OSNews

Oh, a "Linux on the desktop" article.

Quentin Garnier.

or are these Linux in Desktop articles getting bigger?

Why is it OSnews feels a need to bring this topic out every other week.

It is a lame topic that only results in flamewars.

and at that, it truely is an uninteresting topic because anyone that is actually doing the work on linux, isnt reading what anyone has to say here to begin with.

please stop with the constant "linux onthe desktop" bullshit.

it is a waste of time

I agree with the first two posts. This topic comes up too often and this one just reiterates what's been said a thousand times before.

I think if we brought up the topic once a year that would be enough time to allow progress to have occured to actually have something to discuss.

As this article is pretty long I'll comment while I read along.

"Well, for some reason, the largest amount of the Linux community still believes that people actually intend to struggle their way through a hefty manual to get the thing installed and configured as they wish."

Hm, if that's the way the article is going to continue it isn't really off for a good start. How you can claim to know what the largest part of the Linux community thinks is beyond me, as is what this community actually is supposed to be.

"And for some reason, the entire Linux community seems to hide themselves behind the idea that one needs to "grow into" a distro."
Another unfounded adhominem against the oh so evil community. I hope this article will get better...

"But then, why is it that operating systems like OS X and Windows are so much more suited for end users?"
Are they? You sure might hold this opinion, but you should at least try to argue it, not just make yet another unfounded assumption.

"The reason why Windows has such a neat distribution of this knowledge pyramid as I will call it from now on, is because of historical reasons. It has nothing to do with a better system than the others on the market. It has to do with power, and widespread usage. You may love this, you may hate this, you may love to hate this, but the fact remains. Windows is powerful, and it will remain so for a long time to come."
Wow, now he's actually starting to make sense here.

"If you believe otherwise, you are most likely one of those stubborn geeks who has not yet found the virtue of self-criticism. Please, for once and for all, stop believing you and only you are right, because you are not."
Only to destroy the first good impression I had by this kind of drivel.

Ok, we are now two pages into the article and the only thing that made any sense was the insight that one of Windows major strenghts is its market share. Wow.

and ask *why* everyone wants the notion of Linux for the Desktop. Everyone seems overly eager to push this topic, but no one has a really good reason why.

I could see the "if more people used it, drivers would be supported by major vendors", but doesn't that go against *Free* if it isn't open source (and you can bet it won't be)?

I see the point of wanting to be part of something successful, but isn't that just a bit silly? It seems to be perfect for all the fans of it already. Why push it on to grandma?

What I don't see is the argument that everyone seems to be happy to use blindly. "It is better than Windows." I'm not going to touch this one, but let's see there is room for argument.

Point is, Linux will be what it will be. No series of articles is going to push it to the desktop or spur crazy development to get it there.

I know this idea isn't going to go away, but please come up with a reason why it should be the hot topic. I'm still searching for one.

But I don't think there is any point in debating the subject. It's up to the people who do Linux desktop distros to resolve these obvious issues and history has shown they are unwilling/unable to do so.

Perhaps it is that we are seeing all the dev branches of what might become the future reference Linux distro ? But there is no saying which it will be....

I run Linux on my desktop and know many others who do the same. Your Grandmother might not be able to get /dev/esoteric to work under LFS, but why should she? On Windows it would have been configured out of the box. Do you see dozens of "Is Windows Ready for the Desktop?" articles? It certainly wasn't ready for mine.

This article, along with several others, complained that a large part of the linux community expects users to read through man pages to get things working. Funnily enough, this happens in Gentoo, Slackware and LFS communities, not in response to your average newbie asking questions about Ubuntu. These aren't the people pushing Linux on the desktop - it works for them and their computer literate associates and they're quite happy with that. Is Windows not ready for the desktop just because your local NT admin is sick of "lusers" messing up his perfectly configured machines?

its pretty easyer .. most ( not all ) dont belive in such words as newbie friendly, automatic, easy its just not in their dictinary

Yet, with all these wonderful assets, Linux does not manage to become commonplace in the average household. Mind you, I'm not talking about servers or geeks here. Nor am I talking about the family of some geek. Very often, you will find that his parents, his grandparents and a lot more of his relatives use Linux because he single-handedly installs, updates and manages them. No, I'm talking about the average human being, with little to no computer experience. Why is it that he cannot get the hang of Linux on the desktop?

The article is well written and thought out -- but I feel it's "thought out" from a fairly bad vantage point. Right from the get go, the author assumes "normal users" are looking for operating system (and btw, i'm no GNU zealot, but when you're writing a OS view article, Linux really is just the kernel -- if you're talking about KDE or GNOME or use of the CLI, you gotta say so).

"Normal users" aren't looking (or shopping) for operating systems -- they are shopping for computers. People don't go out and but Windows or OS X -- they go out and buy a Dell, or an Apple, or a Gateway, etc etc.

"Normal users" don't install operating systems, it's that simple. Once someone decides to try out something new then they are no longer "normal." For that matter, OS X users aren't "normal" -- they are arguably more "normal" than GNU/Linux distro using people.

"Normal users," just like everyone else, need to have an open mind when searching for the tools they need to do the tasks they want to do. If it's play online 3D games, well, get a PC with Windows. Do it. If your needs extend beyond that you need to survey what is available to you. Don't people do this with everything else? How do people choose lunch? cars? books? movies?

All these articles are so completely askew from the "real world." *** Who cares if someone else sees you as a "normal" user or a "power" user or a "developer" ***. Can you get your job done effectively with the tools you use? Hrm? There you go, if you've really asked yourself that, then you're either running with the right tools or your not.

We get these articles about once a week, and does it really matter if Linux ever is signficant on "the desktop". It seems like its always the newbies that are fixated on converting everybody. I'll probably always use Linux, windows, and hopefully OSX in a couple years when I can triple boot.

P.S. How about OpenUnix on the desktop instead of linux on the desktop. There is no "linux desktop".

To me, the _main_ thing missing from THE linux desktop is INTEGRATION. For all it's worth, Windows XP as a whole is much better integrated than any Desktop Linux Distro with KDE or Gnome, for example.

"From Windows 95 and onwards, it should be a breeze to configure the system as you want. While not looking as lovely on one version as on the other, the functionality is to be found at about the same place, and one can rather quickly set everything to his preferences."
Huh? This is simply not true. I know a lot of people who had problems finding the stuff they were used to after switching to XP.

"One has to admit that a family license of OS X (which allows you to install OS X on 3 computers) sounds a lot more attractive than Windows XP Home edition that you can install on a single computer. Oh, and yeah, they both sell for about the same price."
Yep, sounds great, especially when you consider that you also need 3 Macs to run OSX.

"So you just try to struggle your way trough the sometimes way too complex documentation and please, leave the geeks alone. They are evangelising Linux as "almost" ready for the desktop. So please, do not disturb them. Maybe later. But not now."
Sigh, another unfounded and uncalled for adhominem at some "evil" group..

"Well, for end users and disciples, Linux is Linux. Debian, Suse, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Mandrake, Fedora, Vector Linux and so on, they are all just different flavours much like Windows 95 and Windows XP."
But they aren't. I know you tried to prevent this argument by preventive namecalling (oh those evil geeks), however that doesn't invalidate it.

"For some unclear reason, Linux users are in constant conflict with themselves, trying to outperform the others and building a better copy of what they are making. Not only does this waste most valuable time, it also makes that Linux has too little money to do something (however, combined, Linux would be quite wealthy) and that the good programmers are spread out over projects that are making exactly the same thing."
Blah, blah, blah. Yes, if only all would work on my pet project, not something different, the world would be saved...

"Innovation is another thing that Linux lags. Linux is a copy of a lot of other things, all pieced together. This is not immediately something bad. However, it needs to be done right. When you copy, you need to innovate, or at least, make a good copy. It is no use to reinvent the wheel, so don't do it. But don't copy it and think that a square wheel will do the job as well."
Insulting, dumb and unfounded and of course in stark contrast to the authors earlier claim that innovation was taking place.

"For example, look at Abiword, KOffice and OpenOffice. If you throw them all together, you would end up with a more than wonderful package."
Ouch, but it only gets worse.
No, uniting three different apps, that have different purposes and work differently into one up would not lead to something better, but to something horrible.

Ok, now we are at the end of the fourth page and there still isn't anything resembling a well thought out argument (apart from Windows having a hughe market share, doh).

These articles will keep coming because linux for the non-techical user is still a way off.
It's got nothing to do with linux,
The desktop enviroments are wonderful.
The applications are great.
There should be no need for consistance between distros.
(People need to be told that 'Ubuntu is an OS that is fairly compatible with Fedora but they are not the same and should therefore should be regarded as different OSs by non-technical users.)

The main problem with desktop linux is drivers.
If I go out and buy a digital camera I can be sure that it will work with windows without a problem, I can't say the same about linux.
This won't change until vendors open source their drivers (I've no idea why they don't, It seems insane not to)

OSX doesn't have this driver problem because any hardware running on it is generally made by apple anyway.

- Jessta

Of course, when one see the vast amount of duplication, reinvention (how many packaging format does Linux need?) in Free software, it is painful.
But no amount of wishful thinking will change this, sorry!

Anyhow, I'm quite amused that the author think that Word is a good program, this clearly show that he is only twenty year old.. I doubt that he has many experiments with other software like FrameMaker for example..

Well, there are reasons for the less widespread usage of Linux on the common desktop. But those are not neccessarily the same mentioned in the article. A friend of mine, used to Linux from the time I administrated his machine but not really tech-savvy, moved to a different city - he downloadad a copy of Kubuntu and installed it in no-time. No manual required, everything just worked. But he knew that Linux isn't Windows. And there's the problem for the common user...

Take a Mac. Macs are trendy and stylish, the creative/ advertisement sector shows us all the time. Some people with enough money to spare go out and buy a Mac, just becuase tey're hip. Plug it in, works. Cool. Exceptionary user friendly? Not really. Every preinstalled OS just works, and they are all easy to use to pretty much the same extent. And of course everything works a bit different compared to Windows. You'll also need different software and drivers...

But there's the difference to Linux, and the main problem: a Mac is a Mac to the customer, not a PC with a different OS. Halflife² wont work? Well, no, but it's a Mac - nobody expects PC software to work. With Linux, things are different. To the customers, PC == Windows. They expect any PC OS to look like Windows, behave like Windows, and be able to use the same software as Windows. After all, it's still a PC, right? Read noob-posts on a Linux forum of your choice: "Will my warezd Photoshop/ 3DSMAX/ whatever work?", "Can I play Age of Empires?", "Linux is crap! My winmodem doesn't work!". Well... Of course that stuff doesn't work, because you're not using Windows. But the mere consumer usually won't get it, and goes back to Windows in no-time.

On a side note, read Mac forums these days: Just because Apple switches to x86, post after post pops up, asking exactly the same questions usually found on Linux forums... :-)

From the article: "Windows is a lot better than Linux because in the past, Windows has learned from their mistakes."

Say what? Windows learned from their mistakes???? Since When?! They still have LOT's of design flaws in their OS specially in terms of security!

Seeing that the last page mainly consists of yet more name calling and unfounded allegations there is no real reason to comment on it.

What the author lacks in insight and knowledge he seems to try to make up for with insults and name calling. How on earth could a totally senseless article like this one be published? Please tell me this is not the level of "debate" osnews is looking for.

Finally, before people accuse me of being a zealot, which they will do anyway, I think that there are a lot of areas where Linux on the desktop could and should improve and I think that a debate about these issues really could be very interesting.
However in order to start a debate here you at least need an article that has at least something resembling an argument, not just some useless drivel by an adolescent.

i read some of the article...

