Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:35 UTC, submitted by PapaPitufo
Linux Asa Dotzler, from the Mozilla foundation, has just written an interesting analysis describing why Linux is not ready for desktops yet, and suggests four main categories that must be addressed to improve this.
Order by: Score:
Oh no!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Now that is an article that will result in a thread with a well known typical "arguments" in posts.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Oh no!
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:02 UTC in reply to "Oh no!"
tool
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This guy is a tool.

He basically wants Gnome/Gnu/Linux to be a Windows clone.

Apparently Macs are not ready for the desktop, because they don't do anything he talks about either.

Reply Score: 4

RE: tool
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:50 UTC in reply to "tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Apparently Macs are not ready for the desktop, because they don't do anything he talks about either.

Excuse me, but aside from the migration issue (which is novel), what do Macs not do?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: tool
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE: tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

sometimes irony and second degree are hard to perceive....

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: tool
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There was no irony there.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: tool
by Best on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE: tool"
Best Member since:
2005-07-09

At the very least, Macs have that horrendous "buttons reversed" problem that we all know is the most serious UI flaw in the whole of linux.

sigh...

Reply Score: 1

RE: tool
by pphahnl on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:14 UTC in reply to "tool"
pphahnl Member since:
2005-07-06

One of his points is that you have to reduce complexity in order to attract users. And that's one thing the Mac OS (Classic and X) does.
But it's a fact that Linux has to become simpler - period. A simple user doesn't want to fiddle with the command line or compilers. It's important that his new software he loaded from the internet just works (tm) without resorting to obscure repositories or 'apt-get upgrade install' commands.
The non-geek owns a computer to get some work done, not to fiddle with its innards. That's a point many 'Linux is ready for the prime time'-zealots ignore.

Reply Score: 2

RE: tool
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:05 UTC in reply to "tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hear yee, hear yee

I'm so sick of this phrase "Linux not ready" Gimme a stinkin' break!!!! I've used linux for 7 years, and even stopped using Win4Lin. My wife and kids are using Linux (on different machines)- We are safe and do not need any bloated SW to secure our system.

IS WINDOWS ready for the desktop???? Take away the Windows driver support from Hardware manufacturers, and what do you have left?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: tool
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So you have been using linux for 7 years. I have been using it for over 10 years. Sure Linux is easy for us. The real question comes when your wife and kids want new software do they go to you to install it? Linux is easy for the common person while there is a Linux administrator ready to handle the jobs when it gets tough.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: tool
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem is my friends, will call me to install windows apps too. Application installation isn't a problem, nor is driver installation. Most of my friends will not install a driver even if the installation process is to push next, next, next. Well, in fact, they even don't know what a driver is.
Don't think Windows is easy to use. I see it everyday.

Reply Score: 0

RE: tool
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 06:01 UTC in reply to "tool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

That's right! Don't you get it? Not everybody has the skills you do! I have tried many different distributions; non recognise my Canon lazer printer, one recognises and configures my winmodem, half can't recognise my Sony memory stick, and all seem to recognise my ADSL connection.

What's the average user supposed to make of that? Just use linux for web surfing via adsl and all will be well.

PJA

Reply Score: 0

v Enough!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:40 UTC
RE: Enough!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:45 UTC in reply to "Enough!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How come it's not enough for Eugenia.

Eugenia?

Anyway, this is an interesting article because it's written by a prominent in the Mozilla foundation. *That's* why this is interesting.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Enough!
by The Baron on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Enough!"
The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom,

Eugina is the Karl Rove of OS News. It doesn't even matter iif she's not involved anymore, if someone doesn't like something it will be her fault.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Enough!
by Spike on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Enough!"
RE[2]: Enough!
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Enough!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Just because it's from some guy at Mozilla.org doesn't merit publication here. You have to use more criteria than "some fool @ IBM,SCO,etc" has decided to rant about Linux on the desktop. How about actually reading the article first, deciding if it is worthy of publishing here, and then if worthy, publishing.

Reply Score: 0

v Oh my...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:42 UTC
Already posted!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And how many times do we have to see these articles? Linux will never be ready for everyones desktop but modern distros are far more capable for general desktop usage than XP is for the average person.

Besides Windows XP / NT 5.X is not ready for: the server, the appliance, the car, the handheld, the tivo etc..

Reply Score: 4

RE: Already posted!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:53 UTC in reply to "Already posted!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

His arguments are mute, Gedit is not a notepad clone it does A LOT more. If you want a GTK2 notepad clone then Leafpad is for you. Hunting down software on download.com is harder for new users than using Synaptic/Yumi/Porthole. Windows is not the pinnacle of ergonomics or usability that he claims either (sorry neither is MacOS X, but it is better in some ways) infact nothing is ideal. Gnome is heading in the right direction. Longhorn's UI is like Windows XP except more options, smaller and harder to hit window borders, and too much transparency! (never thought I'd say that) But it is pretty and shinny so I guess that's all that matters... Point and drool.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Already posted!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Already posted!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

yes, gnome is ready for the desktop, except when you want to see hidden files an directories without googling half an hour to see comment in some mailing telling that you don't have to see the files you choose to hide...

yeah, gnome is ready, sure. I love seeing weird error about some gconf process not able to connect to some corba server like this morning...

Pffff, gnome... why not asking if gem was ready for the desktop ? the answer would be "yes, of course, 10 years ago I was able to do much more than gnome in 256k of rom)

I know, i know, some guys will bashing my post but since helix gnome, i think it's getting nowhere....
and don't tell me I don't use it every day, I do and since 1998. maybe I should give kde a try but I don't like its general way to behave...

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Already posted!
by GhePeU on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Already posted!"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

yes, gnome is ready for the desktop, except when you want to see hidden files an directories without googling half an hour to see comment in some mailing telling that you don't have to see the files you choose to hide...

View -> Show Hidden Files or press Ctrl+H

moron

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Already posted!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Already posted!"
RE[2]: Already posted!
by Matzon on Thu 21st Jul 2005 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Already posted!"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

"His arguments are mute, Gedit is not a notepad clone it does A LOT more. If you want a GTK2 notepad clone then Leafpad is for you."
Not really an argument when it isn't in a distro - is it ?
At least it isn't in Fedora Core, the most widely used distro (afaik).

That GEdit does a lot more than Notepad, doesn't change the fact that its perceived as the "standard" text editor, as Notepad is on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Already posted!
by altair on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:20 UTC in reply to "Already posted!"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

Besides Windows XP / NT 5.X is not ready for: the server, the appliance, the car, the handheld, the tivo etc..

Have you actually tried using linux on a pda? It's awful! Windows is much better for PDAs since it's more stable, comes with more programs, etc.

Also I tried setting up mythtv on linux and had so much trouble. I had to download the newest drivers and compile them then I had to reisntall qt since it didn't have mysql support, then the remote didn't work.

Installed windows xp and sagetv and everything worked beautifully.

Reply Score: 1

Make your comments useful
by kvaruni on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:49 UTC
kvaruni
Member since:
2005-06-29

Lately, a lot of articles have appeared concerning Linux on the desktop. This simply means that people are starting to get interested in it, but do hit some walls on their way.

Do not start to flood this comment section with countless useless comments like "here we go again" or "hell, linux is ready" or "hell, all other OSes suck". This is first of all not constructive and only fills up the space.

Do mind that what OS you use is merely based on personal preferences. For most users, this will be Windows, simply because they know it best and have worked with it their whole lives. Most users either used or have switched to OS X because they found it to be simpler, less restrictive or whatever reason that applies.

However, these articels all focus on people who move from either Windows or OS X to Linux. It is so fundamental to not critize on this with useless comments or simply state that Linux is never meant for the desktop or that Linux already is ready for the desktop. As these articles pop up, it is clear that people actually want to start using Linux as a desktop OS and that Linux is not yet (fully) ready. So read it, agree with it or not, and post some constructive comments but not the same old blatter that have been found in most the comment sections of all the latest articles on this topic.

Reply Score: 5

I disagree w/ the author
by polaris20 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:52 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE and Gnome aren't that difficult to figure out coming from Windows, no more so than going to OSX is. That's not the problem. Migration is difficult, but that's not what's holding it back either.

I think Linux will be ready for the desktop when major label software and hardware manufacturers are behind it as much as they are behind Windows or OSX.

I want a driver for my wireless card that I can easily download from Netgear's site, and run an rpm or shell script to install it. Not mess around with NDIS wrapper or other crap.

I want to walk into CDW and buy Photoshop for Linux. Tracktion for Linux. Reason for Linux. Dreamweaver for Linux.

Again: WINE is not only not an emulator, it's also not the answer.

I still cannot see why so many Linux fans are so content with pretty-close-to-Windows-originals of major software.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I disagree w/ the author
by jayc on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:06 UTC in reply to "I disagree w/ the author"
jayc Member since:
2005-07-06

I still cannot see why so many Linux fans are so content with pretty-close-to-Windows-originals of major software.

Probably because open source software can satisfy the needs of 90% of the people. I'd probably argue more than that really, but we're all just pulling these numbers from our butts in the end. ;)

Who are there more of? Advanced graphics artists who need a feature in Photoshop that GIMP doesn't have, or regular people at home wanting to fix up a picture?

Do you have more people creating Word-specific documents, or just doing general word processing or presentations? OpenOffice fits the bill here.

In places where Free software doesn't match feature-for-feature with the alternatives (and keep in mind sometimes it surpases) it satisfies the majority of users.

