments/prototypes/proofs of concepts in order to get the great thing done.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  43. Re:Infrastructure? by exomondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People who purport to know about computers need to stop asking stupid questions like "When will Linux be ready for the desktop ?", and start asking intelligent questions like "When will the general populace get a clue ?"

    No, no they don't. What they need to ask is "Why do Linux desktop distros not appeal to end users?". The answer has always been clear, it is that they don't offer any significant advantage over the incumbents, they are not disruptive and thus will not disrupt the market.

    Look at iOS and Android, they stole the smartphone - and much of the wider cell phone - market from the incumbents by being innovative and disruptive, users didn't care that they were different or incompatible because they offered features that were better! Desktop Linux distros do not do this, they are me-too products scrambling to do whatever OS X and Windows do and thus people don't want to abandon familiarity and compatibility for dubious benefit.

    You can provide all the anecdotes you want about your hardships with OS X or Windows and I'm sure they'll be matched with anecdotes about people's hardships with Linux so that gets you nowhere. You can blame Microsoft or blame the user (which is what you're doing) but that doesn't make desktop Linux distros any more disruptive or innovative and thus no more appealing to users.

    Offer real, tangible, innovation that is disruptive to the market and the ISVs and OEMs will be climbing over eachother to support it just as they did with Android.

  44. Re:Infrastructure? by Yunzil · · Score: 5, Funny

    Um, if you're on the Metro screen you type "notepad" and press enter. Gosh Windows is complex.

  45. Re:Infrastructure? by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    How much say did you get in how Microsoft, the laptop vendor and all those little annoying trialware app vendors configured the Windows install?

  46. Re:Infrastructure? by strikethree · · Score: 2

    I think the main problem is that Linux is *TOO* configurable. "Normals" don't want hundreds of options. They want people to tell them which of a limited number of options will work for them.

    I hate being an ass... but, shut the fuck up you stupid moron. YOU are the reason Gnome sucks.

    It is not the number of options that are available, it is how they are presented. You remove the ability to configure, you remove the most important part of your user base.

    DO NOT EVER MAKE IT LESS CONFIGURABLE.

    If someone is telling you it is too confusing, give sane defaults and then think of a way to organize the configuration options in such a way that the ordinary user does not feel they need to go in and start playing with those options.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  47. Re:Infrastructure? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Offer real, tangible, innovation that is disruptive to the market and the ISVs and OEMs will be climbing over eachother to support it just as they did with Android.

    I like my Linux desktop the way it is, thankyou, and I do not want it "innovated". We will crush Microsoft some other way.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  48. Re: Infrastructure? by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    " Many Linux distros have gone from being over configurable a few years ago to bring even more tightly locked down than Windows or MacOS"

    Not the ones using KDE as the desktop

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  49. @bADlOGIN - Re:Nobody else seems to want it by nukenerd · · Score: 2

    As a monopoly, Microsoft gets to hold the proverbial "gun" to device vendors heads and say, "support our OS [or] we'll fucking destroy your market ...".

    No, MS do not need to hold a gun or say anything.

    Any hardware maker, unless they are very very specialised, will first write drivers for Windows simply because ~95% of their market is going to be Windows users. After that they might write drivers for Linux perhaps to pick up a few more sales (like that's why I buy HP printers) and/or just in case next year really does become the year of the Linux desktop.

  50. Re:kernel does crash on desktop by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

    Swap is not optional if you're going to use leaky software (like for instance browse the web) on a linux machine for long periods of time without rebooting. Firefox or Chrome can easily grow to 4 or 8 gigs over time if you don't have a swap partition. If you have 16+ gigs of RAM on your machine you might not need swap at this time, but as web sites become ever more bloated you will need to upgrade to more RAM or get a swap partition or swap file.

  51. and how would you discover this? by Chirs · · Score: 2

    If you didn't already know about this, and didn't have a network connection, how would you discover this?

    (And yes, the same complaint holds true for linux as well....)