I wont waste my time with most of it suffice to say

not all of us care if linux takes over the world, most of us HAVE seen linux grow by leaps and bounds, i personally do not feel like you have "learned" linux at all, sounds like you are one of those weekend players that like to install and get confused and swear it isnt ready...

please clarify what "leaps and bounds" windows has made please...

yea kde and gnome, actually xfce, e, icewm, so many more... and choice is good! the competition between kde and gnome is what keeps them both humping... no stagnation for me thanks....

awww shit, why do i waste my time... you know what, Im not anymore...

i officially swear I will not waste any posts on obvious flamebait, no one who thinks linux isnt ready will ever accept the argument that it is and vice versa, but the fact is that numerous people use it and I dont think the fact that YOU dont use it somwhow concludes that it isnt ready for anyone....

nuff said
JT

I'm sick of this whining about different desktops and toolkits. Maybe people just like Microsoft's way of deciding what people want. I don't. I like KDE, my brother likes Xfce and my friend likes Gnome. If somebody doesn't understand the difference, can't he/she use the default desktop? Then the toolkit issue. Yes, different apps might look different in GNU/Linux. Fortunately all apps look like same in Windows. Or do they? Have a look at these screenshots: http://www.owenrudge.net/desktop/xpshots/freedos.png and http://www.owenrudge.net/desktop/xpshots/vstudio.png . I can see three different visual styles without changing any preferences, or even installing any additional programs. And that's not all, there are also programs like Media Player and Ad-Aware, in example. Why has nobody never whined about this?

Regarding GNU/Linux on the desktop, the reason it is slow to adopt is that there is no real pre-installed mainstream option. Couple that with the largest monopoly in the world and the task becomes more difficult. End of story. Linux is there. It just take time. First it will happen like it is the "third world" where budgets are small to no existent. It will slowly spread but not take over.

The article stayed 3 computers, however, Apple Store states below its licensing usage.
Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons sharing the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium. This license does not extend to students who reside at a separate on-campus location or to business or commercial users.

I believe if you are going to distribute information to the masses it need to be correct otherwise it can be viewed as slanted or bias by someone familiar with the product and misinformation for those seeking knowledge.

I remember when I first got a computer, having never used one before in my life, I knew I used the mouse to point and click on things, and then stuff would happen. I must have spent 48hrs straight mesmerized by this thing, and was just clicking here over there on here for hours until I got acquainted.

When I first installed Mandrake 8.0 it was the same thing. I spent quite a few hours just clicking around and learning about the system. After that I could do most things I wanted on the computer, installing apps was (and still is) a complete pain unless you know what you're doing, this is where Linux needs development. Just allow me to click and have an application installed, on windows I just click yes/ok through 5 menus and it's good to go, this is far simpler for the average user than the nightmare of Linux.

Having said this.. I couldn't care less if Linux ever challenges Windows for the desktop, I have no reason to, what do I care if my relatives are using an *OMG OPEN SOURCE WORD PROCESSOR!11* in the scheme of things it really doesn't matter, computers are nothing more than slaves that we expect to work like and how we say so. None of them meet this task all the time.

i wonder when people will see that these three operating system are different and they all have different ways of doing things.
i think people can't take that Linux is becoming more and more common everyday. the first time i've installed it in 99, i wasn't telling anyone that i was using linux, just to keep it to myself. it was better even then...
anyway, the real thing i want to say is, using an operating system is just like fashion: "fashion is what looks good on you" - so, the best operating system is the one you feel great with. you can help linux community, increase the quality of the l10n or i18n, or write a few programs, it's all up to you. these kind of essays, talking about the design flaws, ease of installation, etc are simply subjective. if i was able to use linux in 99 without complaints, anyone, who feels like it, can use it now... people like taking attention.
you all take care now

What the guys building linux have to do? And more who is to do the things. Linus with the kernel team, the people behind the GNU stuff, the Gnome. KDE, XFace developers, RedHat, Novell, Debian, Cannonical? We the users? What we have to do? Have the KDE, GNOME, WindowMake teams forced to stop developing for linux and say "Hey we the users want everything to look the same, act the same (be consistent you say). You either do that or stop writing for linux!" Do the same with the oh so awful disto vendors?

If you want windows use windows. If you like MakOS use it. Why Linux should become like them? Why change "Windows on every desktop" with "Linux on every desktop"? Why geeks shouldn't have an OS done the way they want it, and not the way "joe-user" wants it?

Simply another pointless article.

The whole article was a big waste of time, starting with some untrue drivel of how hard Linux is to install and the usuall "force the users to read manuals" line. Those old lines are just becoming more and more untrue, as the modern Linux distributions continue to increase in quality and easier of install. And I'd dare say its easier than installing windows, and after the main install you are not forced through the 10 to 30 minutes installing 3rd party drivers and and reboots like with windows. All the modern distributions does have point and click configuration utilities just as easy as the windows ones, and the default settings make as much senses as the ones in windows. Making the need for reading manuals just as big as for windoes, to achieve the same end result. Those two "arguments" are to old and have not been true for years. The only reason windows still are considered easier are because it comes pre-installed, afterall no installation are always easier.

The rest of the article boils down to "choice is bad" and "to many options confuse the users". Those "arguments" have as always a very minimal validity, and using them generally to fit his conclusion does not help either.

And when he refers to Word as an editor he just confirms he is just another clueless pundit. If he is an indication on the state of current CS students, the future of computer industry don't look too bright.

The main problem with desktop linux is drivers.

True, but the turningpoint will be here soon. No production unit can afford to let say 10% of a potention market share slip through..... just 'coz no-one in the company can write a simple driver.

The companies that will write the drivers will get the business..... simpel market mechanism :-)

The problem is that there is no incentive for anybody to create a killer desktop since the Linux community isn't going to actually pay for a desktop.

KDE and Gnome people actually have no money to pay for experts in Human-Machine-Interface - yeah there are actually such people - ask BMW or ask Sony or ask Apple how they design cool products. Such people have no concern for open source - they just want to get paid like everybody else. (and to those of you who have paid for Linux software and shout from the rooftops about it - you're a minority - for every one of you there are 10,000 others who haven't paid).


Once open source and Linux can come up with a model where people are actually forced to pay for software then you'll see innovation. You'll see talented people drawn to linux because they can make money.

This comment is kind of odd:

"Windows has gone forward with leaps and bounds towards becoming a secure and productive system. Linux hasn't made such advancements."

Leaps and Bounds?? you mean installing numerous antispyware, antivirus, etc that only hoses down your resources so bad because of constant monitoring, you cant do anything?? on top of that installing 100's of megabytes worth of Software updates only dragging down more resources and Hard Drive space. What if you have Dial-up, which a lot of "standard users" have because its all they need. It could take hours to download these updates.
I would not quote spending tons of money buying software in order to make a system secure "leaps and bounds" ....HARDLY. Wait for longhorn, here we have XP SP3. yippy, another NTFS buggy system that eats more resources with its "prettier" interface...hmmm...

It seems always to be a debate between Windows and Linux advocates, I never hear about the BSD's, MacosX, OpenSolaris, or any other OS out there in OS space.. :-)

<humor>
This article reads worse than typical OSS documentation, are you really expecting us to read it all .
</humor>

design flaws in their OS specially in terms of security!

Not only in security.. I hate it if Firefox can throw down the whole OS. Should not be possible IMHO.

Also if I have a server, I don't want to reboot after *every* update.

Manufacturer's dont release drivers under readable open source because they're afraid it would give their COMMERCIAL competitor and advantage if they use a similar platform. If I was Aiptek, I'd love to see Canon's drivers.

And for some reason, the entire Linux community seems to hide themselves behind the idea that one needs to "grow into" a distro.

You can use todays modern Linux distros practically in the same way as you would use any other modern OS.An user who has never touched any computer but is smart enough and quite willing to learn will still have to aquire basic the skills independant of the OS currently being learned.For eg: Burning a CD/DVD or making an audio CD still requires user interaction and pre knowledge.So i would like to describe "growing into a distro" as learning in general of the basic skills needed to make even the slightest use of an PC.Not so hard to understand there's thus something universal in it.What is different though is the recipy that has to be run (performed) in order to get the desired effect in this case an audio CD burned from a certain mp3 collection.Well k3b (!XP) and Nero (XP) are pratically equivalent apps.

A lot of you will also agree that if you do want to get acquainted with Linux, you should do it like this, one does need to grow into it and that's where the shoe pinches

The same is true for first time computer users who see MS for the first time.But you don't have to switch if you are satisfied with the things you accomplish on whatever platform you are currently working with.Nobody forces you to do otherwise.


People do not like to be told to grow into something, unless it is worth it. And Linux simply is not worth the trouble.

Well sometimes you have to wether you want it or not.In order to get your drivers license you will have to "grow into" (aka learning) driving a car unless you love to pay fines.For some it's not only but also necessary to learn something about Linux.Wether it's worth the trouble is relative and differs from person to person.

If you only focus on the end-users, this is essentially a computer-illiterate, it is hard to see why Windows would be any better than Linux.

I would say Linux has a different approach to many subjects.One of them is security.It's up to the end-user to decide wether he or she thinks it's better not having to watch all the adds,not to collect spyware etc..

Windows has done a great job. From Windows 95 and onwards, it should be a breeze to configure the system as you want.

For whom, the illiterates or the "geeks"? I remind you you said yourself , the so called illiterates absolutely need a large knowl3edge piramid to help them out.

For some reason, the Linux community simply doesn't understand what Caesar was saying when he invented the very successful strategy of "Divide and Conquer"; this does not mean that one needs to split up his own troops, but this means that the troops of the enemy should be divided, so that your mighty large army can come and squash those silly small troops. Right now, Linux is nothing more than a bunch of silly small troops/i]

There are fortunately a lot of *distro's*.I think it's a delight to have the *freedom* to choose a distro from the many that exist.

[i]While this is not so terrible, it is terrible that every desktop has his own set of software of which the most of them are just copies of one another.

Isn't it delightfull the freedom to choose your apps,the way your desktop looks like? Don't you have different clothes to wear as anybody else?

Let me once again remind you that this article only holds a very slim amount of reasons for Linux not being successful on the desktop.

Indeed slim if any.By the way i hope this isn't going to be your thesis.

Take your average user who knows nothing about computers or networks. Ask him, in Windows because this is easier on it without any wizards, to configure his network to work with his dhcp router.
He'll likely plug it in, hopefully with a patch cable but maybe now. He'll then with a lot of guidance find the configuration for his network card: Only to discover when you explain this to him that it was already setup correctly. (Remember, the IE wizard isn't allowed today).

Ok, we've run our user into two problems so far:
1.) Patch cables and crossover cables, wha?
2.) IP Who?

Our user at this point doesn't know what he's clicking, he only selects "setup automatically" because he has no clue what to fill in. But it still doesn't work, because with no guidance he didn't know whether he needed a patch cable or a crossover cable.

So why doesn't this happen to everyone?
1.) Store clerks functioning as manuals: He goes to the shop for a cable, asks the clerk which kind he needs and is told. He just learned something, something he could have read just as easily.
2.) Most things use DHCP. It's like a ... standard ... or something.

What's going to happen when he gets into something that's not so simple? He'll probably read the manual. After all, most devices still come with at least short manuals: And people read them; geeks don't.
I don't know where this manual hatred comes from. The real problem with most *nix manuals is that they're sometimes too short or written at too advanced a level: But a quick glance into the Windows Help file will reveal it's far too shallow as well. It's typical.
You can't replace manuals with fancy GUI's. You just can't. There will never be anything intuitive about network configurations, device driver issues, or any related things. This stuff just doesn't get intuitive; and people really need to understand it at a very shallow level.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say: Sorry for trying to help you educate yourself; I hope you enjoy your naive life where you're afraid to read documentation. Good luck with your anti-reading craze and I hope you enjoy your foolish attempt at having things magically work for you. Don't call me when they stop magically working.

Indeed slim if any.By the way i hope this isn't going to be your thesis.

Dear lord, why did you say that? I was hoping he would try! One less brain-dead CS graduate.