We'll let commercial vendors have the leftover 10% of the market.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I disagree w/ the author
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: I disagree w/ the author"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Probably because open source software can satisfy the needs of 90% of the people. I'd probably argue more than that really, but we're all just pulling these numbers from our butts in the end. ;)

Who are there more of? Advanced graphics artists who need a feature in Photoshop that GIMP doesn't have, or regular people at home wanting to fix up a picture?


I have to disagree. I'm a graphic designer myself and i have to say: unless you like corny liquify-level plugins, GIMP is just fine. A good idea can be made on it the same as in photoshop. What it still lack is CMYK support and 16-bit image editing. Now, i just edit in RGB and pass it through a plugin that separates in CMYK. Press employees love me, they dont even have to filter before offset printing.

What we still don't have is something like Reason, something like Avid Xpress. For the normal desktop user, it's just a matter of configuration not well polished.

People should see the .pbi format in PC-BSD... not even windows is so easy. Very few software so far, sadly. And it uses KDE as default. Good lord, KDE is a interface design most funny joke. (Sorry KDE developers, and if you're reading, take a look at other people's HIGs)

$.02

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: I disagree w/ the author
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE: I disagree w/ the author"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Where'd you get those numbers? 90% of computer docs are made in M$ Word. I can't even imagine using OpenOffice, tried it, after a day, I uninstalled it. It's bloated, slow, un-intuitive, and ugly. Especially in Windows. You don't see reality man. You're dreaming. Look at every computer you pass by, how many Linux-es eh? So Lusers, stop illusioning!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: I disagree w/ the author
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I disagree w/ the author"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I can't even imagine using OpenOffice, tried it, after a day, I uninstalled it

Grate. I've been using it even before it was 1.0. It rocks. Not "Bloated, slow, un-intuitive and ugly" at all. Try the latest version, even though it's beta still, it looks exceptionally good and promising...
If you don't like it, well, you can still go and cough up your 2000+ cents. Just don't waste them here writing FUD, please.

Reply Score: 0

RE: I disagree w/ the author
by klynch on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:14 UTC in reply to "I disagree w/ the author"
klynch Member since:
2005-07-06

You raise a valid point, but I think that things are getting better very quickly.

As far as drivers go, support is imporving because a lot of manufacturers/distributors are realizing the untapped market. I currently have a Linksys WiFi card that works flawlessly and an Intel wireless card that has support as well. As far as video cards go, I think nVidia and ATI need to step things up a bit (though they do have to work around X at the moment with a lot of things).

Software: Many vendors are moving towards Linux. Nero was released for Linux and so was acrobat reader. Very soon more software will be released.

And yes, I am content with mosto f the "pretty-close-to-Windows-originals" you mention mostly because I have no need for a lot of Windows software.

OpenOffice works for most of what I need (except for presentations).

I don't use PhotoShop (you don't want to see me draw).
I have no idea what Traktion is.
I would never be caught dead using Dreamweaver.

That's why I am content with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I disagree w/ the author
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:50 UTC in reply to "I disagree w/ the author"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Some of us also prefer open source programs for more iodeological reasons (standards compliance and open formats).

I'm willing to sacrifice a few features for the knowledge that anyone I give my documents to will not have to purchase a $200 office suite to be able to read or edit them.

Likewise, if Firefox is not quite as fast as IE, or lacks another feature IE has, I'll still choose Firefox because Mozilla chooses to build a standards-compliant browser.

Reply Score: 1

Linux
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In a way the writer is right. I have tried several main distros and in my opinion it is bloated. In order to get Dad to switch from windows to linux you have to make it easy. I also agree with him about the number of same kind of application. It has nothing to do with choice. Give them one application for the task. If they want choice and starting to feel comfortable they can go and download it. Also, I think one desktop is enough. Either use KDE or Gnome. People (except geeks) don't really care what it is called. They want it to work. Thats it. Thats my opinion and it doesn't mean I won't try linux again.

Reply Score: 1

He looks like Pitr!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 17:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

LOL! The author looks like Pitr from the www.userfriendly.com comic strips! Only Happier! ;)

Reply Score: 0

Hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

That you can't just downloading and installing a driver for your wlan card is not only the fault of your hardware vendor. The GPL makes it harder for hardware vendors to write drivers (and the missing stable binary ABI, as well). That means, to provide closed source drivers. The situation with open source drivers is ... well, you described it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hmm
by Lumbergh on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:30 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

The GPL makes it harder for hardware vendors to write drivers (and the missing stable binary ABI, as well). That means, to provide closed source drivers.

And therein lies the problem. The idea that all hardware manufacturers will open up their hardware specs, or write open source drivers is never going to happen. Realtek wrote a driver (closed source) for my wireless card for the 2.4.21 and below kernels and was supposed to write a driver for the 2.6.x kernels, but that never happened. Luckily ndispwrapper works fine, but the point is that there was a stable kernel ABI then these things wouldn't be a problem.

This could bode well for Solaris in the long run because it doesn't have a problem with closed-source drivers or little wrapper code ala Nvidia or ATI, and I believe has a stable kernel ABI.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by jayc on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
jayc Member since:
2005-07-06

And therein lies the problem. The idea that all hardware manufacturers will open up their hardware specs, or write open source drivers is never going to happen.

Seems to be working quite well right now. I'd say just about the only proprietary driver that really matters is the nvidia one because there is no good alternative. But Ubuntu, for example, ships it with the system so in that case users don't have to worry about it anyway.

Sure there are those shitty Broadcom wireless cards that don't work without ndiswrapper. But there's a simple solution: don't buy hardware from a hostile company. Buy from a vendor whose products are supported in Linux. Cisco is a good choice, but so are many others.

Realtek wrote a driver (closed source) for my wireless card for the 2.4.21 and below kernels and was supposed to write a driver for the 2.6.x kernels, but that never happened. Luckily ndispwrapper works fine, but the point is that there was a stable kernel ABI then these things wouldn't be a problem.

And what happens when the ABI eventually has to change and the manufacturer either (a) is out of business or (b) doesn't feel like updating their driver. They'd rather you have to buy a new card from them.

With open source drivers old hardware would be supported.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmm
by Lumbergh on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure there are those shitty Broadcom wireless cards that don't work without ndiswrapper. But there's a simple solution: don't buy hardware from a hostile company

Completely unrealistic for joe-average consumer. They goto Best Buy and will just pick up whatever cheapie wireless card that is on the shelf. In fact, I did research for my card and still screwed up because Linksys changed the damn chipset from some company to realtek from v3 to v4.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Linux doesn't have a problem with binary driver wrappers ala nvidia or ati either ;) .

Why don't you start chatting up Linus on an ABI, or someone else who does heavy kernel work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Luckily ndispwrapper works fine, but the point is that there was a stable kernel ABI then these things wouldn't be a problem.

Somehow the parent seems to have forgotten that between Win2K, WinXP and Win2K3 the driver ABI's changed, not a lot, but they changed enough to require seperate drivers for each. ABI evolution is normal, companies abandoning their products because of it aren't.

For everything people say about GPL'd drivers, at least you aren't left out in the cold each time you upgrade you're system.

Reply Score: 0

@Thom_Holwerda
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anyway, this is an interesting article because it's written by a prominent in the Mozilla foundation. *That's* why this is interesting.

IMHO that's a good reason why it can be safely ignored.

Most times the things core developers of most of the major projects have to say about life, the universe and everything is insightful, intelligent or at least thought provoking. But for some reason I can't fathom Mozilla developers mostly say BS. I know it sounds trollish, but it isn't meant to be trollish I just have never seen an article or op-ed by a Mozilla/Firefox dev that wasn't deeply flawed and utterly useless

Reply Score: 5

nice try
by netpython on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:05 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.

Bullsh..,the user only has to download a *.tar.gz,unzip it in some folder in his/her home directory and run ./firefox-installer and link the icon.Now how easier can it be than that i ask you?

A poster allready mentioned it in some other thread:usage doesn't come free with any other OS either,you have to get familiar with the basics.This is true for Linux,OSX and a lot of other OS's windows incl.

Reply Score: 1

RE: nice try
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:49 UTC in reply to "nice try"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, if you try to install Firefox from the Mozilla.org tarball on a FC4 box, you need to make sure compat-libstdc++3.2 or something like that is installed. You also need xorg-x11-deprecated-libs or something like that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: nice try
by JLF65 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE: nice try"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, if you try to install Firefox from the Mozilla.org tarball on a FC4 box, you need to make sure compat-libstdc++3.2 or something like that is installed. You also need xorg-x11-deprecated-libs or something like that.

Yeah, you NEVER run into stuff like that in Windows! Excuse me - mfc42 just finished downloading, so now I can install a Windows app I wanted to check out. Then it's off to find the VB runtime so I can install another app I wanted to try. But thankfully, I'll never be bothered by trying to find dependencies for Windows apps!

(It's called sarcasm. It's fun and therapeutic. Try it sometime.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: nice try
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nice try"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Yeah, you NEVER run into stuff like that in Windows! Excuse me - mfc42 just finished downloading, so now I can install a Windows app I wanted to check out. Then it's off to find the VB runtime so I can install another app I wanted to try. But thankfully, I'll never be bothered by trying to find dependencies for Windows apps!"

You really have got to be kidding. There is no comparison. Windows has FAR fewer dependencies when installing software. Linux is loaded with them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: nice try
by Fred on Thu 21st Jul 2005 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nice try"
Fred Member since:
2005-07-06

Most Windows applications just happily overwite what is already there, so indeed, Windows users don't get annoyed that much by a program complaining about something missing...for itself. Luckily, the most linux distributions don't make it that easy to overwrite core libraries, so yes, the package management tools will start to complain...or just silently fix what is considered a conflict.

