Recently in a post on my blog I argued that, despite many claims to the contrary, GNU/Linux is almost ready for the desktop. In particular, I argued that GNU/Linux is already a very good and easy desktop if people just take the time to learn its very basic differences with Windows before actually using it. Note: Don't forget to rate this article!
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
Very good article, well thought out IMO.
Yes, this is true about marketing -- but what about teh new Ubuntu foundation, or the rumoured partnership between Mandriva and Progeny? They have the clout to make it happen.
It'd be very, very cool if they did (especially if it used PowerPC chips ;-)).
Well, fingers crossed that someone associated with one of those three companies read this -- I expect they may have...
Member since:
2005-07-06
It's all in the marketting. Mozilla Firefox didn't take off because it was a better browser -- Opera is clearly the victor no matter what your technical/usability criteria, and even Mozilla Suite and K-Meleon clobber Firefox pretty much across the board -- but because it had a massive amount of hype behind it.
GNU/Linux has this hype as well, but it's fragmented. If there were a single distribution that was always mentioned, I'm certain the mindshare and marketshare of GNU/Linux would cover the "Firefox Target".
Member since:---
Member since:---
In your opinion, perhaps Opera, the Mozilla Suite, and K-Meleon are better than Firefox, but not in my opinion. I used the Mozilla Suite, and although it is nice it is not comparable to Firefox due to their differing design philosophies. Same goes for Opera. I don't know much about K-Meleon, but given its relative obsurity, I doubt it is technically more superior than Firefox.
Hype plays a part in it, yes, but to attribute Firefox's success based solely on marketting is dishonest.
Member since:2005-06-29
I disagree. I like firefox the best. I started browsing with IE 3.02, and used IE 4 beta, IE 4, IE 5, IE 5.5, IE 6, NS 4.77, NS 6, Opera (don't remember which version), and others.
But, when I was NOT using IE, I always kept it around, and always had it configured has the default browser.
When I got my hands on firebird 0.5, whithin 2 days I had it as my default browser. Why? For me, it was perfect. And it still is (but Konqueror is seriously catching up).
Member since:2005-07-06
This is very true. If we could get a very good PAC-like group going that could target the consumer-end of the line, picking one specific distro to concentrate on, we could surely increase the adoption rate.
Linux has the capabilities, if exploited, to be the next desktop. I see a good marketing campaign, in our capitalist society, as being one of the largest pushes we need to make to speed up that development.
Adjacent to that needs to be moves to either standardise GNU/Linux or implement a easy-to-understand guide explaining the GUI, and, gradually, command-line of that specific distribution.
Member since:2005-06-29
GNU/Linux has this hype as well, but it's fragmented. If there were a single distribution that was always mentioned, I'm certain the mindshare and marketshare of GNU/Linux would cover the "Firefox Target".
Too many distros have always hampered linux adoption. They've all got their strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day its just too hard to target for ISVs.
Linux is pretty unique among operating systems in that it has distros. Even the BSDs tend to handle the entire software stack from the kernel until the desktop.
What's funny is that there are plenty of linux users that could care less about market share. It's usually the newbies that are fixated on it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Mozilla Firefox didn't take off because it was a better browser -- Opera is clearly the victor no matter what your technical/usability criteria, and even Mozilla Suite and K-Meleon clobber Firefox pretty much across the board -- but because it had a massive amount of hype behind it.
I disagree there. While I like Opera and used it quite heavily from about 2.2x to 6, it's usability for typical computer users is not on par with Firefox. It certainly wins hands down when it comes to power user usability (the one key keyboard shortcuts are great), some of it's behaviours are a bit on the non-intuitive side and the sheer number of features/options would probbly confuse your typical IE refugee.
I mostly switched from Opera to Firefox about 2 years ago, although I still use it when I need to do a lot of browsing for long periods of time (E.g., online research). Firefox definitely is, in many ways, a distillation and simplification of the best ideas from Opera and the full-blown Mozilla.