Business can buy an extremely powerful XP machine from Dell, with an LCD monitor, with XP Professional for $500. This system will easily serve the majority of business for 5 years. They will have guaranteed support and free security updates. They will be able to install 99% of all software written. To top it all off, within 3 years, they will be able to completely write off the expense. That computer and operating system will be free for the business thanks to tax savings.
Home users are in a similar boat. They can buy a Dell machine, with an LCD monitor, and XP Home Edition for $500. They won't be able to write off the purchase but they won't care that a machine with Windows cost $30 more. They will pay the extra money and get a better machine.
Linux on the desktop, in developed countries, does not make any economical sense. The only way people will use Linux is if it is a better desktop/workstation product. For some technical users doing certain tasks, it is. For the vast majority of other people, it is not.

The true reason for this article is to point out some sensitive points and to start a discussion. Hopefully, this discussion will produce some useful outcome and if some people in the Linux community are willing to listen to them, I would already be very enthusiastic. Let's start, shall we?

We would, but you seem somehow determined to already know the answer

Strange, especially when you see how successful an operating system like OS X is becoming, simply because this operating system is so simplistic and easy to use, even for a complete newbie, that it gives the user a very powerful feeling.

Powerfull feeling and simplicity like installing applications for example?

Yeah, right. I'm not a newbie, but I was just f...ed by OSX. I'm on OSX because it is on one of my work places (and I'm too lazy to take out my notebook).

Example of this minute: Reply isn't working on OSNews. So I looked FFox version. 1.0.1, now hell, I'm sure I put 1.0.4 on it. So I downloaded FFox again. Unpacked and thrown in Applications folder. Right side is displayed as list. From my MacOS times I'm used to throw on a list. Not even asking about replacing??? Run FFox, check version. ??? 1.0.1. After that it became obvious where the problem is. I thrown FFox on the Applications in the common places. Now OSX asks me if I'd like to replace??? Ok, I've now got 1.0.4, I've got about 5 versions of FFox copied under different application folders, because I always did the same mistake, and I still haven't got working reply on OSNews.

Point of this charade is that no OS without bugs and quirks does or will exist. In my case usability of OSX (I ccan name numerous features that are to be considered hidrance for being desktop usable) is far away from being desktop ready. Neither is Windows and neither is Linux.

And for some reason, the entire Linux community seems to hide themselves behind the idea that one needs to "grow into" a distro. One should apply for leave for a month before being able to actually getting used to his or her distro of choice. Some may find this absurd, and it is, but this is actually advice people have given me in the past. A lot of you will also agree that if you do want to get acquainted with Linux, you should do it like this, one does need to grow into it and that's where the shoe pinches. People do not like to be told to grow into something, unless it is worth it. And Linux simply is not worth the trouble.

Why do you ask about opinion if you're predetermined with the answer?

But then, why is it that operating systems like OS X and Windows are so much more suited for end users? One needs to look beyond his own nose to see why this actually is. If you only focus on the end-users, this is essentially a computer-illiterate, it is hard to see why Windows would be any better than Linux. They both have a start menu, they both have a taskbar, they both have a traybar and I could go on summing things up that are exactly the same for most users. If a user is unable to operate a mouse and point and click on an icon, then he won't be capable to do a single thing with a computer nowadays. If he can, then he can do all he wants, as long as the computer has already been configured and all his favourite apps are to be found on the desktop.

Windows is just something you're used to. But you're used to its design flaws also. Mac always had its fanclub.

At this point, you should start to see where I am taking you.

No, but then again you don't either.

What is important, is to see how many people are around that can actually configure the operating system to the needs of this end user.

At one point you preach about preinstalled system and now the other???

Final thing to look at when it comes to installing software

Read my example on OSX. I blame windows for allowing to specify where you would like software installed. It would be a lot simpler without that. I blame linux for many package managers. No one is perfect.

Too bad for Linux, but it is time to evaluate them too. Linux has some share in the end user market, about none when it comes to the disciples and way too many geeks. This is caused by, again, numerous factors. Linux has outgrown the hobby stage, and a lot of geeks had a hand in this. However, as popularity grows, the other two groups should have started building them up themselves and grow into a nice looking knowledge pyramid. But for Linux, this has not happened. Why?

It happened, alright. But you seem to have missed it. All the HIG efforts. All the usability efforts, help for dissabled. Talking about Gnome here, but probably KDE has its own (except that being as configurable as it is, kcontrol and 3 types of Preferences in menu is too much, but this is just my opinion not a troll topic).

Linux has a learning curve, that is more than just steep.

Not even one of my half iliterate friends said soo. The only ones who say that are the same ones that expect OS to behave as they are used to. I have few friends like that. And I ignore them (they seem happy to me already).

when one needs to simply know how to install a driver

I don't remember when I did that last time. If I take out NVidia. But even there I already incorporated a little php script that autoconfigures xorg.conf for my friends.

When it comes to consistency, I'm afraid to express my opinion.

Distros mostly are consistant, but if you're talking about *THE* one distro, that is a myth. And unfortunately that myth is not to be taken to the geeks side. It has to be corporate decision, where corporations decide on one and only distribution.

For some unclear reason, Linux users are in constant conflict with themselves, trying to outperform the others and building a better copy of what they are making.

This is what is result of freedom and diversity, yes. But then again sometimes not. Enlightenment is a clean example.

Not only does this waste most valuable time, it also makes that Linux has too little money to do something (however, combined, Linux would be quite wealthy) and that the good programmers are spread out over projects that are making exactly the same thing.

Problem is not in the waste. Why would I use the same and only editor as you. Maybe I find another much better. Same goes for coders. Why would he help code some other editor when his wishes don't comply with the way project is going. Again, who is gonna tell him that his idea sucks?

The other deficiency that Linux has, is even more important than the one I just stated. It is their localisation. Getting Linux to work in English is no big deal, however, trying out other languages is a huge challenge.

Now, here is where you got the best. You obviously haven't seen windows or OSX in our language. Windows translations are often used for jokes between ITs and OSX can't translate to our language. Linux is much better at this department (at least our country).


...
Let me once again remind you that this article only holds a very slim amount of reasons for Linux not being successful on the desktop.
...


This article is either bad approach to bash over linux or good example of how *NOT* to become self proclaimed genius or political (OS) figure


Epilogue>
Quoted from Anonymous (IP: 208.54.94.---)

i officially swear I will not waste any posts on obvious flamebait, no one who thinks linux isnt ready will ever accept the argument that it is and vice versa, but the fact is that numerous people use it and I dont think the fact that YOU dont use it somwhow concludes that it isnt ready for anyone....

Amen, this sums all

For me Linux was ready for the desktop since SUSE 9.0, which I felt it was much better than Windows XP.

So for me this question was answered 2 years ago.

Of course it has got a lot better ever since.

Why do these people run on here and complain about Linux's problems??? Can any of the people on this board honestly say they are a KDE developer??? Gnome? OpenOffice?

So why sit for hours (or minutes/seconds in the case of this awful article) and bitch about it on OSNews? Does anyone here agree with me when I say perhaps typing up your complaints (without calling people names) and sending them to the real developers might make things better? If you were at work and everytime the lazy person you work with went for another smoke in a 10 minute time frame you ran into the break room with all of the other dumb shits and bitched about it instead of talking to the person or your boss, anything would happen? Of course, despite being a complete waste of time, its fun and it lets off steam. But does it really help anything in the end? Other than to start YAOSNFW (yet another OS News flame war)? I personally don't think this concept is too difficult to understand. I regularily talk to the developers for some of my favourite OSS programs, despite not being a developer myself. One I have been involved in a bit is amsn messenger.

Of course, judging by the quality of this article, I doubt the supposed CS under graduate could put enough cohesive thoughts together to make a posting to a mailing list that wouldn't get deleted in 30 seconds.

> The problem is that there is no incentive for anybdy to
> create a killer desktop since the Linux community isn't
> going to actually pay for a desktop.

This is bullshit.
People already _PAY_ real money for their distributions, so why shouldnt they pay for a new "killer desktop" of your wet dreams?

Oh, you mean some proprietary fuck like Windows or OS X?

Well, then, youre right. Nobody would pay to pollute a OS, Free Software by purpose, by another restrictive proprietary DE. There are already proprietary restrictive-as-fuck desktops available, and when they dont want to pay for them, why shoud they want to pay for a DE atop of Linux?!

If youre willing to pay for proprietary software _right now_, just go out and buy one of these two, who are available _right now_.

How can you be bitching about users of free desktops, who left Windows and Apple towards a free sollution, for not willing to pay for a proprietary desktop they initially left to join the free software movement?

What I don't comprehend in articles about linux/windows/whatever is the statement of "users with little or no computer experience." Okay, it's 2005 and computers are everywhere. My bank just installed a new ATM and it's plain to see that it's simply a PC with a touchscreen in a nice, huge, secure shell. How can you live in this society and not come into some kind of contact with computers? The answer is (especially in America) that you would actually have more trouble not coming into contact with them. Most people who have had "no computer experience" are probably the elderly, and more than likely, they don't want any computer experience anyway. A person with "no computer experience" has a learning curve EVEN with Windows. It's inevitable. The thing is people are comfortable with Windows because that's what they've always used, and they have forgotten what it was like to learn where everything was at first. And honestly, a lot people still don't know much about Windows. They know how to click the "Blue E" and get on the web. They can click on the green jelly bean and find programs. All the while they have all kinds of spyware and junk on their computer. And this is what keeps your corner computer shops open--cleaning spyware off your PC with free Ad-Aware and charging $30/hr.

So, the next time that you try installing a Linux distro and it takes you a while to find where something is or how to do something, keep in mind that it is a DIFFERENT operating system and you may actually have to LEARN something. I think what most people are trying to say is "Make something EXACTLY like Windows so I don't have to take time to learn something new, even though it's free/stable."

I mean, you gripe about something that's free... how pointless. If linux is for you, use it. Heck, you can't beat the price.

I like linux because it is a geek toy. It offers a million and one features that a geek like me can't get out of OS X or Windows without buying a huge library of software.

Why does linux NEED to unite? I like having ten choices. Because then I can pick the one that has the featureset that works best for me. I don't care if it confuses your grandma.

I like linux the way it is and I really don't care if it's not newbie friendly. I use it because it's a power user OS, and that suits my style of computer use much better than Windows.

If you don't want to know how to use a computer, but still want to use a computer, then use OS X and Windows.

These flamebait, "LINUX ISN'T READY" topics get more annoying by the minute.

So you don't use Linux? So what worth does your opinion have? I'm not trying to be rude, but anybody looking at an OS from the outside is really in no position to judge it.

I guess by your logic, anybody not currently using Windows has no right to comment on it either, no? Of course, you could say that my opinion doesn't matter, but if the opinion of those not using the system doesn't matter, then you can keep it the way it is and those of us not using it will continue not using it

Choosing a consistent set of apps is one way people adapt.

You mean limiting themselves to either one set of apps or another is how they adapt. That doesn't seem like a viable option to me. It's like saying "Sure, everything in Linux is nicely integrated, so long as you only use these apps. So, by that logic, everything in Windows has a similar look, as long as you don't use MS Office. Or Winamp. Or iTunes. Or ...

As a Linux user, its really infuriating to hear the same drivel from people who don't even use the OS.

Yeah, like the guy above who professed that you need to spend mega-bucks to keep Windows secure. Doesn't this kind of thing work both ways? Anyway, I know of the inconsistancies in Linux (which is one of the reasons I don't use it) - to get the fonts in KDE looking just the way I want, while the fonts in Gnome and its apps still look like ass, and vice versa. Are you saying this isn't a possibility?

BS. How does (Winamp) still feel like a Windows app? Here are the minimize/maximize/close buttons? Here is the main menu?

Yes and yes (I'm using 5.x). It also responds to standard shortcut keys, such as pressing ALT+F4 closes the program. It also integrates with the system tray, supports drag n drop, global hotkeys, windows dialogs (open/save/etc) and does all that jazz.

Of course, when one see the vast amount of duplication, reinvention (how many packaging format does Linux need?) in Free software, it is painful.
But no amount of wishful thinking will change this, sorry!