Of course you still have the group who think sites like Download.com are a good thing. It's not, it's crappy software heaven. Most of the problems which Windows users have today is *because* sites like Download.com exist.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: nice try
by chip_0 on Thu 21st Jul 2005 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nice try"
chip_0 Member since:
2005-07-12

Actually all linux depends on is a compatible architecture ;) but I know you are talking about software created for linux. I don't see how, really, I can think of quite a few software for windows which are required by various applications -

VB Runtimes
.NET Runtimes
DirectX
Java Runtimes

No doubt you will be able to name a few more. Similarly the common requirements for linux software are things like GTK+, imlib, alsa etc. Yes dependencies for linux software are a tad more than for windows, but that is because programs rely on common libraries, which should be present on most systems. This is why most software for linux is compact, most programs I use are generally under 1 MB. You can even use the static packages available for software, which compile most dependencies within the package. Opera, Acrobat reader and many other are distributed in this fashion.

Of course, modern distro's have eliminated the need for manual dependency solving, by package managers like apt-get and pacman. Something like "pacman -S firefox", will download & install firefox and all it needs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: nice try
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nice try"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Try upgrading your windows 3.11 to xp man!

Reply Score: 0

Desktops are not the problem.
by jbauer on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:05 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem does not lie in Linux desktops. I'm a KDE guy myself and I think it is far superior to XP desktop, though I can understand some people prefer Gnome approach. Anyway, what it's lacking is "glue" between the desktops and the OS underneath them. Getting hardware to work is still too hard, autodetection fails sometimes and more drivers are needed for consumer devices.

Of course, Linux is not anything like the dominant desktop, but that will be a problem for any other OS compiting with MS Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Be realistic please !
by test on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:07 UTC
test
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well he has good points...

Migration is important. If user data can not be transfered, it's a barrier to exit from Windows. Who wants to loose years of work on a computer?

"Stability" as he calls it (more "default system configuration" for me) is important. My grand mother can install an application, but does not know what a C++ library is and indeed should not have to know.

Simplicity. It is funny he makes that point. GNOME was re-designed to be easy and reduce the number of options but again he is right, there are quite a lot of options in GEdit. If GNOME or KDE want to be easy they should include a dialog with the top 5 options, and then more "advanced" configuration dialogs/options.

Comfort. Again he has a point. I use Windows and Linux in parallel, and yes, I often click on the wrong OK or Cancel button. It's a reflex! GNOME wants to be different but in that case it is silly.

So even if those points seem futile from technical points of view, they matter to end users.

I do not wish Linux to be like Windows. I just wish the transition would be easy for non-technical people.

And frankly, is it that difficult to change the position of OK and Cancel to make users happy? Is it difficult to restructure some preferences dialogs to be more user-friendly? Is it difficult to include all the standard shared library packages in a distro ? I don't think so.

The only point missing is data migration, and I do not think that Evolution (for example) can import an address book and mailboxes from Outlook or Outlook Express.

So until the Linux community acknowledges that Windows currently represents 97% of desktop systems, and then develops ways to ease the migration out of it, Linux won't grow beyong 0.5% of the desktop market.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Be realistic please !
by archiesteel on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:29 UTC in reply to "Be realistic please !"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

So until the Linux community acknowledges that Windows currently represents 97% of desktop systems, and then develops ways to ease the migration out of it, Linux won't grow beyong 0.5% of the desktop market.

While I agree that the authors has some good points, I think this last comment is completely uncalled for. First, I think that the Linux community does acknowledge that Windows is the dominant desktop. Also, inflating figures doesn't help anyone. 97% market share for Windows? 0.5% for Linux? Where do you get your numbers? Current estimates place Windows at between 90 and 95%, and place Linux at around 2.5%.

To me, Migration is the big issue, and one that deserves attention. The other points are relatively minor (especially since they seem to focus on Gnome only).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Be realistic please !
by archiesteel on Thu 21st Jul 2005 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Be realistic please !"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Hmmm...interesting that I should be modded down for stating what I believe to be more realistic market shares...

Astroturfers Are Go!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Be realistic please !
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Be realistic please !"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Welcome to the new slashdot ;) .
Just kidding!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Be realistic please !
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 17:12 UTC in reply to "Be realistic please !"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Migration is important. If user data can not be transfered, it's a barrier to exit from Windows. Who wants to loose years of work on a computer?

Migration is important, but it is no legal argument for "Linux is not ready for the desktop". Another poster said, that Linux fits the needs of the most users out there. So, Linux *is* ready for the desktop. That migration isn't too easy for many Windows users is a fact, but there is not much what Linux can do for them.

Comfort. Again he has a point. I use Windows and Linux in parallel, and yes, I often click on the wrong OK or Cancel button. It's a reflex! GNOME wants to be different but in that case it is silly.

As you said: It's a reflex. You're used to the Windows way of placing OK-Buttons - that's all. But why is the Gnome way silly? It is far more consistend than Windows. There was a long discussion about that in some mailing lists. The reason wasn't "We want to be different", but "We want to be consistend."

And frankly, is it that difficult to change the position of OK and Cancel to make users happy?

Is it that difficult to read messages on the screen instead of blindly clicking them away? As said: The Gnome way of placing the OK-Button is far more logical. Why change that? To come up Windows? Every user should have the little bit of brain power to know that changing a system often means changing the habbits. You have to learn some things to deal with a new system. If you don't want to - who forces you? I use Gnome. I don't have any problem with that. And: I'm a happy user (so the most of our company), although I come from the Windows-side.

Is it difficult to restructure some preferences dialogs to be more user-friendly?

It needs time. There is a HIG and all are doing their best to come up to it. Gedit hasn't too much options. And if you want to use Gedit as Notepad pendant: You don't even have to touch the preferences. Everything works fine.

Is it difficult to include all the standard shared library packages in a distro ?

No. It's already done. I use a Debian based distro and it works fine. Just clicking on a program name and install it. Yeah! Even my father could handle that.

Reply Score: 0

Asa Dotzler
by TaterSalad on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:10 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought this article was posted here before, maybe it was on another site. Having said that, I think Asa brings up some very good points. Especially the migration one. People have years of data on their computers. If they switch to linux they will need access to that data. I could swear I read about one distro or application that actually had a migration tool that would save user data and convert it over to linux. Things like the desktop settings and a few others.

Side note, does Asa look way too happy in that pic? Of course if I was working for mozilla and being a lead I'd probably be just as happy too.

Reply Score: 1

Desktop Linux?
by bullethead on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:12 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

I am glad so many people don't think Linux is ready for the desktop. This type of propaganda will scare away people. And it's working.

As for me, I am really happy in my e17 desktop.

Facts: Linux is not for the people who are classified as "tools". Go use Windows and keep infecting your machine with Spyware for all I care. Or better yet, go buy a Mac to hook up your uber cool iPod to. And make sure you call "Geek Squad" to help you out with YOUR problems.

Leave me out of your mass media, propagandistic, ignorant world. I am happy with Linux, I am happy with freedom.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Desktop Linux?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:22 UTC in reply to "Desktop Linux?"
RE: Desktop Linux?
by Lumbergh on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:36 UTC in reply to "Desktop Linux?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

I pretty much agree with you. I'm looking forward to e17 when it comes out of beta. And frankly, since it looks like there will never be any standards for the desktop I might as well use something like e17. The old schoolers don't even really care if Linux always stays a niche desktop platform. Its always the newbies that think its some war with Microsoft.

Facts: Linux is not for the people who are classified as "tools". Go use Windows and keep infecting your machine with Spyware for all I care

Sorry, but running linux doesn't make you smart or even cool. Until you realize that, you'll probably have a hard time functioning in life. I'll happily run Linux, Windows, Mac (once the intel machines come out), and happily dismiss demented FSF propaganda artists.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Desktop Linux?
by bullethead on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Desktop Linux?"
bullethead Member since:
2005-07-10

I was just simply ranting. I use Windows, Mac and Linux as well. I am by no means a FSF militant ;)

Simply stating that I like the many uses of Linux, it's endlessly configurable, that's all.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Desktop Linux?
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:50 UTC in reply to "Desktop Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

yeah, enjoy your freedom using vi

Reply Score: 0

worthless arguments...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have posted a similar topic before, but it deserves another go:

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.

Reply Score: 0

RE: worthless arguments...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:08 UTC in reply to "worthless arguments..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Excuse me but what ATM requires you to type commands into a CLI? You are missing the point. People can have lots of computer experience without actually knowing what is going on underneath. Most people are this way. A good computer operating system lets people do what they want to do, that's all. A bad computer operating system requires a user to do difficult administrative tasks before they can do what they want to do. Linux is not just a different computer OS than Windows, it is a more complicated computer OS that takes more computer knowledge to use efficiently.

Personally I have been using various Linux distributions for about 2 years. I am now seriously considering going back to Windows because I am so sick and tired of wasting so much time trying to figure out how to get things to work correctly in Linux. I want to get things done, not administer my computer to death. Windows lets me do just that. This saddens me because I hate Microsoft as a company.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: worthless arguments...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE: worthless arguments..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

No... you're missing my point... it's free. Either take it for what it is--a free OS-- or leave it. It's that simple. You can't gripe about free stuff, dude.

If somebody hands me a pen (for free) adverstising their company, it may be blue ink and I prefer black, but hey, it's a free pen. Either use it and be happy because it was free or shut up. Same logic.

You want no "hard" configuration, try Linspire or Xandros--they even offer support with their products. Oh but wait, they're not free and you'll complain about that. Oh but wait, they're not Windows and you'll gripe about that too. There really is no pleasing you, so go back to Windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: worthless arguments...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: worthless arguments..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"No... you're missing my point... it's free. Either take it for what it is--a free OS-- or leave it. It's that simple. You can't gripe about free stuff, dude.