Compared to Opera, I can't tune Firefox as finely to my preferences, but it takes a lot less tweaking to get it to a state that I'm happy with. And I was finding that, with each new release of Opera, it was taking *more* tweaking to configure it to my liking. Compared to the Mozilla suite browser, I find Firefox much leaner (fewer superfluous features) and it simplifies many tasks that are needlessly difficult/opaque in Mozilla. Just compare the prefs window for Firefox and Mozilla - I think it's pretty easy to see which had more attention to usability detail go into its design.
Member since:2005-06-29
Here's my take on why having just one distribution is a bad idea.
Right now we have two major desktop environments paired with toolkits duking it out for dominance, KDE has a lot more users than Gnome at the moment, but over all GTK probably has near the same mind share as Qt because of the other GTK centred desktop environments. Some companies want to be able to write commercial software with the least expensive toolkit, which would be GTK, but because its inconsistent with Qt, and KDE has so many users, they are afraid that at least half the Linux users won't accept their software as well as they would if it was consistent with their desktop environment. In searching for a solution to this, the companies decide to make all the toolkits in Linux a little more compatible; however, all of a sudden one of those tookits changes its button ordering and all of a sudden those companies have a new problem. Some, if not most of the people using KDE and Qt are very irritated that their GTK and Qt apps look almost identical because of a common theme, but every time they try to click yes or ok on a dialog they end up clicking no or cancel because the program was using GTK and a quick superficial glance at the dialog couldn't distinguish between the two toolkits before the user's hand had finished moving. Finally frustrated with this, the companies decide they are going to try and force Linux users to accept the toolkit the company has standardized on, and thus begins covert moves by each company to force their favourite toolkit on all the Linux users. All of a sudden in some distributions, Qt apps are being replaced and applications that were neutral are sporting Gnome like icons and tweaks. In other distributions GTK applications are disappearing, some barely hang on while replacement Qt applications are made. Finally we reach the present where people from every camp are just a little paranoid and the rivalries only increase. What would have happened if there was only one distribution? Would KDE users have been forced to give up their favourite desktop environment for Gnome, or maybe Gnome users would have been forced to switch to KDE?
Can you see what I'm getting at? With only one distribution in existance it would be so easy for companies and individuals to dictate to the user what they will use, and many unhappy people would go back to using Windows or Mac OS because one of the most important things about Linux, choice, would be gone. What I have told you isn't a fictional scenario, it's what I've seen happening since I first learned about Linux and started using it. I don't know about you, but I like KDE and I wouldn't want to have to give it up, nor would I want to force a Gnome user to give up his or her favourite desktop environment. The only way some people felt they could protect their right to chose was to create forks of distributions, and unfortunately some people have gotten a little out of hand with that; however, as time progresses, the unecessary distributions will be absorbed, will merge, or will die off.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Very good idea with a lot of thought put into it. I doubt you could get anyone to agree on Gnome vs KDE or which Distro to use. How about platform? intel x86?, Strongarm? ,PPC? it would have to provide more bang for the buck then the Mini perhaps Sempron based 64-bit linux?
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:---
Very good idea with a lot of thought put into it. I doubt you could get anyone to agree on Gnome vs KDE or which Distro to use. How about platform? intel x86?, Strongarm? ,PPC? it would have to provide more bang for the buck then the Mini perhaps Sempron based 64-bit linux?
The Sempronn is a 32-bit only CPU. There are two versions of the Sempron, one based on the K7 (AthlonXP) core, and the other based on the K8 (Athlon64) core. The K8-based Sempron has all the 64-bit hardware disabled.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-06
Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it in the buisness world, my friend.
I did at the companies I worked at. I've seem teams ripped of one project and put on another for no better reason than that the boss 'knew' that 'everybody' would need this new idea of his. Or an entire company built around a tech demo that few people said was "kind of neat". admittedly both of these companies did very badly, but hey.
Member since:
2005-07-06
smartpatrol: Your concerns are right, expecially about the eternal GNOME vs KDE debate. I'm personally all for KDE, but I think there wouldn't be that a big difference.