Of course, when one see the vast amount of duplication, reinvention (how many different spyware, antivirus, burning, media playing, office suites (hell MS themselves make 2, works and office) programs does Windows need?) in proprietary software, it is painful. But no amount of wishful thinking will change this, sorry!

He was talking about package formats, not apps. There's a difference between having different apps and having different package formats for the exact same applications.

For that matter, look at the amount of duplication in music. Eminem, 50 Cent, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys. I mean, everyone here at OSNews knows that there should only ever be one option, whether it be software, music, movies, games, etc. :-P

Using this logic, why not let everybody invent their own HTML standards like MS does? Afterall, more choice is better, right?

A nice example, for scanning on Linux I have XSane and Kooka. For Windows, I have 2 HP scanners, both with different software. I then have another program for my portable Canon scanner. My mom's computer has yet another program for her Epson scanner. I think that could be classified as "reinventing the wheel" just an insy teensy bit, doncha think? 4 scanning programs between two members of my family?

"the largest amount of the Linux community still believes that people actually intend to struggle their way through a hefty manual to get the thing installed and configured as they wish."

This indicates the author is obviously a moron since no significant distro of Linux requires a manual to install it. In fact, installation is now easier than Windows. There was no point in reading any further once I saw this nonsense.

I'm getting really tired of Microsoft shills pretending to be Linux backers issuing this sort of crap article. It's time the Linux press gets its act together and stops running Microsoft shill articles masquerading as "proactive positive Linux improvement" pieces.

Microsoft astroturfers are everywhere these days, undoubtedly either directly or indirectly paid by Microsoft to issue FUD pieces on numerous Web sites, including those devoted to Linux. This isn't paranoia, it's quite common these days on the Net for companies and organizations to have paid shills posting articles and comments. It's called "PR" and it's no different from sending the stuff to newspapers and magazines.

A lot of people here seem to think that "UI consistency" only relates to looks. Let me burst that bubble: UI consistency is about a lot more than just looks.

UI stands for "User Interface". This means that this also includes, but is not limited to, drag & drop, keyb. shortcuts, menubar order, menuitem order, etc. When looking at it that way, Windows and especially OSX, are a lot more consistent than Linux + DE. Heck, even BeOS is.

MS Office might sport a different look than other Windows apps (.Net, it's called), but that means fcuk all for the menubar order, menuitem order, keyb. shortcuts, etc. They're the same throughout the entire OS.

Same for OSX. OSX has three looks now (Aqua, Brushed, and that awful 'Plastic'), but the *behaviour* is the same, no matter which look is used for an app.

*That's* real consistency. I hope we can then give the author his point.

If this article adequately captures your view of what Linux must or should become to be a "success" on the "desktop," then you are destined to be eternally disappointed and you'd be much better off just finding another bandwagon to latch yourself on to.

Linux will never be a single, consistent, uniform product (or family of products) after the fashion of Windows and OSX. It's pointless to even argue the merits of such a thing, as it is simply not a reasonable possibility that such a state of affairs will ever be achieved. Linux is not a product, it's not even an OS, it's more of an ecosystem where the Linux kernel serves as strong center of gravity around which other "projects" and "toolkits" (not products) orbit. Distributions are not going away for the simple reason that barrier to entry for creating one is so very small and marginal utility of doing so can be enormous. At the very outer realm of possibility lies the eventuality that market will choose one sole distro as de facto standard, but even a cursory glance at the prevailing trends should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of their misplaced hopes on this vanishingly small possibility.

Does this mean Linux cannot possibly succeed? Hardly. For all the dire predictions of doom coming from the desktop enthusiast quarter, the fact still remains that Linux has grown it's install base faster than any other computing platform in history, and continued uptake only seems to be accelerating. To call Linux a failure requires a truly bizarre redefinition of that word.

Is Linux destined to failure on the desktop? That, of course, depends upon what you mean by desktop and succeed. If by "desktop" and "succeed" you mean being a drop-in replacement for Windows and OSX in the home user segment of the market with a market share above 10%, then the answer is most likely yes. Understood thusly, Linux is most likely not to succed. Now I use Linux extensively, I consider it to be a manifestly superior option to both Windows and OSX for my purposes, but I also consider it highly unlikely that Linux will ever grow into something that will challenge MS's dominance in the home user market (although it may well grow to exceed OSX's in the global market).

But that does not mean Linux is destined failure on the desktop, since the home user segment of the desktop market is only part, and not even the largest part, of the overall market. Additionally, the home user segment is the most undesirable part of the overall market; characterized by high user support requirements, broad hardware and software compatibility requirements, extreme price sensitivity, and razor thin margins for commercial vendors. The general purpose home computer market is the ghetto of overall computer world and, in my opinion, it would be extremely foolish for anyone to expend any great effort in tailoring Linux to fit this niche.

The enterprise/office desktop, on the other hand, is another story altogether. This is a very fragmented and various market, when taken as a whole, and Linux isn't necessarily appropriate in every aspect of it, but Linux is most definitely ready right now for a very significant portion of this market segment, and, when paired with a thin terminal deployment model, offers compelling advantages over both Windows and OSX.

So is Linux destined to forever remain outside of the grasp of the home user? No. In fact, Linux already has an install base among home users much larger than Apple does. Now before you write me off as crazy contemplate two names: Linksys and Tivo. If Linux is to make serious inroads into the home user segment, beyond what it already has, it will most likely come in the form of an appliance where the average consumer is unlikely to even realize that Linux is any way involved. Imagine a Tivo-like home media server, which is also a console gaming machine, a Web-TV-like internet appliance (displayed on both a TV and on cheap thin clients scattered thoughout the home), and even a control center for your home security system.

One more thing, this article indulges in an absurd fallacy, one which seems to plaugue most criticisms of the Linux desktop, when it characterizes all of the competing projects which duplicate functionality as waste of resources. If--and it bears noting that this is an utter impossibilty--all of the current OSS developers were to be retasked to working on one webserver, one desktop environment, one media player, one email client, etc..., the result would not be a more efficent utilization of available resources but an unmitigated disaster. There is point of diminishing returns for simply throwing more developers at a project after which the end result is chaos not efficency. The kind of simple minded thinking which motivates such misguided attaks is the very same thinking which supposed that a centrally planned economy would achieve greater efficiency than a free market one where so many efforts were put to overlapping purposes. In practice, almost without exception, free markets have proven far more efficient than centrally planned ones, as the distributed nature of free markets is able to respond far better to rapidly changing economic inputs and then redistribute labor and capital in response.

This article could have done with more perspective. The author uses OSX, which he rightfully praises for its consistent UI and the fact that it works well with the hardware (duh!), however he never addresses the fact that OSX has a market share that is similar to Linux on the desktop. Following his own logic, he should start asking what is wrong with OSX, and what needs to be fixed so that it becomes more usable by the masses, since this seems to be the reason why its market share is so low...

In fact, this bears repeating: quality and ease-of-use have nothing to do with market share. Rather, the culprits are user inertia (they will use what they're used to, even if it isn't the best) and MS' long history of anti-competitive practices (such as blackmailing OEMs into installing only Windows on their machines, lest they want to lose the "privilege" of being able to install Windows in the first place).

Another problem I have with the article is that it talks about Linux as if it were a GUI, when in fact it isn't. We should talk about Windows vs. Linux, but rather Windows vs. KDE or GNOME (which can run on Linux, but also the BSDs, Solaris, etc.). What many people don't understand is that in the land of Unix and Unix-like OSes, the Desktop is independant - which is a strength, not a weakness.

Finally, I'm a bit surprised at the criticisms about localisation: to my experience, Linux is a lot easier to localize than Windows. For starters, if there are some bad translations it's quite easy to contact the localization package maintainers and advise them. Not only that, but you can do something with Linux which you can't do with Windows, i.e. have more than one language installed on the same computer, and being able to switch languages on-the-fly. With Windows, if you want a french and english UI (which can be useful in a place like Quebec, Canada), you're basically stuck out on a limb. You can't do it, you have to install either the french or english Windows - and after that, if you happen to install a program in the wrong language, you'll have both languages appearing at once in the same UI - not very consistent.

With Linux, I can easily install new language packages and switch from one language to another, and all apps will follow. Also, Linux is avalaible in small minority languages for which there is no Windows version yet.

I don't mind constructive criticism, but this article was based on too many flawed premises to be really useful, except as the starting point of yet another discussion about Desktop Linux...

It's been a couple years already that Linux has had a fantastic desktop, and now Linux is even better than WinXP. Check out Xandros, their filemanager is a million miles ahead of windows explorer.

All these articles about dumbing down Linux so the TOTAL RETARD can run it are stupid - the total retard can't run windows or osx any better either. Both MS & Mac have so many "super secret settings" that it makes Linux look like a walk in the park by comparison. The total retard just runs windows and suffers every ad/spyware, every virus, every spam, scam & sporge.

So the Linux desktop question is really FUD that Microsoft perpetuates, and all these IT jouralist MORONS are simply Microsoft shills spreading Linux hate.

The Joe LUsers who whine can go screw themselves cos there will never be an OS that can compensate for their vast inifinite supidity.

Wondering if the follwoing scenario is possible.

- Define a special folder as Mac OS does, that has everything needed to run the app.

- It looks like a single file again like Mac OS.

- If it is run from anywhere other than the ../bin folder (wherever that is on the particular distro) then it gets copied to the /bin folder and registered as an application (shortcuts etc). The DE just looks up the applicable location for user apps and copies it there.

- When the program is run the first time it checks to see if the dependencies are met. If not it uses its own versions located in its app folder. If the libraries exist no problem use those.

- If the user wants to delete the application it can be done by using an remove application app or by deleting the shortcut in the 'Start'(for want of a better word) menu or by dragging the icon into the trash. The DE then removes the application.

Would love to hear from application developers on the possibility of the above.

Sorry, for not replying directly, but FFox under OSX doesn't work???

Lets take on your consistancy, and since OSX is currently in my hands...

1. some apps use system trashcan to delete, some don't???
2. Again my previous post about installing with drag'n'drop (somewhere in the middle)
3. Network,Go to folder and Connect to server??? Same thing, different approach
4. Terminal, folder structure is different than GUI one???
5. Everytime Finder crashes, it changes order of desktop icons???
6. Search in 10.3 Finder window spells everywhere, why this isn't everywhere
7. Got 3 Library and after installation software stores its data wherever possible. For example removing Acrobat is not a simple drag Acrobat to trash. It is stored in:
user/library/preferences/acrobat
user/library/caches/acrobat
systemdisk/library/application support/adobe/acrobat
user/library/application support/adobe/acrobat
user/library/acrobat user data
user/library/receipts/com.adobe.Acrobat.pro
+ location where you actualy installed acrobat
and god only knows where else
8. Webdav and ftp with finder never worked as it should, but it works wrong different with every system update
9. Printers, time to figure out how to print to a file (PS, not PDF with Acrobat), or how intuitive *NOT* this configuration is compared to the others
10. Desktop icons covering one another when apperaring, I now have at least 5 icons in my lower right corner (not every icon, just every once in a while)
11. Not every action shows that anything is happening, it is better none than some (at least it is consistant)
12. Closing last document, and not closing application?
13. Inconsistant Open and Save allover the system. sometimes it is a dialog sometimes not, sometimes offers you different location selection, while sometimes two?
14. Buttons on dialogs are either at the bottom centred, bottom right or right top?

I'm only naming few things present from 10.0 to 10.3.last, tiger is some dissapointment I actualy wouldn't like to see. As soon as I saw how slow spotlight is (on 3 weeks old 17" powerbook it lasted 5 seconds to start showing results and about 12 to finish), I saw that nothing new has happened.