If somebody hands me a pen (for free) adverstising their company, it may be blue ink and I prefer black, but hey, it's a free pen. Either use it and be happy because it was free or shut up. Same logic.

You want no "hard" configuration, try Linspire or Xandros--they even offer support with their products. Oh but wait, they're not free and you'll complain about that. Oh but wait, they're not Windows and you'll gripe about that too. There really is no pleasing you, so go back to Windows."


I get your point, I just animatedly disagree.

By the way, I did buy my current Linux distribution, Suse. Why, because I want to support open source software and I didn't want to have to go through having to install a lot of software that doesn't come with free Linux versions. What a waste of time that was.

I have tried Linspire. I even bought it and it was better but it was still a lot of the same crap. I haven't tried Xandros yet but I bet you still have to use the CLI or find lot's of dependencies.

Don't you understand, I want to use Linux it just doesn't want me. There are so many more like me. If it is the goal of Linux to stay a hard to use geek OS, then that is all it will ever be and that is the only people that will use it. If you're fine with that just keep on pushing ordinary computer users away from Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: worthless arguments...
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 04:12 UTC in reply to "worthless arguments..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I have posted a similar topic before, but it deserves another go:

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.


Amen, brother! You took the words from my mouth.

Reply Score: 1

Colonel Panic
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I can't see why a Linux desktop has to copy Windows in every particular. Why, for example, copy Windows' folly in bunching the window minimise, maximise and close buttons together in one place? Or the "start" button at the bottom left? Apart from that, Asa makes some good points.

Reply Score: 0

@jayc
by polaris20 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:20 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

"In places where Free software doesn't match feature-for-feature with the alternatives (and keep in mind sometimes it surpases) it satisfies the majority of users."

I disagree. alternatives aren't good enough in a lot of cases, and I am not just talking graphic arts, or even multimedia.

In whatever industry you go into, the Linux equivalent isn't good enough for the average user.

This is my opinion, but I still believe that most people really do want to see the real thing on there, not just an equivalent. That's when the average person will want to adopt Linux as their desktop.

It's about recognition. Joe Sixpack is already taking a chance by jumping to Linux. But he sees all his familiar standbys are available at his local computer store for Linux too. He's more inclined to be comfortable using these applications, rather than a Linux equivalent, no matter how close or good a Linux equivalent may be.

Is that stupid? Of course. But so is the general public.

Reply Score: 1

ack.
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

if i wanted a windows clone OS i would run reactOS. instead of making linux look and act like windows, why dont we put our effort into making linux BETTER then windows. (which in my opinion we hav already ccomplished)

Reply Score: 0

RE: ack.
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:17 UTC in reply to "ack."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"if i wanted a windows clone OS i would run reactOS"

Are you kidding? ReactOS is not useable yet.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Enough!
by Lumbergh on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:23 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

'Is it now, is it now, Daaad?' every 5 minutes.

Actually, it's "Are we there yet? Are we there Yet? Are we there yet?..."

Reply Score: 1

Errors in his logic
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For "regular people" to adopt Linux (which usually means leaving Windows), it is going to need a serious migration plan. The OS will need to install on machines next to Windows, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.

This is laughable... but Linux has a solution: LiveCD.

I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from Download.com.

It's called "Package Management" and it's much more advanced and easy to use than anything Windows or Mac OSX has. RPM/YUM,Dpkg/Apt,Portage/Ebuild,etc.

And what is a user to think when confronted with a choice between Helix Player, CD Player, and Music Player? Does the Music Player not understand CDs? What's "Helix" mean? Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window; Notepad has about three.

Windows and Mac OSX have media AND cd players as well. Gedit... if a user uses it like Notepad, IT WORKS THE EXACT SAME WAY. The options are only there if a user opts to go into that.

Also, he missed the whole "Paint is superior to the Gimp" thing. I mean, the GIMP is so much more complicated.

Regular people do not know what it means to "mount a drive" and they shouldn't have to.

Any modern distro has the whole "automount" thing down. In Gnome 2.10+, if you insert a DVD, it will ask to play a DVD. If you inseart a CD with photos, it will ask to start gthumb. A blank cd, it will give you the option to burn a new cd, etc.

They don't want two clipboards that seem to constantly overwrite each other.

In the GNOME environment, this isn't an issue (and hasn't been for a while).

They don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely-tuned muscle memory.

Okay, GNOME's button placement was MODELED after Mac OSX.

What really makes me angry is that fact that some PHB is going to read this article, from a Mozilla developer, and make stupid assumptions (because that's what PHB's do).

As someone above said, the issues Linux has are more related to getting hardware to work, and getting that hardware to work with the software.

The issues this tool brings up are superfluous.

Reply Score: 2

@netpython
by polaris20 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:27 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Bullsh..,the user only has to download a *.tar.gz,unzip it in some folder in his/her home directory and run ./firefox-installer and link the icon.Now how easier can it be than that i ask you?"

This is the most laughable thing I have ever heard. You can't really expect an average user to go into terminal, run a shell script, then link an icon, do you?

You VASTLY over estimate the skill level of the average computer user.

How much easier could it be? Doubleclicking an installer package, and clicking "next. next. finished."

Which is what everyone is used to, and does not want to change from.

Sure, Synaptic is easy. There's only one problem. It's different than doubleclicking on an executable. And different is bad.

I say it's bad because supporting several hundred regular users, the minute something's different, pandemonium starts.

An rpm is as close as you can get to a "setup.exe" file, yet you still run into dependency issues once and awhile.

Reply Score: 1

Fedora Core 4
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's quite an extrapolation to start with Fedora Core and to then claim that Linux isn't ready for the desktop... and by that I assume that he means GNU/Linux. ;-)

Comments like this: "I've tried KDE and Gnome desktops but my latest is FC4 so my criticism is focused on that (and Gnome) but I think KDE distributions suffer just as bad if not worse." Followed by this: "They don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely-tuned muscle memory." It all suggests an attitude of "the GNOME folks really screwed up, so I guess the KDE folks did so too" - not exactly my experience, I promise you.

Sure, there are a lot of things that the "Linux desktop community" can do to make their work more accessible, but dragging up library issues with Mozilla products (with seemingly one of the most ridiculously overcrafted architectures in open source and with a fairly underperformant build system) and trotting out confusing user interface conventions ("Edit" -> "Preferences", hello?!) sounds a lot like exporting one's problems to another community and then blaming *them* for the mess.

But anyway, Fedora Core? That's not exactly an end-user distribution. Either buy the RHEL licence or stop pretending you're running some insiders' gratis edition!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fedora Core 4
by klynch on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:49 UTC in reply to "Fedora Core 4"
klynch Member since:
2005-07-06

Comments like this: "I've tried KDE and Gnome desktops but my latest is FC4 so my criticism is focused on that (and Gnome) but I think KDE distributions suffer just as bad if not worse." Followed by this: "They don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely-tuned muscle memory." It all suggests an attitude of "the GNOME folks really screwed up, so I guess the KDE folks did so too" - not exactly my experience, I promise you.

So by switching the button order we encourage users to not read the message and look at what they are doing!

I don't see how this is a screw-up or a good thing either.

Gnome and KDE should both just stick to what they are doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fedora Core 4
by klynch on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:52 UTC in reply to "Fedora Core 4"
klynch Member since:
2005-07-06

But anyway, Fedora Core? That's not exactly an end-user distribution. Either buy the RHEL licence or stop pretending you're running some insiders' gratis edition!

How is Fedora not an end-user distribution? More so, how is Red Hat Enterprise Linux an end user distro?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Fedora Core 4
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Fedora Core 4"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Because Fedora is the RHEL test bed. Seems obvious enough to me... Let me put it this way:
if:
Fedora is desktop OS
then:
Longhorn is too, right now.

Get it?

Reply Score: 0

Right on!
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Most of these previous posts underscore exactly why Linux has not taken off. Geeks (and I use that word with love) who make Linux want their OS just the way they like and screw the rest of us who want an alternative to Windows but don't want to have to be a computer geek to use it. and if you are a normal computer user who wants to get things done, not have to spend a lot of wasted time administering the OS when they could be using Windows instead. This article is great because it gives clear road map to acceptance and use of Linux by the vast majority of computer users: Windows users. It's too bad that this article obviously isn't getting through to enough people.

I think it would be great if the Mozila Foundation put together a Linux distribution. Then you would watch Linux use and popularity soar.

Reply Score: 0

oh my god ...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"hostile companies" ... what a wording ...
At the point the hardware vendor goes out of business, someone may as well start an open source driver project, like it is done today. But the hardware vendor knows better how to access the hardware.
And ABIs don't have too change that often as seen in Linux today (if the ABI was good).

Reply Score: 0

another way of thinking
by stderr on Wed 20th Jul 2005 18:55 UTC
stderr
Member since:
2005-07-20

who actually needs everybody to go to linux? is it really the windows users? many of the points like "too much choice" etc. are exactly what makes linux so nice to use. and if one can not find the editor he likes, well, then why try to convince him linux is the ultimate?
i think linux has a broad enough and independent user base, why now try to get everybody onboard by reducing, trying to preselect and/or preconfigure everything until everybody is "happy"?
once i also was that enthusiastic but i more and more do not want linux as the main dummy OS! ;)

Reply Score: 1

Stupid issues
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This article was slapped together with almost no thought to it.

1. Migration
There is never any easy way to transfer all of your files and settings between computers. If Linux had one, they would be the first. Program settings have to be transferred by the programs, try adding a "Transfer from your old PC's IE or Firefox" button in your own program buddy. You can't even automatically transfer all your program settings and files between Windows machines. And he describes this as "Serious". Just as you have to when you go out and buy a brand new Dell with a fresh copy of XP, you'll either need to figure it out, or get a tech to do it for you. Transferring everything to a new Windows machine is no task for the lighthearted either.