As for the platform, I agree with anonymous: x86_64 would be the best start. Powerful, well known foundations, promising. And with x86_32 compatibility. PPC and ARM are probably even better architectures, but there's less support. Even worse, you would lose things like Crossover Office or Cedega (run only on x86 platforms).
rightwingnutjob: You're technically right. It would be nice to see a serious marketing study to see if my thoughts are true 
Member since:
2005-07-05
I think Linux is already a great desktop. I think the reason people don't switch to it in droves boils down to familiarity. Therefore, when companies start adopting Linux and forcing their people to use it at work, people will start using it at home too. Windows isn't superior to Linux in any way, but it is what people are familiar with.
You don't have to look any further than DOS vs. MacOS or Amiga to see that I'm right. Back in the 80s DOS was ugly, had poor memory management, and was difficult to use and configure. Mac and Amiga machines were easy to use, were beautiful (especially the Amigas), and were easy to configure; yet DOS machines won out in the home market mainly because DOS was what people used at work and it was what they were familiar with.
When people are forced by their employers to become familiar with Linux, they'll start switching at home too. Once that happens, the Adobe's of the world will jump on board and that will be that. At least that's my opinion.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-08
I am tired of people saying Linux is "almost" ready for the desktop. Linux has been a usable desktop for a long time. Back a few years my girlfriend was pretty much computer illiterate, and yet it did not take me much time at all to get her up and running with no problems on a SuSe 6.1 machine.
I agree with you completly, it all comes down to familiarity, not usability or how "slick" it looks.
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-06
In my opinion, Gnu Linux is getting the worst time in his history. Many people started to think about the cluttering, the bad written code, the mess in the latest kernels...
There are some aspects that will never be clear for the average user: driver installation is a pain,for example the graphics drivers need kernel recompilation, with modules to plug in in order to achieve hardware acceleration... Packages are managed trought many different package-managers, with different systems and formats.
Desktop environments are heavy, based on old X11 client server architecture (?!? on a desktop system!!!), often they are only a patchwork..
In conclusion, people discovered that unixes arent for desktop usage.
Many discovered alternatives like BeOS who "died" (commercially) years ago, but also discovered that THOSE were the REAL desktop OSes. And the interest in those Oses is increasing day after day.
IMHO, obviously. Feel free to think that Linux is ready for the desktop.
Member since:2005-07-06
driver installation is a pain,for example the graphics drivers need kernel recompilation, with modules to plug in in order to achieve hardware acceleration.
Ok, I'm still pretty new to Linux, but I'm fairly sure you only need to recompile if you wan't the drivers compiled into the kernel (or if you need to add support for modules).
Desktop environments are heavy, based on old X11 client server architecture (?!? on a desktop system!!!), often they are only a patchwork.
Ok, the above could be attributed to ignorance or an honest mistake (or I could be wrong), but now you just look like a troll.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
There are some aspects that will never be clear for the average user: driver installation is a pain,for example the graphics drivers need kernel recompilation, with modules to plug in in order to achieve hardware acceleration...
That just means you're using the wrong distro. On Ubuntu, you install a package to get the Nvidia or ATI drivers. That's not even necessary unless the user needs 3D acceleration, which most users don't.
Packages are managed trought many different package-managers, with different systems and formats.
End users are only exposed to one package management system: the one their distro uses. They're pretty easy to use, and put almost any software the users could want at their fingertips.
Desktop environments are heavy, based on old X11 client server architecture (?!? on a desktop system!!!), often they are only a patchwork..
X11 doesn't make the desktop environments heavy. There are plenty of lightweight desktops out there, but even the large ones are at least on par with Windows.
Many discovered alternatives like BeOS who "died" (commercially) years ago, but also discovered that THOSE were the REAL desktop OSes. And the interest in those Oses is increasing day after day.