And believe me, I have a list of them. You can call them bugs, just as I call inconsistancy 3 different looks of applications.

sorry about my post b4... user error . I can't see what the problem is using linux as a desk top personally. I do most tasks that most desktop users do, watch and record tv, rip dvd's, play music, write the odd letter, surf the web, watch dvd's, burn same, organise my files, touch-up pics, add/remove hardware and software, (i'm an os junkie ask my vmware installation) i just can't think of what i could do in any other OS (ok games but i play doom 3, bzflag and america's army so i'm happy), i use a Microsoft wireless k/board and mouse, my nvidia card is hardware accellerated, if i chose to add a sata drive,, np... so as i said for "me" i'm as happy with linux as a desk top as any other person using any other OS, it fit my needs. If your happy with windows or OSX or BSD then no matter what people tell you that their OS is better is purely irrelevant.

just my 2p worth

Note: I am a Gentoo Developer -- so I have my bias as to what I like and what works for me.

If you're looking for doing things in a more "contained" way, (on GNU/Linux distros) checkout:
- ROX: http://rox.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/
- Zero Install: http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/
- GoboLinux: http://www.gobolinux.org/

I'm just sick of reading these as well... Linux will be ready for the desktop when you start seing it on non-tech savvy users's desktops. Period. Publishing pointless "Is Linux Ready For The Desktop" articles every other damn day won't change anything other than keep annoying the regular OS News readers.

I mean, it's the same crap over and over... Linux hasn't changed that much since last week or the week before, so why keep publishing article after article with the exact same crap in it?

Not that topic again.

Depressing!!!

For that matter, what about all the different theming programs and alternate UIs available for Windows? Windows has just as many UIs available for it as Linux does (perhaps even more). The last I knew there was the classic windows ui, the xp ui, blackbox, litestep, MacOS work alikes, and a myriad of others.

People who see 'integration' see it only within the narrow spectrum that they choose to see. Its easy enough to do the same thing under linux, by simply using only gtk/gnome apps, or only qt/kde apps.

A few months ago Windows did something that really pissed me off, so I decided to look for another OS. Being that I like to play with partitions and such (I modified my bootloader, XosL, to include the latest version of Ranish for that very reason) I decided to try several OSes and see which one worked best for me. So I resized Windows to a DVD-sized partition and moved my Temp directories, Program Files, and "Documents and Settings" folder to their own partitions and created some space at the beginning of my drive to play with. Unfortunately for me, the first three Linux distro installations were much harder than the other OSes I installed (XP, 2k, DOS, and BeOS), and ultimately failed (some hardware issues with my laptop). I finally got SuSE installed, and was rather pleased when it actually worked. It had comparable hardware support to Windows 2000 or out-of-the-box XP, and was actually usable. Two of the main problems were that the font smoothing looked horrible on my laptop screen (which is one reason I currently hate to use it) and networking didn't work. After figuring out where the network settings were (different configuration programs with overlapping functions... not fun to learn) I found it was a DHCP issue (not surprising given my router). So I go into Windows, copied my network settings to a USB thumb drive and tried mounting it. Talk about more complicated than it needs to be... ouch. Several reboots later I was able to get onto the internet. Being that my router's DNS forwarder isn't the best I tried to install a local DNS server (like I do with Windows). That was when I stopped trying to learn Linux (I hope to learn it later, but BeOS didn't give me anywhere close to this much trouble). Its seems to me that installing software in Windows (or BeOS a lot of the time) is like going to a fast food restaurant and ordering something. A guy asks what you want and in a minute or so you have it. Installing in Linux (from my limited exposure) is like ordering a hamburger and having the guy say "here's some ground beef, a bun, and on the wall is a general recipe; you'll find a grill on your table and condiments/toppings scattered around the restaurant; you can fix your burger any way you want, aren't you glad you have a choice?" Just some food for thought for everyone who thinks that it's easy to get started with Linux.

You could also give autopackage a shot, it works exactly like this (almost anyways)

...not another one of these "is it ready?" articles!

Why is it that every time a person decides Linux is not ready for "their" desktop, they think it's not ready for anyone else's desktop, either?

Even after 7 years, my mother-in-law has never been able to understand, or use Windows. Does that mean it's not ready for the desktop?

If everyone would simply stay within their limits and use whatever works for them, it would make for a much happier computer world. More users should also try adjusting to the OS rather than thinking every OS should be tailored just for them.

Truthfully, I hope every user finds the operating system that suits their needs so they don't spend so much time ranting about those that don't.

Welcome my friend to receive the wrath of hardcore linux fanatics. Truth really bites in Linux community. Now you will see 100 of people coming and telling that it is your mistake you couldn't get Linux to work and how it is much better than all other OS in the world.

Linux has the worst community on this earth. They have no trust at all on their users, they think that if you criticize Linux, its because you have a hidden agenda. Please stay with Microsoft or Apple, atleast they listen to their customers and try to improve.

Personally, i pray that this attitude of Linux community continues specially people like archisteele and somebody and soon we can see the rise of a better OS and open community like opensolaris or freebsd Linux fanatics take Linux as religion and can't hear anything bad about it even if its for real.

Also please don't call these fanatics as geeks because if they had true developer skills, they would listen to users and try to improve. They are not geeks, they are a burden.

Anonymous
It's been a couple years already that Linux has had a fantastic desktop, and now Linux is even better than WinXP. Check out Xandros, their filemanager is a million miles ahead of windows explorer.

So the best file manager on Xandros is better than the worst file manager on Windows. You could've knocked me over with a feather! Did you also know that OpenOffice is better than Wordpad? If you don't know where I'm going with this, power users don't use Windows Explorer


rayiner
It's not so much that the opinion doesn't matter, its that the opinion isn't credible. Someone who doesn't use the OS can't render a valid opinion on what is and is not wrong with it.

Or what about somebody who hasn't used an OS in years? i.e. - people who haven't used Windows since Win98 complaining about how unstable it is?

Saying what isn't a possibility? That you don't know the true shortcomings of Linux? Given that you refer to a font problem that hasn't existed for years, I'm inclined to say "yes, it isn't".

I dunno ... maybe you're right. Last time I really paid attention was Xandros 2.0. Have they fixed it since then? Don't get me wrong - fonts in KDE/QT apps looked good, but fonts in non-QT apps were horrible and way too small. There wasn't a way to fix this with the font configuration dialog. This was a well-known problem documented on the forums. Supposedly, you could apt-get another font config (that's simplicity for you), but I never was successful at it.

rm6990
How the hell is having different artists akin to having MS set their own standards?? That makes absolutely no sense! Having different artists is the same as having different interoperable software. Now if each artist had their own CD format and you had to buy an Eminem brand stereo to listen to Eminem your comment would make sense. My point was the software is interoperable so why not have choice? Are you saying we should have one OS, one office suite, one email client, for all computers? So are you now saying we should only have one band world-wide?

Look, as I already told you, I was talking about package managers, not applications. Packages aren't applications any more than zip files or web pages, so you need a standard way of dealing with them.

CrazyDude0
Welcome my friend to receive the wrath of hardcore linux fanatics. Truth really bites in Linux community. Now you will see 100 of people coming and telling that it is your mistake you couldn't get Linux to work and how it is much better than all other OS in the world.

Or my personal favorite - you were using the wrong distro! Either the fault lies with the user or the distro, because everybody knows Linux is perfect.

I learn more reading the actual posts than reading the article itself. To me why does everyone get angry if an article says such and such needs more work or it sucks. I like using Windows and I always hear people tell me how it sucks, but I never let it bother me. So the people who likes Linux keep using it. Who cares what people think. Also it creates a healthy competition for both OS, like AMD and Intel. It's a win win sitution in my book.

why can't you just accept Linux for what it is and move on? if you like linux use it. if you don't, use M$ and leave the rest of us alone.

and as a recent cs grad, let me extend a collective apology from all of us for this article..:)

I don't see why the author of the article thinks that KDE existing next to Gnome and other desktop environments is a bad thing. In my opinion using Linux is about having choice. I can't choose to use a lightweight desktop environment in Windows on my old laptop. No problem in Linux though. It might be true that the average PC user is not able to configure the system in that way (although I don't think it is too difficult considering distributions like SUSE giving you almost Windows like tools for configuration) but those people can still use the default configuration.

Another advantage of similar programs coexisting is that they have greater possibilities to evolve. The developers can look at the other programs and say "Hey, I (don't) like the way this and that is being done there, I'm going to do it this other way!". This encourages different solutions for all kinds of problems. It is the same with games in Windows. Why the heck would one need more than one FPS or more than one strategy game? Because different people prefer different software and developers love to develope own solutions to problems.

All together I can't share the authors view that Linux is "schizophrenic", I would rather describe it as an OS with many facettes.

In my opinion, Linux isnt for the desktop, from the core.
Only two words:

Zeta AND Haiku.

I'm waiting for a review by Thom Holwerda, so we will se WHAT OS is for the desktop.

ok, quick question for you all

If the linux community unites (which it won't) and linux becomes a major force in the desktop market.... how many linux developers would jump ship to bsd or maybe gnu hurd

.. I think a lot of it has to do with the challange and thinking differently...... as soon as linux becomes overly mainstream (loses it's geek appeal), linux will lose many of it's best developers to something else.

this is not to say new developers wouldn't come along, but linux as we know it would be gone.

Is it ready for MY desktop? Yes. I can use Linux for day-to-day work just fine.
Is it ready for my mother's desktop? No.
Is it ready for someone who never really upgrades or installs new hardware or software? Yes, once it's set up.

In short, configuring it (especially for more esoteric hardware that your distro doesn't have handy support for) is a pain in the butt right now, but once it's done it can look and feel great.

Compared to Windows, Linux is a lot less integrated, and less supported. However, it's far more useful than some people make it out to be, considering it's free and to some extent built on a volunteer basis. (Yes, I know lots of the more important products are written by people paid to do what they do).

first time i used linux was probably back in '98 installing it on the gf's packard bell.. id always worked on macs and there was no way i was going to use windows (in those days).. i don't remember if i ever got red hat installed or not.. i know i did end up erasing her hard drive.. aaaaaah the thrill of being a new user!

a few years later i was getting one of the newly anounced g4's so i was pleased to have the opportunity to install some alternative os's onto my 6500.. installed BeOS.. loved it, just like everyone did.. but it didn't really have enough apps in those days to even warrant my casual use, but, it still holds a dear place in my heart.. ordered linuxppc.. i think i got it installed this time.. i believe the default window manager was afterstep.. i dont think i spent any time in it really..

and that was it for me and linux for a long time.. but a month or two ago i was watching revolution os, and i thought "say, lets give it another go!", id heard some fine things about ubuntu, so i downloaded that and installed it on a spare drive on my now aging g4.. while i can say the installer aint so pretty, it worked flawlessly and installed perfectly.. (if only i could find some damn drivers for my audiowerks 2 card!!) anyway.. messed around in gnome a bit.. looking at settings and all of that.. gnome doesn't really do it for me.. the fonts just look squished and hard to read (my opinion only folks).. so after some looking around online i saw how to switch to KDE (yes, i know its obvious, but hey, i am really new to the whole linux thing again).. anyway, logging into KDE.. wow.. things have changed..

for fun i downloaded and installed a couple other distros, but have returned to kubuntu.. and while i am still os x 90% of the time, i look forward to replacing this box with a new mac so i can run linux full time on the old one..

obviously i still have a lot of work to go with being a power user.. but thats not the point, the point is that even as a "newb" with linux now i can actually do something, whereas before, as a newb, i couldn't even get it to install..

javajazz here.

just got back from PANERA, also known as The St Louis Bread Company. I recently bought a mag with Mandriva first edition 2005 on a dvd install disk. I installed it on my thinkpad with a belkin pcmia wireless card and I am surfing. too cool.

my life is near complete.

by the way I installed pc-bsd on the pc at home and that dang thing configured my 1810 video chip, my ich sound chip and my mouse with scroll wheel with NO QUESTIONS asked. freebsd has never done that. I quess everyone knows that pc-bsd is freebsd 5.4 with fancy installer. A very fancy much appreciated installer. Thanks pc-bsd.