2. Stability
Complete bull. ALL major distros have the main programs (OOO, Firefox, K3b, Mplayer) already installed. Any not installed are on the CDS or available through Synaptic, or portage, whatever. If you want to deviate from the distro and install custom programs, well that's up to you, but only people who know what they are doing will do that (and it's not necessary).

3. Simplicity
Also bull. What do I use to play a CD in Windows? CD Player, Media Player, Quicktime Player, Winamp player, or Realplayer??? I'd also like to note, that Media player is way overly complicated and bloated for playing CDS, so much for Windows being simplistic. Next, GEdit is for programmers, my grandma doesn't edit plain text files very often, and if she ever did, she would use OOO, like she's used to.

4. Comfort
This seems unusual coming from someone who switches between 3 OS's. I find flipping between my Windows and Linux machine MUCH easier then using OSX. I took me a while to figure out how that worked. And I still have trouble with OSX's differences. I'd say Gnome and KDE both did a better job at making Windows users comfortable than Apple did. The only way to TRULY make a Windows user comfortable is to emulate their GUI completely, which competely halts innovation. I agree that it should not be a shock the first time you use Linux from Windows, but it's now very similar, and doesn't require reading for learning.

I will give him one + for mentioning drive mounting. I rarely see a distro working COMPETELY where pendrives, cd drives, etc automatically pop up on your desktop and eject with no problems. That and configuring your system with consistent grapical guided tools are 2 things that Linux and distro developers need to work out soon.

Peace

Reply Score: 5

Why Desktop Linux?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why allways talk about Desktop Linux if NOBODY (current Linux users "geeks" or Linux dev) cares about normal users? Users who just want to download a SETUP.EXE, double click on it and have the software install by itself with the icon at the right place and not fiddling with anything else. Users who don't need to take time to configure every aspect of the OS, who just want it to work....

Where is Microsoft Office for Linux? Where is Adobe Photoshop? Where is ???? windows apps on Linux? And don't talk about OpenOffice or Gimp or ... I don't want to learn all new software (with less features!), I want to use what I have NOW. Again, don't talk about Wine or emulation... I need native apps from Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft...

And it's NOT just ME... This is the same for allmost every users you would like to see switch to Linux. Even OS X has all this and work well as a REAL alternative to Windows.

If you don't want to ease the pain for normal users, if you don't need normal users running Linux, then PLEASE, stop talking about Desktop Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why Desktop Linux?
by GhePeU on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:12 UTC in reply to "Why Desktop Linux?"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

Why allways talk about Desktop Linux if NOBODY (current Linux users "geeks" or Linux dev) cares about normal users? Users who just want to download a SETUP.EXE, double click on it and have the software install by itself with the icon at the right place and not fiddling with anything else. Users who don't need to take time to configure every aspect of the OS, who just want it to work....

normal user wasn't using windows in the womb of his mother. if he uses linux, he has to install software in his distro's way. stop. after a week he's going to hate being forced to look on the net for every thing he needs.

Where is Microsoft Office for Linux? Where is Adobe Photoshop? Where is ???? windows apps on Linux? And don't talk about OpenOffice or Gimp or ... I don't want to learn all new software (with less features!), I want to use what I have NOW. Again, don't talk about Wine or emulation... I need native apps from Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft...

Ask Microsoft or Adobe. Or learn to use what is available.

And it's NOT just ME... This is the same for allmost every users you would like to see switch to Linux. Even OS X has all this and work well as a REAL alternative to Windows.

This is "a REAL alternative to Windows", this is "I want Windows but with a different name".

If you don't want to ease the pain for normal users, if you don't need normal users running Linux, then PLEASE, stop talking about Desktop Linux.

My desktop is Linux since 2003, and I'm happy with it. Nobody forces you to switch.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why Desktop Linux?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:48 UTC in reply to "Why Desktop Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Where is Microsoft Office for Linux? Where is Adobe Photoshop? Where is ???? windows apps on Linux? And don't talk about OpenOffice or Gimp or ... I don't want to learn all new software (with less features!), I want to use what I have NOW. Again, don't talk about Wine or emulation... I need native apps from Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft...

I am sorry for you. If you really NEED a feature from Photoshop does not have, you are most probably a very bad designer. Also, from the enormous list, you are very rich. Stop using windows and go Mac, if you have applicationS from adobe, macromedia and microsoft on your desktop. You COULD complain about the lack of a WYSIWYG editor as dreamweaver on linux, or Flash... but openoffice and GIMP? Come on, what do you do with all those software? You run "extract" on every photograph and use photo-simulation filters? You could do all that the same way if you knew how to treat images.

The software is a tool, no user needs flashy features if they know how to do it. And by your software portfolio, you probably are a professional involved. Or *MAYBE* using illegal software? :wink:

Reply Score: 0

Laptops
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Recently there was a news story that for the first time laptops outsold desktops. As a long time Linux user some inroads need to be made in terms of wireless support before Linux sees real adoption. Ndiswrapper works (most of the time) but it's not a robust solution. Pressure needs to be put on OEMs to provide native drivers.

I disagree with the author's premise which basically amounts to proselytizing but my point above is that it's not a given that you can have wireless with Linux and be productive.

Cheers

Reply Score: 0

Re: Laptops
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"putting pressure on OEMs" ... how? with probably only a few linux users on a laptop.
To do that Linux needs more users (more then it has now). And to have those ... well, one big thing is better hardware support. Linux should make it more interesting (i.e. less restrictive) to provide drivers for it.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

We where running XPsP2 Professional with EZ Firewall and my wifes comment was 'this computer is protecting itself from us'. The firewall spat up nonesenical messages all the time, ignored the box that said remember these settings and even complained about the EZ Antivirus constantly. (That is AV software from the same company!)
Along with 'pest patrol' this was 70.00 worth of software that needs to be renewed every year.

Windows also stopped working from time to time for no apparent reason. Probably because our computer is old (made in the year 2000.) and not really supported well.

SUSE9.3 seems a lot nicer/faster/more stable easier to use on our computer than FC4 seemed to be.
It is easier to get the necessary software to play MP3s working using YAST (an installation wizard.)
I am awestruck by the ammount of good, free software that comes with Linux.
To think that each game/office suit/media tool and accessory is a volountry effort by an engineer or a team working for nothing more than pride and enjoyment of a job well done is inspirational.
We simply dont need Microsoft anymore.
Quitting windows is the best thing I have done since I quit smoking.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

That wrapper is a pityful hack, not a solution. And about the kernel guys - take a look at the LKML, once in a while (often enough at least) issues with closed sources drivers pop up there. Well, and the result is just hopeless. It gives the impression that those are happy how it is at the moment.

Reply Score: 0

v settle down on one GUI
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:21 UTC
Why Desktop Linux Isn't Ready
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

IMHO Linspire Five-o does a pretty good job.

Reply Score: 0

Nothing new, it's becoming annoying
by Joe User on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:31 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course Linux is still very primitive. It will still need several years to be ready for regular users.

No need to write such articles like these. It makes me sick. Leave Linux for scientists and sysadmins.

There are other OSes for regular users such as WinXP and OS X thank God.

Reply Score: 1

Good Article
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hits all the major sore spots on linux fans (me included). It's really gets to me because it 98% correct!! I have recently switched to Mac OS X until people fix all the crap that is wrong with linux desktops. My biggest disagreement with the article (which is small) is that the Linux desktop does NOT have to mimic Windows for ease of migration, it should be efficent and well thought out - that is the only requirment most people have. if it flows good and allows you to be efficent, its all good. Linux is a tweakers dream and thats cool, but turn the options off for normal users. Oh and the software packaging, I pity the people trying to distribute linux apps. Most opt for 'give them the source and hope they can compile", or attempt to give out binaries for 10 different versions of 10 different distros.... and even then spend 2 hours doing searchs for missing libs. But hey, instead of having some killer linux apps installed, i have 20 crapball games (he was nice saying mediocre), 10 text editors, 15 sound format players (not a single well configured media player). I often use my wife as an example. she hates change when it comes to computers, and it took her 6 months to warm up to linux and like it (and she did get to the point of liking it)..... alternatively it took about 3 days on the Mac. I hope people will stop trying to defend linux and band together to get these problems fixed. we don't want linux to be a windows (or os x) clone, but we want it to work!

Reply Score: 0

here's a suggestion
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Maybe instead of automatically calling the author a tool or idiot or whatever, some of you should actually try to listen.
Constructive criticism isn't a bad thing. You may not agree with the authors points, but there are most likely
thousands upon thousands of users out there that would agree with him if they tried to switch. So how is blowing
off suggestions and comments like the ones in this article helping to get linux on those users computers?

Reply Score: 0

some good point, some not so good
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think he overstates the importance of migration and comfort.

Migration isn't THAT important because no product that asks users to replace an existing Windows installation will ever get mass market appeal. If they already have Windows, why do they need a new OS? The mass market does not install operating systems. They use the OS that comes with the computer.

If we are just talking about the ease of moving to a new machine, Windows isn't really "easy" now. Most users really do just start from scratch. The most important true migration issues at this time are mail folders, IM accounts, and bookmarks. Even these, are not make-or-break issues.

Interoperability is MUCH more important than migratability. For this, OpenOffice is key, but when you get beyond simple office suite apps, things get a lot harder for Linux.

Application installation is extremely important. Developers are going to need to be much more conscious about backward compatibility and depending on obscure packages. Package compatibility between distributions will also be an issue.