So this whole time you were trying to poke holes in Linux usage on the desktop and you present BeOS as an alternative? Where are you going to find the drivers you complain about for BeOS? Even if you're trying to promote an operating system you like, you should be a bit realistic when evaluating others.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-06-29
Ok, let's start with error # 1:
"graphics drivers need kernel recompilation"
That's incorrect in so many ways. You never need to recompile your kernel to build modules for it; thanks to the nice modules system in Linux (I believe BSDs lacks this for what Lumbergh would call "political reasons.").
If you meant to say that modules/drivers had to be recompiled for each kernel; then you are correct. This is that wonderful ABI that Lumbergh incessantly raves about. There are reasonable workarounds to this, Nvidia does it by writing a wrapper that you compile each time: The compilation takes something like 5 seconds on a 1.5 Athlon: It's not a lot of code; and graphics drivers are immensely more complex then all other PC device drivers.
"Desktop environments are heavy, based on old X11 client server architecture (?!? on a desktop system!!!), often they are only a patchwork.. "
A lot of people believe X11 is heavy. In fact, they thought so over a decade ago when R6 was released. Of course, we all thought Windows 3.1 was pretty big at the time too. X11 does have a lot more usefulness than most people will use on a desktop; but that doesn't necessarily make it truly slower. I'm guessing you would argue that Java is stupid on the desktop, along with Python, .Net, VB6, etc etc etc.
"In conclusion, people discovered that unixes arent for desktop usage."
Except that historically that's what they were for. VMS was for servers with it's excellent process protection, amazing security, and complete stability. Unix was for the desktop with it's small almost polymorphic utilities, great IPC for rapid expansion of the utilities, security for multi-terminal systems, and etc.
It seems almost frightening to realize that Unix ended up being seen as a server operating system and as a bad desktop system.
Would you care to provide some actual "for instances?" Or are you just going to carelessly slander other people's carefully crafted (ok, not always so carefully crafted) code?
Member since:2005-07-06
That's incorrect in so many ways. You never need to recompile your kernel to build modules for it; thanks to the nice modules system in Linux (I believe BSDs lacks this for what Lumbergh would call "political reasons.").
OpenBSD lacks loadable modules. FreeBSD's had them for a long, long time now. Not sure about NetBSD, but I'd guess that they do, too.
Yea, I'd happily pay for most of that stuff too. However, I wouldn't pay for it while giving up my favorite environment and switching to something I don't really like: I don't think I'd much like Linspire; I know I don't like Mandrake; and I don't like XandrOS. Course, I'm picky.
On the upside, buying a machine like the proposed TuxMini would mean you're getting hardware that's known to be compatible with Linux, so unlike picking up a machine from one of the larger OEMs you can be fairly certain that when you remove the pre-installed OS (whatever that may be) you won't have too much problem putting the distro of your choice on it. And if they're a half decent company, they'll probably contribute to the community, too.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The author obviously put a lot of thought into the article, and I won't quibble the small stuff where I see differently.
Currently if you go to Fry's and purchase a pre-built linux box, it is crap. They build them in the $250 to $400 range, they cut corners at every opportunity. No firewire, no DVD ROM, usually not even a CDRW--often with a 3rd class distro installed; and this leaves out the integrated graphics and 2nd class CPU. This is too bad because this might be the purchaser's only experience with Linux, obviously not the way to engender closeness.
A $750 box which overcomes the above and comes preinstalled with a quality distro and the various software parts that a typical user might need (both OSS and the necassary proprietary codecs and plugins) would do much to expand the audience.
I think the target audience for such a box would be new computer users and people who have become disenchanted with MS. A new computer user would find Xandros easier to use than Windows.
Member since:
---
Ok, take out a paper and pencil. First, make a list of different types of computer users (specifically stay away from technical users since a Unix developer will need a Unix platform and Windows developer will ofcourse need a Windows platform.) Now, make a list of all the different applications/hardware each group would mostly likely use, regardless of price of the software. Now consider that Windows is free for the vast majority of users and then compare the the two lists and see which platform is better for that particular user. Now also consider that Firefox, OpenOffice, GAIM, and a whole host of other applications run just as well on Windows. This is why Windows on desktop makes sense.
