I have a lot of experience with Linux, Windows,OSX, Solaris, and a few other older OS's.
There are three issues which I believe Linux needs to fix before it is ever going to take a bigger role in the desktop market. Of course, when it eventually does fix these problems, it'll destroy Windows very quickly.
1. Linux needs a better desktop system. X either needs a complete re-writting; one that is part of the system as a whole (see OSX). This means that a set of 'STANDARDIZED' graphics libraries need to be created.
This is one area which I think Apple hit the apple perfectly. The OSX architecture may be a good one to base an implementation like this on.
2. A better packaging / software installation system; very possibly a standardized one as well. RPMs are in their current incarnation, an absolute nightmare. I can't count the number of times where I've had to install 20+ packages just to get a newer version of KDE, Gnome, or whatever else installed.
I do agree that programs like APT, YUM, and Up2date do help manage RPM's and program packages better, but they are temporary fixes to a bigger underlying problem. Package systems are great for server systems, where you have a limited number of services that need to stay updated, but to compete in the desktop market; you need both system working hand in hand, and 'easy to use'.
A standardization of an install package needs to be created. This is one area where Windows destroys Linux's package system (I'm not talking about the Windows Registry; I'm talking about "Add/Remove Programs" and InstallShield). Having code to compile is useful.... but seriously people, compiliing a program can cause a lot of problems, especially with the RPM dynamic library system (and the thousands of dependencies) that
seem to be found all over. Heck, I tried installing a 'command line' network snooper last week that required the entire set of Gnome libraries (for some obscure reason since it was command line)
Summary: The 'Desktop' and 'Package' system need to be addressed badly. Gnome and KDE are always getting better, but X's architecture is hampering Linux. Has anybody tried to get the ATI drivers working with hardware support recently; it sucks bigtime.
If Linux driver installation becomes just as easy (or better) than Windows' driver system. Then: 1) more drivers will be created for Linux, 2) A greater portion of those drivers will work right out of the box.
Couple all this with a graphics subsystem (standarized with a programming architecture that Linux programmers can use) and a packaging system that doesn't cause 'all' users to pull their hair out, and you will have something that a lot of people will want to use.
One last thing: A note to developers.. Unless you are using a library that is used with almost every single program; include the external libraries with your program. People will not use your programs if they have to do the 'dependency' hell tour through the internet.
Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a lot of experience with Linux, Windows,OSX, Solaris, and a few other older OS's. There are three issues which I believe Linux needs to fix before it is ever going to take a bigger role in the desktop market. Of course, when it eventually does fix these problems, it'll destroy Windows very quickly. 1. Linux needs a better desktop system. X either needs a complete re-writting; one that is part of the system as a whole (see OSX). This means that a set of 'STANDARDIZED' graphics libraries need to be created. This is one area which I think Apple hit the apple perfectly. The OSX architecture may be a good one to base an implementation like this on. 2. A better packaging / software installation system; very possibly a standardized one as well. RPMs are in their current incarnation, an absolute nightmare. I can't count the number of times where I've had to install 20+ packages just to get a newer version of KDE, Gnome, or whatever else installed. I do agree that programs like APT, YUM, and Up2date do help manage RPM's and program packages better, but they are temporary fixes to a bigger underlying problem. Package systems are great for server systems, where you have a limited number of services that need to stay updated, but to compete in the desktop market; you need both system working hand in hand, and 'easy to use'. A standardization of an install package needs to be created. This is one area where Windows destroys Linux's package system (I'm not talking about the Windows Registry; I'm talking about "Add/Remove Programs" and InstallShield). Having code to compile is useful.... but seriously people, compiliing a program can cause a lot of problems, especially with the RPM dynamic library system (and the thousands of dependencies) that seem to be found all over. Heck, I tried installing a 'command line' network snooper last week that required the entire set of Gnome libraries (for some obscure reason since it was command line) Summary: The 'Desktop' and 'Package' system need to be addressed badly. Gnome and KDE are always getting better, but X's architecture is hampering Linux. Has anybody tried to get the ATI drivers working with hardware support recently; it sucks bigtime. If Linux driver installation becomes just as easy (or better) than Windows' driver system. Then: 1) more drivers will be created for Linux, 2) A greater portion of those drivers will work right out of the box. Couple all this with a graphics subsystem (standarized with a programming architecture that Linux programmers can use) and a packaging system that doesn't cause 'all' users to pull their hair out, and you will have something that a lot of people will want to use. One last thing: A note to developers.. Unless you are using a library that is used with almost every single program; include the external libraries with your program. People will not use your programs if they have to do the 'dependency' hell tour through the internet. Thanks.