Media players will be a major problem for Linux. Having multiple players isn't good, but its no worse than having Windows Media Player, Quicktime, RealPlayer, and iTunes. Worse is the problem that MOST of the Linux media players are not legal in the US (and some other countries). Companies don't care when the geek fringe uses patent infringing applications, but they will start to care when everyone is doing it. Also, the mass market isn't going to search out "illicit" packages to enable this functionality.

Reply Score: 0

I totally agree
by Captain N. on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:45 UTC
Captain N.
Member since:
2005-07-07

I agree with everything he said here, especially the bit about installing software. I'm no slouch when it comes to running computers, and running command lines, but I can't even figure out how to download and install UT 2004 demo, and I simply don't have the time to learn another command line, nor do I want to.

Until I can download the latest game demo, and click something to make it install (doesn't have to be like windows) I will not make the switch to Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Is Asa a mac user?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Windows, NT, 95, Millineum, do not come close to his definition. XP doesnt hit on either.
What was he using? Did he even look at the latest distros? Fedora Core 4, Gento, SuSE personal 9.3?

Reply Score: 0

It will never be ready
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have wanted to use Linux as my primary desktop for years. About once a year, I try a new distribution, or a new window manager, and I am always impressed with the improvements. But it is never enough, because ultimately I spend so much time fighting to make things work that I eventually find it easier to reinstall windows. In fact, i recently spent about 3 weeks using Ubuntu, and I was SO impressed with it that I was determined to make it last. But alas, in frustration, I went back to windows last night.

Why?

Well, let’s go over a few things. They may seem petty and small, but that is the whole point. It is the small things that rule a day to day life.

1) Inconsistency--- I would copy a selection of text from Evolution and try to paste it into, well anything, and the option would be grayed out. I tried it again and it wouldn't copy. It was frustrating. I finally figured out that I could type CTRL V and it would paste. That is great and pretty standard but so is “right click, paste”. But this constant fighting to figure out why something works one way in one program and another in this program was infuriating. I wanted to change the font in ONE SINGLE program. Specifically, Skype. I had to install KControl and dozens of supporting software just to change the font in one program. You don’t need to explain why. I know why. But that doesn’t change how much time went into something so frivolous.

2) I wanted to watch a steaming media broadcast from a site. It took me 45 minutes to get all the codecs loaded, work out dependencies, adjust .conf files etc before I could even get the window to open. By the time it worked, I didn't care about what I wanted to see anymore.

3) I was trying to load a plugin to Firefox. After several frustrating attempts, I found out that Ubuntu includes all the latest security patches but never revised the version number, so the Mozilla site was seeing it as the wrong version and not allowing the install. I finally figured this out and then hunted down a fix, only to find out that I still couldn’t install from that page due to permissions and had to download and install manually. It was frustrating.

I know these are minor. I know they are issues that can be worked around. I know that Johnny Geek and Fred Developer get off on fixing these little quirks. But after a while, just like 90% of people everywhere, I just want things to work and work consistently.

You can say what you want about Window’s poorly designed interface and it is mostly true, but at least it is consistent where it counts. If I copy a selection of text in Windows, I haven't run into a single program anywhere that will not allow me to paste the selection in. If I change a font, it changes it everywhere. When I want to play a video in Windows or listen to a music file, Windows will play it, or go find the codec and then play it. This is how it SHOULD work. (This applies to Mac OS, as well. Which has the MOST consistant UI I have ever used)

I hate Microsoft. I really do. I think they have made an inferior product based solely on marketing rather than any technical proficiency. But that argument died with Windows 98/ME. Running Windows XP is stable and it works the same every time. I never have to resolve dependencies and edit .conf files to get things to run.

If you want to hate Windows, hate it for the right reasons. Hate it because Microsoft used underhanded tactics to market it. Hate it because they cut security corners for the sake of usability. Hate it because you have to click “Start” to shut down and other such silliness.

Windows as an agrument for the fact the Linux is a terrible desktop OS just isn't cutting it.

If you want Linux to be a serious Desktop alternative, then make it consistent. Just because it can do 50 things with a little tweaking doesn't make up for the fact that it usually can't do 1 thing well without a fight.

Linux is a FANTASTIC OS. That is why it makes a great server.

When you get right down to it, Linux isn’t the problem.

KDE is the problem. Gnome is the problem. RPM’s and DEB’s are the problem. Unresolved dependencies are the problem. Thousands of desktop developers with no clear and definable goals are the problem. Everyone thinking their way is better than your way is the problem. Having a hundred different distributions with completely different structures is a huge problem.

These issues are fun and resolvable for a hobbyist, a developer, a SysAdmin, or any other self proclaimed computer geek. But the average computer user doesn’t use it as a hobby or a toy. They use it as a tool. And let’s face it, you would get pretty sick of using a hammer, if you had to reconfigure it every time you got a new type of nail.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It will never be ready
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:10 UTC in reply to "It will never be ready"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Amen. Linux Distros need to standardise and simplify. Make it easier to work between each other and give users a consistant sence of OS structure. Sure have diff window managers but built on the same base using the same input core, video core, audio core, etc.

I hate audio under Linux at the moment. Glimpses of some great implemention ideas screwed by slack realisation and competing technologies. Stick to one driver base and audio server with jacks abilities. Make it easy and uniform so that people can take it in and be productive.

I love Gnome as a window manager but I also like Opera as my browser yet the 2 don't work well together. Stuff like that sucks. I also know there are audio tools like RoseGarden but to get it working is a PIA when I can pay $250 for Tracktion on Windows/OS-X and start being creative within half an hour. Until Linux gets simplifies, unified and consistant and allows for people to be productive easily, no go.

That said, I love aspects of Linux, the user security is great, the package management tools that allow for easy sysy updating is great, once setup it needs little hand holding and fonts on LCD's kick Cleartype anyday but it has a way to go and needs some serious community decisions to be made about how to forge ahead.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It will never be ready
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 09:19 UTC in reply to "It will never be ready"
Anonymous Member since:
---

In fact, i recently spent about 3 weeks using Ubuntu, and I was SO impressed with it that I was determined to make it last. But alas, in frustration, I went back to windows last night.

Why?

Well, let’s go over a few things. They may seem petty and small, but that is the whole point. It is the small things that rule a day to day life.

1) Inconsistency--- I would copy a selection of text from Evolution and try to paste it into, well anything, and the option would be grayed out. I tried it again and it wouldn't copy. It was frustrating. I finally figured out that I could type CTRL V and it would paste. That is great and pretty standard but so is “right click, paste”. But this constant fighting to figure out why something works one way in one program and another in this program was infuriating. I wanted to change the font in ONE SINGLE program. Specifically, Skype. I had to install KControl and dozens of supporting software just to change the font in one program. You don’t need to explain why. I know why. But that doesn’t change how much time went into something so frivolous.

2) I wanted to watch a steaming media broadcast from a site. It took me 45 minutes to get all the codecs loaded, work out dependencies, adjust .conf files etc before I could even get the window to open. By the time it worked, I didn't care about what I wanted to see anymore.

3) I was trying to load a plugin to Firefox. After several frustrating attempts, I found out that Ubuntu includes all the latest security patches but never revised the version number, so the Mozilla site was seeing it as the wrong version and not allowing the install. I finally figured this out and then hunted down a fix, only to find out that I still couldn’t install from that page due to permissions and had to download and install manually. It was frustrating.


Sorry it didn't work for you. Can you file a bug report to make it better for the rest of us?

Reply Score: 0

RE: It will never be ready
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 11:39 UTC in reply to "It will never be ready"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You can say what you want about Window’s poorly designed interface and it is mostly true, but at least it is consistent where it counts. If I copy a selection of text in Windows, I haven't run into a single program anywhere that will not allow me to paste the selection in.

Count yourself lucky. I've run into this bug in Firefox on XP, which is absolutely maddening:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220900

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=285720&highlight=copy...

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=293626&highlight=copy...

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=244262&highlight=copy...

Reply Score: 0

I just realized what Gnome and KDE lack...
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:57 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

It seems to me that advanced users have pretty much left Gnome and KDE for better places (allbeit more complicated places). I realized today that I pretty much shun using either because there's usually either one little thing that gets in my way or it can't run for 3 months straight.
I'm gonna guess many people leave them. Some leave cause they aren't pretty enough.
Some cause they aren't configurable enough.

In the end, there aren't enough users who know how to complain at a technical level: And devs ignore bad complaints.

Reply Score: 1

Great Article
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

He really hit the nail on the head by proving that existing Windows users will just migrate to Longhorn.

Reply Score: 0

14 year old girl
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I saw a 14 year old girl install Ubuntu the other day on her computer....

Not ready for the desktop?

She was downloading MP3s, email, and playing some kind of sims game... apparently she is ready for linux. I think this guy needs to serious start taking a look at the younger generation. they already have linux computers running and to quote them "Windows has too many viruses, I just want to download music and chat"

Reply Score: 0

RE: 14 year old girl
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:27 UTC in reply to "14 year old girl"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I think this guy needs to serious start taking a look at the younger generation. they already have linux computers running and to quote them "Windows has too many viruses, I just want to download music and chat""

If that's all they ever use it for they will be just fine. When they start wanting to install software not included in the distro and try to get all their hardware to work correctly or at all, I think they might change thier mind.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: 14 year old girl
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: 14 year old girl"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I think if you can make it through an install you can probably figure out:
./configure
make
make install
make clean

The Ubuntu install is easy (like reading directions) but it's scary to the uninitiated because it's blue, gray and red (ncurses).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 14 year old girl
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 14 year old girl"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ever installed XP? They still startup in console mode with blue and grey colors.