Member since:
---
Since when is Windows free?
Also, you might want to consider the various problems that plague Windows users such as viruses and spyware on one side and the thousands of free quality software packages of the Linux world on the other side.
I've been a really fanatic Windows user myself until I lost a bet and tried Linux. Now I wouldn't touch a Windows machine anymore and my entire family is using Linux now.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Well thought out, and mostly objective article. I liked it. I agree with your description of the first time user, and what happens; and how this is percieved somehow as the fault of Linux. Different does not mean difficult. People are just too lazy to get informed when trying something new, and often give up too easily.
With regards to static linking, I really dislike static linking, mostly for technical reasons. Overall, it is very bad for security, and maintainability of software. However providing static linking could be a last resort, for those that may find themselves in a "dependancy hell" situation. Although I think today this is rare.
Some are saying there should be one main distro, or something. Linux, and OSS is all about choice. Different distro's have different purpoces and target audiences. I wouldn't give someone who is in no way big computer user, an Arch or Gentoo CD, and say "there you go", and expect him/her to find it easy to install, and get it all set up. Once that's done it should be easy enough to use. But getting there with those distro's is not easy for an average compouter user. Those distro's are not meant for the average user after all. I know some may disagree with me here, but just read their philosophies. However, Mandriva or SuSE, or other distros are created to be easy to use, and they are.
Overall, nice, objective article.
Member since:
---
The same old stuff from the FOSS crowd. Linux is not a panacea.
Linux has a chance against windows when: I don't have to compile code to get wireless working (ala ndiswrapper), I can trust power management, desktop responsiveness REALLY improves and applications have a more consistent look & feel (gnome vs kde).
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't have to compile code to get wireless working (ala ndiswrapper)
Most recent versions of major distors (SuSE, Mandriva, and I think Linspire and Xandros) work fine with wireless for many people. If it does not, it's not the fault of the Linux community, but rather the fault of the hardware maker for maybe reasons such as, not supporting Linux, not conforming to standards, or tightly guarding information regarding the device operation. Usually it's a mix of the three. Many people somehow blame the Linux community for this.
I can trust power management
This is pretty much the same issue as above.
desktop responsiveness REALLY improves
I am not sure what you are talking about here. I have used Mandriva, Red Hat, Fedora, Kubuntu, and Gentoo, on a few different hardware setups, and always found Linux responciveness to be very good. The Linux scheduler is better than Windows'. You will rarely get a Linux box stall after opening or closing an application like it happens so often on Windows, even on modern hardware. I think there were some technical comparison on this done some time ago, but I have lost the link. Sorry.
applications have a more consistent look & feel (gnome vs kde)
There is a GTK, or a KDE application to pretty much suit all your needs. There are equivalents in both worlds, so it is pretty easy to make a unified desktop. Even more, there is that Gnome library or program display engine thing that makes GTK applications look like Qt. I think it's called gtk-qt theme engine, or something similar. Sorry I can't remember the name I use pretty much 100% KDE, and even a few GTK apps I do prefer, doesn't bother me. But I do know this thing exists. If someone knows the name please post the exact name.
Member since:2005-07-06
"I am not sure what you are talking about here. I have used Mandriva, Red Hat, Fedora, Kubuntu, and Gentoo, on a few different hardware setups, and always found Linux responciveness to be very good. The Linux scheduler is better than Windows'. You will rarely get a Linux box stall after opening or closing an application like it happens so often on Windows, even on modern hardware."
1) There isn't really anything worse than linux responsiveness, everithing else i've tried is better (windows, beos, amiga etc), well perhaps better then win9x and win3.x but that not really a compliment.
2) the scheduler isn't the culprit, and it's not realy any better or worse than the NT kernel scheduler [ http://www.schrankmonster.de/PermaLink,guid,b543be1b-068a-4161-8e83... ]
3) Most of the Blame goes to xfree86/xorg, it's a single threaded, monolithic, outdated and over-patched monstrosity and will be for some time until Keith Packard's new server x11 is ready.