When was the last time you went out and bought an X brand of Camera and plugged it into an XP box? Have you tried it? Does it recognize every piece of hardware out there? Now don't you get started on driver Cds. I don't remember when I even last used them as coasters for my coffee mug.
Now let us take plugging a digital camera via usb cable to the computer. Surprise, surprise, an icon appears on my desktop (KDE or GNOME) showing me that I have a removable disk of XXMB. Depending on the distro, you will also get asked if you want to import pictures that it found on the removable disk. Am i telling you a fib tale a-la Harry Potter? No sir. If I were to do the same with windows, it would take me much longer to get the driver CD installed (and it would insist on installed some extra trash which I may not require). So, which one do you prefer? Simple clean recongition of *most* devices or a cupboard full of driver CDs to rummage through each time your machine goes down from malware or viruses? You know my answer!

from article: "as long as the computer has already been configured and all his favourite apps are to be found on the desktop."

--as has been said time and time before whenever this topic comes up -- therein lies the rub. The biggest use by home users on their computers today is the internet. And just what encompasses the internet hmm? IE only web pages, pages with windows media or apple quicktime. And a second reason is DVD movies. Games are not absolutely necessary anymore since the new generation of consoles are computers essentially and rival them in graphics and processing power now.

So to solve those problems (and even games) one needs third party commercial apps such as Crossover which doesn't always work right, or pay extra for the LinspireOS which has licenced codecs but surprise surprise doesn't ship with the tools to actually use the Linux part of the OS making you have to download the tools which then often causes the whole system to break.

So where's this leave us then hmm? It leaves Linux in the category it's always excelled in - very pointed specialized apps. It is not a full featured OS and WON'T be until its accepted by the other companies Apple, MS, hardware vendors for drivers and support etc... and that just won't ever happen on a wide scale.

Wish it would, but it's a pipe dream.

Linux has the worst community on this earth. They have no trust at all on their users, they think that if you criticize Linux, its because you have a hidden agenda. Please stay with Microsoft or Apple, atleast they listen to their customers and try to improve.


I guess it's true what they say then ... that you get what you pay for.

Linux is free - so your not losing anything are you? ...by camparison how much is that bloated, spyware magnet XP crackin your wallet for?

Do the world a favor and take your Linux complaint's and wishlist and jam them up your @$$.

P.S. everyone has a hidden agenda ... so do you Micro-troll.

Articles like this create flamewars.
flamewars create more posts.
more posts create more pageviews.
more pageviews = more ad revenue

I don't see a single well supported point in this whole article. It seems to be a big straw man against imagined 'Linux zealots', eg:

"Well, for some reason, the largest amount of the Linux community still believes that people actually intend to struggle their way through a hefty manual to get the thing installed and configured as they wish"

and

"If they ask for more advise, it is not so rare that they get an answer that is full of disbelief and contempt"

Go to any good Linux help discussion board (www.linuxquestions.org) and you'll see how wrong that statement is.

Not to mention trotting out the old argument that the fact that the open source community has produced more than 1 program of the same type (KDE and GNOME, OpenOffice and Abiword) is somehow holding back desktop adoption. What utter bullshit - the Windows world is full of many programs that do the same thing as well. Its called 'variety', 'competition' and 'choice' 3 words which the author obviously doesn't understand.

"Compared to Windows, Linux is a lot less integrated"

can someone explain this, because the way I think of this is as a benefit..... im confuzzed....

"The biggest use by home users on their computers today is the internet. And just what encompasses the internet hmm? IE only web pages, pages with windows media or apple quicktime. And a second reason is DVD movies."

please show me all of these IE only websites, and second of all if that is the case who is to blame, someone using a standards compliant web browser or the person that used frontpage to write a god awful page that probably wont work right in different version of IE much lessw anything else....

so if i choose to make the videos on my web page with divABC are you going to forsake IE and tell me how crappy IE is when it is actually my fault for using a certain format that I know excludes some of my visitors?

dvd movies? huh, i have a tv and a forty buck dvd player....

awww shit, i forgot.... you will never convince anyone that doesnt think linux..... and vice versa...and so forth....

and i love how every linux user is a zealot....
actually i think that guy does just cut and paste his same rants over and over...

i say linux users start ignoring these flame topics and let the windows fanboys copy and paste and look like idiots by themselves....

the term "fanboys" was used to counter the zealot label....flame on...

Am I the only one who thinks Kim may be female?

Anyway, she talks about the success of Ubuntu and then rants about long manuals. The Ubuntu Guide is the easiest manual I've ever seen!

http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktop.php

If I had one cent every time an article with this kind of title appears, I'd be richer than Mr. Gates

I agree with most of his points.

Here's my summary of what Linux needs:

hardware support/update/maintenance -
This needs to be able to be done by
any 'disciple'. If a particular hardware
is not supported, there should be a one-
click update or help page that describes
how to fix this; WITHOUT USING A TERMINAL
TO HACK-FIX IT.

uniformity -
Applications need to work in a similar
predictable manner. Custom skins and
custom functionality breaks 'disciples'
becoming accustomed to general useage.

convergence -
All these various applications that all
do the same thing (KDE/GNOME etc) are
counter-productive to 'disciple'
acceptance.

intuitive -
Applications that describe what they do
(XMMS vs Media Player?).

simple -
GUI-configuration driven for 'disciples',
with terminal options for geeks or,
preferably, advanced options in GUI.


compilation -
Compiling apps for your system? What am
I a developer or something? Linux needs
to be less kernel version-dependent for
drivers/apps. Linux should release
service packs that have base libs - apps
developed against those, and if lib not
included in SP, included as part of
source build/release app.

I have never encountered any of those problems. I've tried several times to get people to switch to Linux, and the problem is always the same--Drivers. Usually wireless network drivers. They just aren't there, and these days what good is a computer that you can't connect to the internet? I've tried the standard solutions for these...the universal drivers, the programs that run windows drivers...but I've never managed to get one to work. I mean, I'm not an uber-geek, but even with help from mandrakeusers.org I couldn't get this damn thing figured out. I think next time I have to do this for myself (which will be pretty soon probably) I'm just gonna use another computer on windows to bridge the wireless to normal ethernet...easier that way...
But seriously...if we had some driver support, we'd have more people...that and games and/or decent emulators. Cedega, Wine, and Crossover Office just don't cut it from my experience...

in short; i would be a total linux user if:
1.i had support for my lexmark all in one, kooka nor xsane work with the scanner.
2.music production suites, ardour is not in the running with cakewalk sonar.

I use open office and it is just as good as office xp,this is on a windows xp machine.
I have ubuntu installed on another partition and have tried most other distros.
if it wasn't for the printer scanner issue linux would be my main os, only using windows for my music production software.

I have personally asked a 100 people over the years: "what do you consider market share "
I got 100 different answers.

I usual ask them, if they think that Windows is so much better than Linux, I get an answer like: Yes, yes, ofcourse. Windows is very good. bla bla bla.
So, I asked, did you pay the licence to microsoft for the OS.(..... silence)
Did you pay the licence for office xxx (.....silence )
Did you pay for A
Did you pay for B,
etc. etc. ( lots and lots of silence )
Next question. If the Government would FORCE you to choose between Linux and Paying the licence to MS, what would you do ?
2 seconds silence only.
We will use Linux ofcourse !!
So, as far as the *majority* is concerned ........the cheapest is good enough and ready for the desktop.
And market share ......hmmm....very debatable

Not another Linux on the Desktop article... or should I say 'OSX' on Linux Article.

Get over it, and buy a mac if you're so much of a fan.

Again, stop asking linux on desktops. Linux is a server OS.

Try ReactOS instead !

www.reactos.org

From the article:

"Linux also needs to leave behind their ubergeek image. Configuration panels are there for disciples, not the geeks. So don't confront them with options that they would never set. Simply because as soon as one knows what the option is for, one would already have reached such a high level of experience with this operating system that one would be able to simply alter the desired files directly. So keep it simple and stupid."

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. Being something of a "disciple" myself (perhaps bordering on "geek"), and coming from the Windows world, I much prefer GUI interfaces, even for arcane settings. Put it in an "Advanced" tab or button, fine, but I'll take a well-organized GUI control panel interface over a bunch of arcane text-file syntaxes in a convoluted variety of obscure files and directories any day.

The tools are there (YaST and SaX in Suse come to mind), they just need to break out of their distro-specific roles and start being used as standards across multiple distros.

These kind of articles are doing the best thing for Linux.Something that Windows have : advertising. Lot of it.
Wether Linux is good for desktop or not is less important.People start hearing about something else.And humans have one habbit : curiosity.
One day they will check,just for the sake of it and because IT'S FREE, a Linux distro and ,as expected,some will stick with it,some will threw it away.
I would say let them come.Maybe not at this pace,but once a month maybe.Big guys (MS,Apple) they know the potential of Linux (on the desktop as well).
Is for that they are founding these "independent" reviews.But the only thing they do is make people aware that THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE.
And that is important.

Sigh. I've heard the "Linux needs to unify and stop reinventing the wheel to be worth a darn" argument so many times. It seems quite compelling at first glance, and I have no doubt there is some truth to it.

But let's use the same argument to study if human beings are ready to do international (and sometimes even interstate) interaction: "Different people from different countries speak different languages, write using different alphabets with the letters going sometimes left to right, sometimes right to left, sometimes top to bottom. They drive on different sides of the road, eat different foods, and have different customs and cultures.

Quite plainly all this is going to make international commerce and collaboration impossible. People need to unify. We must throw out every language in the world except one, every alphabet except one, every group of ethnic foods except one, and every culture and set of customs except one. We must all drive on the same side of the road, have the same speed limits, and listen to the same music. Only by doing this will people be able to understand one another and get ahead".

See the problem here? Linux, like human culture and language, evolves at the whim of the participants, not at the point of a gun held by a dictator. That means splintering, parallel evolution, duplication of efforts, and lots of redundancy are inevitable. That hasn't turned out to be disastrous for global business or collaboration, and I don't think its going to be disastrous for Free and Open Source software.

See, Free really means free - people get to do what they want, not what they're forced to do. Shocking, isn't it?

-Gnobuddy

Well..... i still like windows,linux on desktop
or not

There is nothing more integrated in this world than KDE and its apps. Period. I´m sorry.... There is not, no matter how you look into it.

Apple comes close but even they have been abusing their HIG lately (A wise choice IMHO since the HIG should be more of a set of guidelines than a set of rules. Yeah Apple... Go ahead and change it whenever it makes sense.).

why did the author have to wait until the last paragraph before he nailed his windows fanboy flag onto the mast... he could have stated it right at the start and saved me some time.

to the author... you are 20 years old, come back and give us your thoughts when you have had at least 15 years experience working with systems, like the "vast majority" of regular users here.

He quotes KDE and Gnome as bad ideas for Linux ? He thinks lots of distros is a bad idea ?

hmmmm... Ubuntu is a distro that targets people mioving from Windows. It has a predefined selection of apps, and ONE desktop, GNOME
Sun Java Desktop, it has a predefined selection of apps, and ONE desktop, also Gnome
Novell Desktop, it has a predefined selection of apps, and ONE desktop, emmm, Gnome too
Can you see a pattern here ?

But what nearly made me choke on my coffee was that statement that Windows has been making vast improvements compared to Linux which has only been making small steps..... have you actually had a look at a linux man ?

> What a fuck is your problem with autopackage? You
> don't like it? Then don't use it! You want to
> promote other, then do it. Fuck face.

You seem to be embarrassing yourself in the public with this kind of statement and attack. I don't have any problems with autopackage, I only have a problem to READ everywhere about it even in articles not related to it. It's like someone would write about pizza boxes and someone shows up and write 'hey have you tried autopackage'. I find this quite annoying and wrong. This article was all about Desktop Linux and not about autopackage. If that guy is such a fanboy of autopackage, then why not writing a new article just about it and have it published here, so people who don't give a damn for it can skip it and read the realy interesting things.