You use OSX by chance?

Reply Score: 0

RE: 14 year old girl
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 14:31 UTC in reply to "14 year old girl"
Anonymous Member since:
---

yeah, she was downloading mp3s, but was she able to play it? wait til she's 14 yrs and 2 weeks

Reply Score: 0

several issues for business and home user
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

for the average home user:
1) no iTunes
2) all the software that ships with digital cameras requires windows (or OS X)
3) games

for the business user:
1) no MS Office - sorry Open Office doesn't cut it. I've seen too much weirdness with complicated powerpoints/word docs
2) no Visio
3) no Photoshop (eveyone knows photoshop, why relearn the app?)
4) ERP apps like siebel that require activeX plugins
5) other business client apps like Expensable that are windows only

Reply Score: 0

jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

1) no MS Office - sorry Open Office doesn't cut it. I've seen too much weirdness with complicated powerpoints/word docs

Internally, you could convert them to OO.o, fix the problems and use only OO.o from that point on. Externally, I would not send anything but a .pdf to a customer. For one, I do not want them to be able (in a easy, reasonable way) to edit the received document. Also, there are differences in the rendering of a document in different MS Office versions. To a partner - dependes who's the "bigger" one - you could make them use OO.o.


2) no Visio
3) no Photoshop (eveyone knows photoshop, why relearn the app?)

These are not so main-stream as Office. In our 250 people branch office, one person uses Photoshop and Corel, and max 20 are using Visio. You could handle these through an exception (dual boot, second machine, vmware)

4) ERP apps like siebel that require activeX plugins

Well, Oracle e-Business Suite does works in Linux ;)

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, Oracle e-Business Suite does works in Linux ;)

Well, to the extent that it works on any platform, it works on Linux. My experience though, is that it works equally poorly on all platforms - it's not particularly well liked in my workplace.

Reply Score: 0

jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

I'm not thrilled by it either. The point was, however, that business applications DO work on Linux.

Actually, e.g. the database is another example how commercial software can be distributed for Linux - the same download works on RH ES/AS 3, RH ES/AS 4, Suse 8, Suse 9 and a few more (officialy). In reality, it even works on Debian Sid. So much for "can't distribute commercial sw for Linux"...

Reply Score: 1

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

for the average home user:
1) no iTunes


RythmBox is designed for all the iTunes fans. Other than not having the iTunes store, it's virtually identical.

Personally, I hate iTunes and anything remotely like it. Give me xmms (linux) or WinAMP (Windows) any day.

2) all the software that ships with digital cameras requires windows (or OS X)

I plug my Vivicam 3715 into the USB and it pops right up on my Gnome desktop in FC3. I guess I should pity Windows/OSX people needing to install software to use their cameras.

3) games

I could give a list of games which run natively, and a bigger list that run in WINE/Cedega, but I'll just mention my two favorite: DOOM3 and American McGee's Alice. I'm a FPS nut. DOOM3 is native, and Alice runs better in WINE than in XP Pro.

for the business user:
1) no MS Office - sorry Open Office doesn't cut it. I've seen too much weirdness with complicated powerpoints/word docs


http://www.codeweavers.com/

'nuff said.

2) no Visio

Never even heard of it. Can't be that much demand for it.

3) no Photoshop (eveyone knows photoshop, why relearn the app?)

http://www.codeweavers.com/

Pro v4.2 runs Photoshop fine.

4) ERP apps like siebel that require activeX plugins

YOUCH!! Anyone still using ActiveX needs their head examined. It's the single worst security problem in Windows. I disable/delete ActiveX as much as Windows lets you on all my Windows machines.

5) other business client apps like Expensable that are windows only

If you NEED a Windows only app, there are all sorts of things to try, like Crossover Office or WINE, or even a virtual machine like VMWare if necessary. Most folks won't need any of these programs you mentioned. I've never even heard of some of them. A scant few may need a Windows-only app. If it doesn't work in linux with WINE/Crossover Office, and you can't setup VMWare, that ONE PERSON may need to keep a Windows system, but everyone else should be on linux.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

1) no MS Office - sorry Open Office doesn't cut it. I've seen too much weirdness with complicated powerpoints/word docs

There's an open standard for office documents (OASIS), everyone supports it (OO.org, Abiword, Koffice?). Microsoft doesn't, and this is OO.orgs's fault? Come on...

Reply Score: 0

Xandros, Suse...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anonymous:
You want no "hard" configuration, try Linspire or Xandros--they even offer support with their products. Oh but wait, they're not free and you'll complain about that. Oh but wait, they're not Windows and you'll gripe about that too. There really is no pleasing you, so go back to Windows.

It's not always a question of money. How do I get Xandros, Linspire in French for my country, Swizerland.
How will my "national phone company / internet provider" support a Xandros user?
I bought once a Suse distro. It was a disapointment. The complexity of Linux remains (eg installing wxPython, installing a printer).
Sorry to say this, I prefer to spend my bucks (Swiss Francs) bying Windows.
PS I not an MS fan, I tried Linux several times. To be short a nightmare.

Reply Score: 0

Who is the author "As-a Tosser?"
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So what he is the tea-boy round the Mozilla foundation.
I aint even going to start about migration tools, cos the fever is on anti-Linux Desktop.

Again and again, just don't use it - full stop.

Reply Score: 0

Moveover
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---
Duh ... Linux is ...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

... my Desktop.

Linux is ready for the Desktop quite some time now ... well for some people, at least, that can figure out what hardware they need and that can figure out how to compile the proggy they want. That's it.

In other words:

If at all it is the vast majority of computer vendors are not ready for Linux-Desktops, they simply don't offer boxes containing hardware that is on the Linux-compatibility list, with Linux preinstalled.

If at all is is the vast majority of distros is not ready for the desktop. They are awfully overloaded with numerous proggies for the same task, with inconsitant interfaces bloated app-menues, package-managers that exceed critical mass.

In between both parties, there is a big gap in which the user is lost to figure out how to get his hw-pieces (that are not detected automatically) work properly and how to configure all that stuff and what apps have what purpose.


Or finaly in other words:

It is hard (if not nearly impossible) to "take over" a MS Windows (or Apple) machine.

It is very hard to penetrate into the MS fortified market.

It is neither the user to teach into Linux, nor is it Linux to be ready for the desktop, it is all and only about market resistance, it is about prejudice and it is about vendor lock-in!

Reply Score: 0

What does Helix mean you say?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What does _Firefox_ mean? an animal?
what is _Mozilla_ ? a moooo cow turned into a monster?

Reply Score: 0

Linux is ready....
by ThawkTH on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:34 UTC
ThawkTH
Member since:
2005-07-06

For those ready for Linux.

And ONLY those ready for Linux...

Reply Score: 1

clipboard works.
by jziegler on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:35 UTC
jziegler
Member since:
2005-07-14

The two clipboards he's talking about are actually "the primary selection" and "the primary clipboard". When running gnome and using gnome-terminal, I do not have one program, that would not understand the ctrl-insert, shif-insert combination. The only ones I have which does not understand them fully are gvim (partially) and rxvt (not at all). None of them would be used by a normal user. All others (which I use daily) - OOo, Firefox, Thunderbird, gaim, a few Java apps - all work correctly with the clipboard. Even fonts and colors get copied correctly (which actually ticks me off, when pasting into gaim ;) .

As the windows users would not have an idea about the primary selection, they would always select text and press ctrl-insert (or ctrl-c) and shift-insert to paste it. Hence, they would always use the primary clipboard and should not experience any problems with it.


btw, what is "my documents"? I want my /home directory on my Windows machine! ;) I actually grew up on using D:users ;) , which is closer to /home than to "my documents"

disclaimer: I am using Linux for the last 7 years, almost exclusively (only use Windows when there is no way around). So I might not be the correct person to judge the user-friendliness of Linux. On the other hand, I can whole-heartedly claim Linux was ready for desktop 7 years ago already. And no, I do not need it to be perfect for all the Windows users. I also don't think that "world domination" is the goal of Linux. It might be the goal for some companies, but not for "Linux".

Reply Score: 1

RE: clipboard works.
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:00 UTC in reply to "clipboard works."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm with you. I haven't had a clipboard problem I couldn't resolve in 30 seconds in probably a year and a half....
In fact, I get constantly annoyed with the lack of current selection paste in Windows cause I'm so accustomed to it now. Not a big deal, just annoying.

Reply Score: 1

What Linux 'needs'
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I find it curious that so many people assume that the goal of each and every Gnu/Linux user and developer is to get Windows users to switch. And everyone has their opinions on what it needs to do.

Actually, what most of us Gnu/Linux users want is a quality OS that steadily improves with time. Which is what we have.

I find it irritating when the wants of a group of people who still look down on Linux as inferior are seen as more important than the wants of current Linux users.

Except for the drivers issue and a few other minor things, we are satisfied with our OS. We like the way we get software. We like the software we have. We like the vast number of options. Some of us even like the command line (gasp!). The writer just doesn't get that.

And to anyone who would respond to this with "well, with that kind of attitude Linux will never catch on", re-read the first paragraph and guess if I care.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What Linux 'needs'
by jziegler on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:52 UTC in reply to "What Linux 'needs'"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

Finally someone, who gets it.

If "they" took mplayer, pekwm, my ability to set keyboard shortcuts for almost everything, my network transparent windowing system, my ability to remotely administer any machine, my 2-commands update of the whole system away from me, I'd be pissed ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE: What Linux 'needs'
by ma_d on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:01 UTC in reply to "What Linux 'needs'"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You're not saying it loud enough:
I LOVE my command line.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What Linux 'needs'
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 10:45 UTC in reply to "What Linux 'needs'"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> I find it curious that so many people assume that the goal of each and
> every Gnu/Linux user and developer is to get Windows users to switch.