Member since:2005-07-06
Linux is not a panacea.
It isn't. But it is the best free alternative we have.
About your rant about drivers, that's why I pushed the idea of the TuxMini as a way to put Linux on the desktop. With a consistent, Mac-like hardware platform (both on the coolness sense and most importantly on the uniformity sense), and an officially supported hardware list, the driver thing would be a non-issue.
About the look-n-feel consistence, I don't see it as a real problem, at least for the target I think it's good for Linux. We must stop to think to make Linux available to everyone. We must first make Linux firmly established on the desktops of most people that can use it as it is, and that would have added value by using it as it is. Once we have enlarged user base that much, driver and application support will easily follow. Only later we can begin to focus on other market niches.
Member since:---
IMHO the article is not boring at all and probably represent a way to Linus Torvald's "world domination" project ;-) The problems I'm seeing here are:
1. Most hardware vendors sell Windows preinstalled boxes. Because of that they are affraid of loosing good OEM relationship with M$, by selling TuxMini
2. Except Europe (Thanks God!) most of the world is under the jurisdiction of software patent stupidity, and thus on that parts of the world selling some free but patented algoritms based (like mp3 and dvd playing) software is at least a dangeros business (As a Mandrake user the first time after an installation, or upgrade is to add the PLF sources to the urpmi database)
If some hardware vendor would take that way I would suggest to start that program in Europe. Actualy there are already som small companies who do that but they are shipping some quite ancient distributions, with poor support for their own boxes, many time creating the impression in the end user's mind "Linux is not ready for desktop"
A happy European Mandriva + PLF user
Member since:
2005-07-07
On the first glance, it looks like Linux is ready for the Deskopt. But if you work daily with it you find so many small things, where I just say: A normal user can't handle this.
Let's take a very simple thing: Put in a DVD into a Mac or a Windows Box. Both begin to play the DVD without any problem. Do this on a Linux Box, and you have to very lucky to find a distribution, which has this set up without any user interfearance.
Other thing is the patchwork of interfaces. As long as you stick with either only Gnome aps in Gnome or only KDE aps in KDE you are fine. But just use Firefox in KDE, and suddenly you have a different save dialog. Take Mac, all applications which use the Mac User interface, Cocoa or Carbon, both have on style of Save Dialog.
Another point is international Language Input. This works extremly well in Mac, probably the best on all three OS. You have the ability to input any kind of language into a document, plus you can even type in characters not on your keyboard _Very_ easy.
eg, I can input german umlauts, even thought I have a japanese keyboard, and I don't kneed cryptic ASCII code. In Linux you have for each widget set a different input, there is no standard, each konsole, each screen, each application might not be able to view japanese, or non-japanese characters, etc. In Japan, the Backslash is the Yen Symbol, this works perfectly in Mac and Windows, but in Linux its a 50:50 chance, if you type in a "Backslash" or a Yen Symbol. Depending on the apps widget set.
In my opinion Linux is nice, if you have tons of time (pupil, student) or you have enough experience and know how to circumvent problems. I use Linux at work, but I have a Mac box next to me, because there are often things, where I need a normal OS. I even have a XP box which I use via Remote Desktop, because at an Office you can't live without an MS Office, etc.
At home you might not have these kind of issues, but still I think you have way less issues with a Mac or a Windows (even with all the Spyware problems). Because just "no spyware" doesn't make an OS work.
Member since:---
My windows desktop doesn't match.
Firefox by default doesn't look like the XP Luna theme.
ArcInfo doesn't match either.
Opera? You can make it match if you select the right option.
I fail to see where this desktop "integrated look" is a stumbling block.
I can have a far more unifom appearing linux desktop than Windows with minimal effort.
Besides, KDE and Gnome don't run at the same time last I checked.