Well, Caesar died two thousand years before and in the meantime other strategies were developed that are at least as successfull.

If your oponent wants to conquer you with caesars strategy, the right thing to do is probably to fight a partisan or guerilla war.
Devide your own troops into very little forces, that your openent has no more substantial targets to attack.


MS-Word and Excell are rock solid Applications, no doubt. It is hard to believe that launching an attacking on those mighty armies will result in a victory for OSS. (Caesar would never attack such armies anytime sooner, than having successfully conquered all the remaining forces.)

That beeing said, the community shouldn't focus on "Linux on the Desktop", because the "desktop" is the big and mighty army of the enemy. Attacking the desktop is like rallying all your forces and attacking all the forces the enemy rallied so far. This would end up in a big and mighty clash with all forces of both sides. This isn't what caesar strategy is.

The question is, how to devide the three big enemy forces, that build the heart of the desktop (Windows, Word and Excel.)

Let's concentrate on single smaller Apps (like Firefox, Thunderbird, video- and music-players, p2p-apps) or even just very little things like RSS-feeds, blogs and blogcasting, adblock, firewalls and so on.
Pretty much anything that makes "good user experience" and lacks goot user experience in the opponents ranks will do.

Innovation with "big killer-apps" almost seems to be impossible nowadays, not even big companies are able to innovate a single new "big thing". The small things are, what gives the "drive" these days ... and that certainly is something, where those widespread OSS guerillias can score all lot.

Any attempt to create a "desktop" shouldn't focus on the (buisiness) office, it should concentrate on the home users desktop.
Remind yourself what people want to do at home ... surfing, watching video, listen music, teaching their children something (that includes gaming to some extent, but a gaming-platform can be considered a whole big topic/army of its own, nothing to launch a big attack right now.) ... and don't forget the most generalized but as well the most important part ... communicating with releatives, friends other people.

These are the things, where the enemy forces are devided and where OSS can achieve a lot of victories not the "office desktop" an not the "gaming-platform".

But as always, 2 people with 4 opinions.

why do you windows fanboys always bring up marketshare ?
can you not understand that you cannot judge the uptake of a system which can be given away as a FREE download against something that has to be payed for ?

Linux marketshare is miniscule if you judge it on sales from RedHat, SuSe, Xandros etc etc.. add them together and you have a larger marketshare.... so what ?

how many people who actually use linux bought it ?

most... sorry, to use the example of the article....

the "vast majority" of linux users, download a free version...

if there was a count of linux users, then these windows fanboys would need to think again about this marketshare.


retards

> get the fuck out of my face

You should increase your rhetorical skills if you want to deal with us here budd... Look at your users page. You managed to write 5 comments where 1 of them already got modded down.

Autopackage has nothing to do with Linux on the Desktop. It is a packaging solution like rpm or deb and goes far beyond the Desktop. The article here speaks about the Desktop and Desktop related issues.

Budd, we do feel sorry for you. I think your parents do so as well.

The number one reason I always go back to Windows is that it runs better and is more responsive.

I have no problem installing Linux and its applications, I can live will trawling forums for obscure fixes to get it initially working.

But I can’t live with every distribution running at half the speed of XP. They all boot slower, programs load slower and worst of all the screen has terrible sluggish redraw. Nothing’s instant and snappy.

The one exception is Gentoo, but compiling stuff for hours really isn’t practical.

> I have no problem installing Linux and its
> applications, I can live will trawling forums for
> obscure fixes to get it initially working.

I assume you got introduced to the wrong Desktop by some friends or through magazines when you first met Linux. Most people I know are trying to get new people on Linux by promoting them GNOME and using arguments like "look how cool all is" and then, as you clearly seem to realized, after deeper investigations it turned out to be not as good as it was introduced to you or promoted to you.

Therefore I'd like to recommend you to give KDE 3.4.1 a try if, you feel home quite fast and you will even figure out that things are working much better and more reliable. After a while you realize how consistent things are and how polished everything looks and that things play together quite nicely. You even might come to the conclusion that it's even far better than WindowsXP.

My personal experience is that people are right when they say "Linux is not ready for the Desktop" and I don't blame them either, they only got introduced to the very wrong Desktop when they first met with Linux. Linux indeed is ready for the Desktop and was so some years ago, it only depends on the Desktop you are using. Personally I believe that all GNOME related Distributions (Luckely a few only) are not doing anything good to the overall Linux movement or Desktop acceptance.

When I am reading some of these comments from people that defend Linux, I cannot help but feel some pity for some of them.
I am not sure how many people realize that Linux is a philosophy of life to many people. These people will often be anti_Microsoft, anti-large corporations, anti-right, in short: power to the people!
These people will not be helped with common sense because they need much more to change their life-style.
I bought Suse Linux 9.1 and ran into many problems (could not install together with XP, bootloader issues, hardware recognition, etc.). That alone puts people off.
Also, KDE and Gnome are nowhere near XP and Mac. OpenOffice looks terrible, most software looks outdated, not to mention the file system labyrinth, software installation difficulty, kernel bugs, etc.
I am a big supporter of Linux, I also try to give feedback on forums, but, hey, let them get their act together! If they don't unite, they will come to the level of XP long after Longhorn.
Kind regards,
Cheski
jbfrank@yahoo.com

> most software looks outdated, not to mention the
> file system labyrinth, software installation
> difficulty, kernel bugs, etc.

That's Windows you describe here.

IMHO there are Problems in linux.

#1 Drivers. ( Digital Photography, Camcoders, Scanners )
I bought a ZYX Digital camera, pluged it in. Nothing Happened.. I found out that XYZ software didn't support that cammera.

I think that there must be an [LGPL?] interface of somewhat, so Binary drivers could link against the kernel, maybe run in userspace so thay would not easely crash the kernel.

#2 Package managment.
DEB, RPM, TGZ etc... 1. They are confusing. 2. They are not easy to use.

Again IMHO i think that all distros must use somewhat like autopackage for applications ( think Firefox, Gaim, OOo) so those aupopackages would be compatible across distros, and use internal packagers ( RMPS, DEBS) for the system ( think libs, command line utils etc...). So the distros would be somewhat devided into a SYSTEM ( normal package managment) and applications ( AUTOPACKAGE?)

P.S. yes apt-get smart or emerge are easier than the windows way of installing packages [esp. with things like synaptic and yum].
But tell that to an average joe user.

emerge =dev-libs/app-special-1.0.xyz.b9 ?

the way for the joe user - emerge bells-and-wisteles ( synaptic comes in here nicely -- search by name and description, don't know about smart or yum here...)

Personally i like the Gentoo way of packaging

#3 Applications.
People dont want to learn something new, they want their Photoshop, Their Dreamweaver, their Winamp.
YES, there are replacements for those apps, but 1. People are to stupid to read that GIMP is an Imaging Program and XMMS is just like WinAMP. They are used to old names. 2. I still can't find a replacement for AutoCad with full dwg support etc... ( and no, those Intellicads that run under wine are not a replacement)

#4 Lack of education.
People in schools are using M$ software, so they DONT know how to use other software... again People don't buy OS' they buy computers with those OS'. ( and yes pre-installed computers with linux would help a lot). In the near ( optimistic ) future, when most of the schools will use FOSS software, things will change dramaticaly.


About me: Happy linux user since... err 1999 i think.
Current OS - Gentoo Linux 2005.0

> People in schools are using M$ software, so they
> DONT know how to use other software...

I find your explaination quite irritating. People do know it, if not today then they will one day. How did you get to the level you are now ? Got the golden spoon pulled up your ass ? Do you think you are something special than others because you claim the right to say the others don't know anything but you do ? People all started somewhere and went through the process of evolution. They want to know more and one day reach the level of experience. Sure there are older people these days, moms, dads, grandparents who might have issues with the technology but the new generation of upcoming kids will grow up with these technology and know stuff. Even nowadays I detect people to be far more experienced than I am because they are younger, know more buzzwords than I do. But still I manage my way through Linux (as I did since 1996) and I still doing fine, knowing quite a lot and every day my knowledge increases.

I didn't bother reading the article because as many said, there are so many out there, most saying the same things. But what is ridiculous is the comments people are leaving. I wish you could all read this as an outside person and realize moronic we're all being. Christ I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Windows forums are more civilzed.

With that said, this is my take on why Linux has issues in the Desktop market.

The best thing about Linux is: choice
The worst thing about Linux is: choice

Things seem to be getting better in this department. Yay, freedesktop.org.

Ask yourself this: How many times have you been called in to fix/install etc... things on your uncles/grandmas etc. WINDOWS machine.. (my guess is a lot since the 'geek' of the family usually maintains the windows machines..or OS X machines for that matter)

Then ask yourself this: If HP etc, sold PC's with presinstalled and configured Linux how many people would be using linux today?

you think it has any thing to do with 'readyness' for the desktop? driver support? easy of use?, you think that's air you're breathing?

Show me your kung fu and stop falling of the skyscraper

Before you say the word "invented", make sure there is official history to prove your point:

[quote]
Caesar was saying when he invented the very successful strategy of "Divide and Conquer"
[/quote]

Julius Caesar was 100-44BC, where in China, there is a book that you can buy it, it's called "Suen Zhe Bing Fa", it contains 13 major military strategies where this "Divide and Conquer" was only one of the minor rule under one of this 13 major military strategies. This book was written at least 1000BC and before. You might say that I have no proof of that but you can buy this book on the market and it has all the history about it. Before this strategy book, there were still many of intelligent military strategies in chinese history but since these books were burned during one of the empire(800BC-300BC), there is really no proof so I don't wanna mention it at all.

No offense but please make sure that you check the history before you say the word "invented" next time.

with linux the only driver i installed is nvidia... with windows, i need to install via, nvidia, scsi, scanner, apn driver...