Firefox is themeable if it's really that big an issue. I theme it for consistency and because I don't like the default skin.
Office? I have OpenOffice, tetex for documents, and MS Office both thanks to CrossOver.
My point is, none of these are the real stumbling block. It is exactly correct to say that very few computers come with Linux installed on them. Most Windows users I know can't reinstall Windows should they need too. How do you expect them to install Linux, especially given that people are so afraid of "breaking" the computer.
The only thing I really lack are applications like ESRI ArcInfo, big ticket items of that sort that lack Linux support. Then my life could be Windows free.
Member since:---
If you have the Gnome and KDE libraries installed you can run both type of applications. You don't need both environments running at the same time.
Besides that I wholeheartedly agree with your comment. GAIM, and Firefox don't really match my windows desktop but its really a non issue.
Does anyone running windows ever run a java app that doesn't have the native UI enabled?
Member since:2005-07-07
But, both Opera & Firefox use the same sound system, input system, copy system, etc.
In KDE, KDE apps use the KDE framework, Gnome apps the Gnome framework, GTK apps the GTK framework, etc etc
do you see where I am going? KDE uses Arts, Gnome uses something else, mozilla doesn't know what it wants to use, because there are so many ways.
KDE normaly uses kinput2, gtk uses, for me, ja-input, etc etc etc.
Linux is just spread out into 100 directions every direction doing the same and no solution in sight.
Member since:2005-07-06
Let's take a very simple thing: Put in a DVD into a Mac or a Windows Box. Both begin to play the DVD without any problem. Do this on a Linux Box, and you have to very lucky to find a distribution, which has this set up without any user interfearance.
Have you tried this on Linux? Install Mandriva. Put in a DVD movie. Watch mplayer or totem automatically start playing the movie.
Other thing is the patchwork of interfaces. As long as you stick with either only Gnome aps in Gnome or only KDE aps in KDE you are fine. But just use Firefox in KDE, and suddenly you have a different save dialog. Take Mac, all applications which use the Mac User interface, Cocoa or Carbon, both have on style of Save Dialog.
This is a somewhat common issue pople bring up. However, it effect different users differently, so it's hard to judge the "validity" of it. It is really a matter of personal preferences. If a user feels strongly about having a unified and consistent desktop, then sticking to just KDE or GTK applications is not that difficult. Usually there is an app that does what you need in both worlds. Even OOo and Firefox are themed and packaged pretty well with most major distro's that they will look similar to the default desktop. Also, as in my previous post, there is a gtk-qt theme engine thingy that makes GTK apps look like Qt.
I cannot comment on the internationalization, since I do not have experience with this topic. You may be completely correct there.
At home you might not have these kind of issues, but still I think you have way less issues with a Mac or a Windows (even with all the Spyware problems). Because just "no spyware" doesn't make an OS work.
Actually the spyware issue is a major problem. I installed Linux on my non-computer-knowledgable friends' computers exactly because of this. I don't want to spend an hour a week fixing my dad's, girlfriend's or some other person's computer, fixing viruses and spyware. Please don't tell me it's easy to keep a Windows box clean, because it is not. I could just give them Linux, and invest a little time to teach them how to use it, and they'll never bother me again. It also certeinly costs less than a Mac. Macs are nice, I'll be objective and honost. I just personally hate Apple because they made a one button completely spherical mouse for ideological reasons, and to be cool. It sucked. :|
Member since:2005-07-06
Let's take a very simple thing: Put in a DVD into a Mac or a Windows Box. Both begin to play the DVD without any problem. Do this on a Linux Box, and you have to very lucky to find a distribution, which has this set up without any user interfearance.
Some Linux distros such as Mepis provide DVD support. Other like Fedora does not due to patents issues and their philosophies to be 100% FOSS. However, third parties repositories provide the tool to install them. False problem. Both Apple and Microsoft paid license of using DVD supports and Windows box are mostly installed by vendors and you need to install drivers to enable DVD plays of movies.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-06-29
Let's take a very simple thing: Put in a DVD into a Mac or a Windows Box. Both begin to play the DVD without any problem. Do this on a Linux Box, and you have to very lucky to find a distribution, which has this set up without any user interfearance.
Reading the article again might provide some insight here. One of the things Massimo mentioned was that Windows comes preinstalled on most consumer PC's. WinDVD, PowerDVD, or another 3rd party is also installed, giving the user the proper codec to auto-run DVD movies.
So Windows is no better about DVD support than Linux is.
Other thing is the patchwork of interfaces. As long as you stick with either only Gnome aps in Gnome or only KDE aps in KDE you are fine. But just use Firefox in KDE, and suddenly you have a different save dialog. Take Mac, all applications which use the Mac User interface, Cocoa or Carbon, both have on style of Save Dialog.
MacOS uses one DE; Linux has choices of using several, which is why your interfaces mix. The GTK-QT engine has narrowed the gap on the differences.
Member since:2005-07-06
Windows will not play DVD's out of the box, for the same reason that nearly no Linux distribution does, patent licensing costs. It seems some people don't realize that Windows does not have the codec for DVDs either. However, when you install a DVD player app (or if it comes preinstalled on your system) they normally come with a directshow plugin that allows other apps to play DVDs such as Windows Media Player. The equivalent on Linux is to just install the libdvdcss library which will make most Linux multimedia applications automatically play DVDs as well since they dlopen() the library if it exists to avoid having to be recompiled against it.
I don't have enough experience to comment on MacOS but Windows doesn't have a uniform look and feel either. Some of the most commonly used apps on Windows for example Winamp, iTunes, Norton Systemworks, Office 2003, etc don't follow the standard windows look and feel. You can also run a Windows 16bit app (ie win 3.1) in Windows XP and it looks different too.
Member since:2005-07-06
"In my opinion Linux is nice, if you have tons of time (pupil, student) [...]"
I'm currently a student and I certainly don't have tons of time. The contrary is the case, I've never had as little time as I have right now. But this is exactly where Linux actually helps me. Once the box is set up properly (I'm currently running Debian and the new installer is really easy to master in my opinion) it doesn't take much effort to keep the system running.
Of course you have to update but this works quite well with apt-get. It even updates ALL the programs installed. That kind of functionality doesn't come with windows and that is an important point I think. Even installing new programs is much faster and more convenient than on windows, you don't have to go through a lot of installation dialogs or reboot the machine everytime you want to install a piece of software.
I don't know if I had more available if I were using windows but from my experience that seems pretty unlikely.
Member since:---
Put a DVD in a Windows box and you will find you have to buy or download a DVD player, unless some came pre-installed on your particular PC. Where's the difference?
About characters not on the keyboard, if you use Gnome the character map applet (and other similar tools) work much better than their Windows counterparts, as far as I know (and I earn a living by doing translations...), easier and quicker.
I don't know about OSX, but I find MDV+Gnome (can't say about other combinations, but I'd say the distribution doesn't matter that much as long as it has a package manager and a good installer) much more easy to use than Windows.
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
What you cite above is exactly why companies should dump windows and move to linux if possible. Get a system stable and it doesn't need to be touched.
Users are locked out of installing software themselves.
If they want it installed the administrator can do it remotely at their desk while performing other tasks simultaneously.
All of this with tools where the only outlay is in hardware costs and clock time for their workers. No funds need be thrown away on commodity software which has zero ability to generate revenue.
Member since:---
OK that's it. Mepis is beter than Xandros amd Mandrivia put together. Yes that may be just my opinion but these are the facts.
It can easily install from live knoppix like CD in 20 minutes (compleately to hard drive and 35 minutes for a dual boot with Windows.)
In that 20 minutes Mepis is MUCH farther along than XP pro installed with sp2 and "updated".
So WHERE is the work/time problem?
Sure, I don't like the Mepis theme so I spend 5 more minutes quickly going through the "Control Center" and I make it look any way I wish. Like XP or like OSX or be