stop to fud and try linux

"Linux kiddies can whine all they want, the reality is that their desktop dream seems to be getting screwed day by day. "

~~~ faairy dust ~~~
~~~~~fairy dust ~~~~
~~~~~fairy dust ~~~~~
my dream has become reality and my reality a dream... linux on MY desktop....

sorry not screwed....thanks anyway...

JT

Linux is definitely not user friendly .. for people with little computer experience. I am getting tired of having to make entries in FSTAB so it will recognize all the partitions.
I am also tired of having to go through the xfree setup to get it just right.
The fonts still hurt my eyes... and yes they have improved significantly but they still are not up to par with the windows fonts.
I am also tired of having to add newly installed programs to the gnome menu manually.. why can't they just show up in the gnome menu like windows newly installed programs..
I know KDE has kappfinder.. but half the distros I know don't include that anymore...
The OSX gui speed and fonts are the best unix has to offer. Linux can get there too.. but that is what the article is about.. how to get developers realize this and get something started.
I understand that a lot of people are frustrated with these "improve linux" articles.. but these discussions are needed to get things moving.

Here's what desktop Linux needs:

better driver support in certain areas (wifi, usb, scanners)

noob version of synaptic for super-dumb package installation

gnome needs an official menu editor

distros should come with better media codec and java vm support (free and non-free)

dependency handling across both the .deb and .rpm worlds

wider use of autopackage

There ... let's focus on some specific, realistically attainable items.

" file system labyrinth"
linux i save something to my "home" folder
/home/guest1
windows i save to my desktop
C:Documents and SettingsAdministratorMy Documents

not much of a labyrinth to me... yes linux is a bit more flat and spread out...just different not bad. You wanna see a real mess take a look in your winnt folder then take a dip in the system32 folder.... now that is a mess!
------------
"I am getting tired of having to make entries in FSTAB so it will recognize all the partitions."

uh, how many times have you done this?this should be a set it once and forget it.... Most distros do this or give you the option to set this up anwyay...

So windows sets up access to all your partitions... strange because mine doesnt in fact mine cannot even access some of my partitions...

--------
JT
feeling flaming today

better driver support in certain areas (wifi, usb, scanners)

>>>> so petition lexmark and all those crappy companies, if they chose to NOT support windows then would everyone BLAST windows for not having support? nah didnt think so...


noob version of synaptic for super-dumb package installation
>>>i thought synaptic was the noob edition how much easier can it get.... guess i need to bring my oneclick installer back out of the closet

gnome needs an official menu editor
>>>true and i think they have been blasted with this numerous times... how hard is it to create a shortcut on your desktop tho or even add it to your taskbar

distros should come with better media codec and java vm support (free and non-free)
>>>people should not be willing to use propritary formats and as soon as free alternatives exist they will be installed... I personally do not bother with most of that stuff.... Second it isnt that hard for a distro to write a little script with a shortcut on the desktop that says "click here to isntall XYZ" and then away it goes...

dependency handling across both the .deb and .rpm worlds
>>i personally think debs rock and rpms suck BUT I do think it would be fairly trivial to make a system handle both fairly well... I mean the rpm tool is installed on most debian based systems and I have used it numerous times to install a package if I really needed it... but yea, probably would be a good idea... then again maybe not! How about the installed system being a normal install and anything a user wants to download and use being a monolithic application with all the requirements rolled into it.... no dpeendency issues at all...

wider use of autopackage
>>no solution is 100% perfect and neither will be autopackage be.... different problems, some would say better, some would say otherwise...

JT
posting like a madman!

Having completely ditched windows for ubuntu. I can tell you what the biggest help was to switching. for me, it was ubuntu forums. I would still be using windows if not for those forums.

The people on the forums helped me learn quite a bit, there are a few fundamental differences between linux and windows, and the forums helped me understand them. They also helped me get pieces of hardware working like my wacom tablet. They also helped me find pieces of software i needed, games and other tools. After about a month i felt comfortable enough with linux to ditch windows entirely. I'm quite happy with ubuntu

Is it the fault of Linux that vendors dont supply linux drivers?, no.

Lets take cameras, applications like gphoto have 600 cameras supported, in SuSE you just plug it in and konqueror file manager loads up with your pictures. I dont see Windows doing that as you need a third part app to use it. In SP2 it desides to open explorer up automaticly just like HAL does in Linux, MS copying there.

It's also true that the Longhorn Control Center looks very close the Mandrakes Drak and have they ever heard of YaST in SuSE?.

The fact os that people just dont explore what you can do in the Linux desktops proper, they assume it works like Windows and when it dont wonder where the fuctionally is. There is alot of issues with usablility in Windows where GNOME/KDE win hands down, and I've not seen one artical here where is shows kde/gnome features that show just how good they are compared to Windows.

in just about every (what i see as unbias) study that i have seen where to completely computer illiterate people were put on both windows and good linux noob friendly desktops (suse, Mandrake, xandros, etc..) people generally catch on to them both at about the same speed, some think windows is a bit easier, some think linux is a bit easier

My point is... the reason linux is so fricken hard for windows users to handle is not because it is harder to use but because it is different,

there are always growing pains when moving to something different...

I have friends who use OSX and think windows is the hardest os to use in the fricken world

friends who use windows and think linux and osx are just as hard

and yes.... I myself find linux easier than windows.. why?.... because it is what i have become accustomed to.

two.... not to lol

"This is actually dependancy handling between different OS you're asking for : impossible. "

why do you consider this impossible? as long as the tool knows where to look for dependencies then it should not be a problem at all...now different distros putting things in different places could be a problem but then again nothing says you cant have the same thing in two places... not wise but should be doable... or a symlink...

the biggest problem is getting your apt/tool to realize what has been installed with the rpm/tool but if that is ONEtool that is used for both and can figure out how to keep track of everything then it shouldnt be a problem either....

now if a distro makes a package that relies specifically on their version of a package then that could be a problem but could be worked around...

> http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/ OMG
> they are already at 2.0 !! Which just shows as
> uninformed you are
>
> http://freedesktop.org/ OMG !!!
>
> Clueless morons wanting to argue what they don't
> know about ...

I think the one who don't know about is you. GNOME has a hig, fine. But you can't compare the GNOME hig, which of course is a nightmare for all developers, to the hig offered by microsoft. The latter one has professionals and paid people working on it. The first one was mainly done by 2-3 SUN employees and a handful of volunteers as you can see in the writers appendix. With GNOME everyone became a HIG expert over night, an usability expert over night, an expert in marketing over night etc. So I don't put my money into something or simply narrowmindly follow something just because it has been written down by someone.

Oh and why did you mention freedesktop.org ? It's NO standards declaring place as you can read on the frontpage, it's a place where developers from different desktops met, talk, trying to work out some solutions, most of the time they don't agree on everything and sometimes they do agree on some small specs to some degree.....

> The people on the forums helped me learn quite a
> bit, there are a few fundamental differences
> between linux and windows, and the forums helped me
> understand them. They also helped me get pieces of
> hardware working like my wacom tablet. They also
> helped me find pieces of software i needed, games
> and other tools. After about a month i felt
> comfortable enough with linux to ditch windows
> entirely. I'm quite happy with ubuntu

Nice try for getting your UBUNTU evangelism up here. But said that, UBUNTU is not Linux, UBUNTU is a distribution based upon debian. In case the people from those forums forgot to tell you. But then I wonder why they told you to use the broken GNOME Desktop it's totally inferior to what you used before - Windows.

> True, KDE and Gnome are way ahead of WinXP. To tell
> the truth, when WinXP came, it already ripped off
> some features of Gnome and KDE.

While I agree that KDE is ahead of WinXP I otoh disagree that Gnome is ahead of WinXP. Gnome is quite broken to be ahead of anything and even Owen Taylor GTK+ lead developer confirmed that Gnome is nowhere near to Windows (be it any version) and he even stepped so much back that he saw KDE as the real competition rather than Windows.

Reading the article, as well as many of the comments, I'm struck by how much mis-information about Linux on the desktop there is out there.

Stuff like driver support, file system completxity, software installation, desktop environment, etc, are all very, very easy with Linux these days.

Any of the stuff that the anti-Linux trolls (or the paid MS astroturfers) keep complaining about is easily solved, or is a non-exisitent problem, if they would simply use a newbie friendly, desktop oriented distro like SimplyMepis, Linspire, Xandros, or Mandriva.

These distros have extremely easy installations, super easy software installation (Linspire's Click-n-Run Warehouse is especially easy, Xandros networks is great, Synaptic in Mepis is awesome, and RPMDrake in Mandriva rocks) programs, easy GUI config tools, well configured, attractive, easy KDE desktops, huge hardware driver support, media codecs supported out of the box, Java, Real player, flash supported out of the box, and tons of great software.

Now, if the trolls try to use Gentoo, Slackware, LFS, Arch, or pure Debian, then some of the complaints hold weight (those distros are hands-on, techie oriented distros for enthusiasts or pros who like the command line). Even distros like Fedora or Ubuntu, while very easy, require some downloading and minor tweaking to get media codecs, Java, Nvidia drivers, etc working.

But if one goes for the newbie friendly, desktop oriented like SimplyMepis, Xandros, Linspire, or Mandriva, one will have as easy of a computing experience as there is out there. That is a fact.

I am a fulltime Linux user and have been Windows free (at home) for 2 years. I will give my honest opinions on this, but first, I have to pick at something in this article.

"Linux has not made any advancements when you compare it to Windows. Windows has gone forward with leaps and bounds towards becoming a secure and productive system. Linux hasn't made such advancements."

Ok, so Windows has become so secure and Linux has not been advancing. Sorry to tell you, but Windows is catching up, so I'd expect nothing less from a multi-billion dollar company to make "leaps and bounds" to catch up. How long has linux come with a firewall in the majority of distros? How about windows? Linux does not need to make leaps and bounds if you are comparing to the security advancements of windows.


Anyway, not all is good in Penguinland. I do feel that there are good reasons that linux doesn't have a place in many homes. On my laptop, I can get linux up and running with wireless and all faster than windows. RPM's (I use Mandriva) and URPMI make installing some software easier than windows. I have never opened up a list of software to install, checked a box for a program I don't even have on hand, and simply clicked install to get the OS to download and install it for me in windows. I know that it can be done through add/remove programs, but you have to setup each package you want to be able to install like that to be in the list. Using URMPI, they are all there, and ready to go. Spyware and viruses are also minimal in linux (and this would likely change if linux became market dominate). But there is still the software out there that requires compiling, hardware that doesn’t work so well, and a huge market of windows software in local retail stores. These are all reasons that linux doesn’t quite fit the bill of desktop software for everyone. For those who don’t mind compiling software and have the patience to make that unsupported hardware work, the rewards are wonderful. For everyone else, the reward of convenience and simplicity from windows is greater.

How long will we these articles keep being posted here? Why are there no similiar pieces about BSD, Zeta or other newer operating systems? Is this just fun for OSnews mods to post these? How many times must we go over and over the same arguments on this topic?

On the spot for the most of the stuff. However, I don't agree on a few items.

One of them is internationalization. My native language is Swedish, probaly spoken by a lot less people than Dutch and I must say the translation is very good. Usually much better than what you find in product from a certain Redmond company. Linux is also translated to a lot of minority languages for which Microsoft offer no translations at all.

Another area where I don't agree is the matter of integration. Look at KDE it is one of the most integrated software system I know, parts are very much reused. To help the situation furter Linux have things like HAL and D-BUS. Some improvement in this respect could be made in Gnome. There are too many applications that look like Gnome apps but in reality only or mostly relys on gtk++. Still the situation is not worse than in windows where varios version not always work all that well together.

Of course a Linux user will always have the freedom to make his desktop as unintegrated as he wants, but if you install something from one of the major distros integration will be just fine.

Then what do you think is required to brig linux more popular than windows on desktop

preinstalled is a biggie

used/taught in schools is a biggie

education about the dangers of propriatary software

Like some of the early posts, I am not interested in reading the same thing over and over again (why did I bother with this article?).

Your forums are the place for this sought of correspondence.

What I think is of more importance is what's happening to OSNews.com? This is one of my three daily 'must read' sites. More and more it is letting standards slip (like this article which is badly written and promises to be contraversial and then says nothing). I think you need to lift your game.

Regards,
Peter

I have two of my family using gnome, my mum how is 50 and my uncle is 46 and both use gnome. They used to use Windows and find daily tasks easy in gnome, such BS about Linux desktop not being user friendly.The fact that we are having this debate is testement to just how far Linux desktops have come. It also seems that people see them as a threat by the crap remarks people here and the artical say.

Linux distributions like Mandriva and SuSE are very easy to install, but with windows it's slightly easier because it dont sercure the OS, i.e Administrator as default. Also Linux installs much faster even with 3 Gb worth of software (approx 35Mins on a Celeron 566Mhx/320Mb ram)

Linux are lusers!

I think that Linux needs a single desktop environment. Granted, it's fun to mess around with Gnome, KDE, XFCE4, etc, but there really needs to be a single desktop environment where developers can say "Okay, we are developing for THIS desktop. Period." Same deal with the toolkits. Decide on GTK or QT and just drop the others. There needs to be consistentcy.

I am not sure what the solution is, but honestly I think the only way this will ever all come together is if you have a major company, like IBM for instance, have it's own flavor of Linux to complete directly with Windows. Some platform where developers will program FOR IT and it only -- "Sorry we only support IBM Linux/2". This will force other distributions to follow suit in order to remain compatible.

I love Linux, but it's way too fragmented right now. There needs to be ONE supported distribution and forget the others.

I had this same arguement (before reading this article) with a "linux geek" co-worker of mine. We both got involved in Unix with HP-UX 8 back in the late 90's, he's become a Linux geek, and I ran away from it after the frustration of the learning curve.

Lately I decided to give it another try (on his recommendation) and found that the learning curve really hasn't changed.

Until people are able to run it "out of the box" and find someone to help them easily, Linux won't make any REAL desktop penetration. The geeks will continue to run it and claim it's great, but the masses aren't going to come running.