It should be. If they want more games, commercial software and official drivers from hardware companies... It's in every Linux users interest to increase the number of users.

Reply Score: 0

What Linux desktop?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There is no linux desktop. There's desktops and toolkits tha t run on Linux, but there's no linux desktop.

In any case, that might be part of the problem. Linux is pretty unique among operating systems in that the kernel and most of the userspace, system tools are not controlled by a single organization.

It's hard to get people on the same page when everybody has their own interests and no particular motive to interoperate with the next guy.

Maybe that's why so many Linux people are moving to OSX.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: nice try
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Now how easier can it be than that i ask you?"

Try the Windows Installer!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Desktop Linux?
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Facts: Linux is not for the people who are classified as "tools". Go use Windows and keep infecting your machine with Spyware for all I care. Or better yet, go buy a Mac to hook up your uber cool iPod to. And make sure you call "Geek Squad" to help you out with YOUR problems.

Fact: whoever is savvy enough to keep a unix desktop walking, is savvy enough to keep windows running.

Reply Score: 0

Re: What Linux 'needs'
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"I find it curious that so many people assume that the goal of each and every Gnu/Linux user and developer is to get Windows users to switch. And everyone has their opinions on what it needs to do."

Agreed. While I have switched a few people over to Linux over the last year, each one has asked me...and only after I helped them a little with Windows problems that they had did I agree to the request.

"Actually, what most of us Gnu/Linux users want is a quality OS that steadily improves with time. Which is what we have."

Yep.

"I find it irritating when the wants of a group of people who still look down on Linux as inferior are seen as more important than the wants of current Linux users.

Except for the drivers issue and a few other minor things, we are satisfied with our OS. We like the way we get software. We like the software we have. We like the vast number of options. Some of us even like the command line (gasp!). The writer just doesn't get that."

I agree up to the last sentence. He does get it, though he just disagrees with our perspective. That's fine, and I'm willing to listen, though the ways Linux can be improved differs in my mind. I'm more interested in advanced features and enhancements as opposed to dealing with problems that aren't much of an issue to me.

"And to anyone who would respond to this with "well, with that kind of attitude Linux will never catch on", re-read the first paragraph and guess if I care."

Neither do I...though I'll listen to thoughtful comments.

If there is some give and take -- if the person isn't just complaining but actually has an idea -- that is a good thing. Otherwise, I've had enough of the constant complaints that are really just threats and demands.

I don't think this article is in that category; it is more thoughtful though not necessarily aimed at you or me.

Reply Score: 0

Some people really underestimate......
by polaris20 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 20:54 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

non-mainstream apps. There is a huge install base for people who use professionally and/or seriously a "non-mainstream" app, be it graphics apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Freehand, A/V apps like Pro Tools, Avid Xpress, Premiere, and Reason, and business apps like Visio and others.

If these were available on Linux, I think there'd be a much bigger Linux install base than there is, because it could potentially lure away the Mac people that don't want a Mac anymore, but hate Windows too.

For people serious about these types of apps, equivalents are no where near good enough.

Reply Score: 1

Ok so...
by Sodapop on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:18 UTC
Sodapop
Member since:
2005-07-06

Here it is, I'm pretty darn skilled with windows etc. But when it comes to linux I am such a newbie man. I can't tell you how many times I've tried linux (again) with everyone saying that it's changed.

Well I can't see jack that has changed. Installing apps is still not an easy task and some hardware still don't work.

Hell, if you can fix those problems then I'm game. How about making my Revolution 7.1 put sound through more than one speaker? And how about being able to install an app without having to jump through hoops and command lines and being bothered about how I have to install some missing dependencies all the damn time?

Not to mention being able to detect my monitors proper frequency. Right now I think the Mac pretty much has done what Linux couldn't. I guess this a case where maybe Linux users don't want a change, what the hell are they afraid of, making thing work properly?.

I'm just telling the truth guys, I want Linux to succeed, so let's stop pussyfooting around and do it.

As much as I dislike Microsoft's practices, Windows DOES just work, so does a Mac really.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ok so...
by jziegler on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:28 UTC in reply to "Ok so..."
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

Funny. I see it completely opposite. I could be considered a n00b in Windows

In windows, I need a third-party app to have virtual desktops. And even then, it does not work 100% correctly.

To change the shell (window manager), you need to do something, which definitely is not supported by Microsoft. RedHat would not turn you down, if you changed from Gnome to KDE, or vice-versa.

To install my applications in Windows I have to download each application separately and run it's installed. As I mentioned in a different thread under a different article, that means at least 6 times going to a website, 6 times downloading a file, 1 unziping, 6 times running an installer to get Gimp, Gaim, OOo, Thunderbird, Firefox and gvim (all of which I use). In Linux (Debian), I could do that with one command.

W2K, for some reason I have not investigated yet, does NOT antialias fonts on my laptop. I've heard something along the lines that it refuses to do it on a LCD. Gnome looks so much better on the same computer...

And don't even get me started on how long it took get my usb bluetooth module working in Windows (W2K).

From my point of view, Windows does NOT _just_ work. It works OK, but I can't say it _just_ works.

If someone want's to ask why I have not tried WXP/SP2 - because the company is on W2K.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ok so...
by Fritz Mock on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:35 UTC in reply to "Ok so..."
Fritz Mock Member since:
2005-07-20

"Here it is, I'm pretty darn skilled with windows etc. But when it comes to linux I am such a newbie man. I can't tell you how many times I've tried linux (again) with everyone saying that it's changed.

Well I can't see jack that has changed. Installing apps is still not an easy task and some hardware still don't work."

It might sound crude, but it isn't meant that way.
Don't expect Linux to move towards you, it's the other way round, you have to move towards Linux. Only, if you want to use Linux of course.

(Regarding the hardware thing, this would mean, try to buy hardware that Linux fully supports.)

Reply Score: 1

Heh.....
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think the guy who wrote that article is not ready for the desktop.

End of story.

P.S. Thom Holwerda, I can't understand that you describe this guy's writings as 'interesting analysis'. We've heard that kind of arguments a billion times before, and a word 'analysis' is not appropriate at all.

Reply Score: 0

user interface lazyness
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

really why do care about user interface? after OS/2 after windows after kde after xfce4 all we need are applications integrated in some sort of desktop ui

human beings are able to adapt, taking some negative view because of being to lazy to adapt is like dying in the dust of time

Reply Score: 0

Piece of cake
by Bobmeister on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:43 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well..Linux, after the learning curve which wasn't all that bad is now a piece of cake, including software. It's EASIER than Window and there isn't a damn registry. People should just use Windows, or figure Linux out if they want to use it. It's just that simple. Linux won't be Windows and thank God for that.

Windows CAN'T be Linux because it's not nearly as capable an OS.

Reply Score: 1

Linux deserves the extra learning effort
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 21:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I sincerely think that linux deserves the extra effort on the user´s side to be used. Actually, to work with windows, the user don´t have just to learn how to use the OS, but also has to know to use an antivirus, antispyware and personal firewall, apart from constantly patching the whole thing. (Apart from paying a lot of money for the OS Licence + regular fees for the antivirus subscription)
All this effort can be saved and invested in learning to use a TRUE OS. Don´t ask for Linux to be crippled to adapt to lazy users.
There are some interesting points, though, such as the subtle difference between "preferences" and "settings", that could be solved. Also maybe someone could write a settings and personal folder migration wizard.
The installation of software was one of my major pains with Linux until I discovered apt-get and synaptic, just take 5 minutes to learn how to use and you will discover no install wizard can beat apt-get.
Nevertheless an install-wizard-like system is being developed for Linux, called "autopackage".
I think KDE and GNOME are making a lot of progress lately and many interesting tools are coming from the OSS world and things will improve greatly for the better.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: nice try
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How can it be easier? By double-clicking a file and have it install for you. Typing commands in terminals, no matter how simple it might seem, is too daunting a task for a normal user.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: nice try
by jziegler on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nice try"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

Not sure to whom you are replying, system does not show it and you have not qouted anyone.

Yeah. Typing commands is not easy, if you don't know them AND you are unwilling to learn. I accept that, though I wonder were have all the people gone, who grew up on DOS ;) . I also wonder, why people are unwilling to learn new things. I am an IT guy by studies and trade, but when I'm at the dentist, I'm interested in what she's doing and why. I am also interested how the car/train/plane which is transporting me works. Maybe I'm strange ;)

However, there is a big difference, for me at least, between typing one command, or two, and clicking around for 5 minutes to get something installed. The first requires less actions from my side, hence I consider it easier.

Reply Score: 1

Why would he be relevant?
by somebody on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:08 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

And point by point.

It's probably worth pointing out that I'm not a "Linux person." I've only been using Linux for about six years. I've been using Windows for about twice that long, and I've been using Macintosh for about 20 years. I'm not really loyal to any one OS; I've used what my employer or school offered or required and when that wasn't a consideration I've used what I thought was most convenient.

He used macs for 20 years?

Yet, he's bitchin' about OK Cancel. Gnome has Mac standard buttons, not Windows.

MacOS had it this way and OSX has it this way.

http://www.csis.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/designs/file_selector/background...
(First screenshot I could find on google)

The first issue, migration, is pretty serious.

Agreed.

For "regular people" to adopt Linux (which usually means leaving Windows), it is going to need a serious migration plan. The OS will need to install on machines next to Windows, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.

What is nearly all data? And what does he expect, autocreated all users with the same passwords? Nope, this part is gonna be done manualy. Beside the fact that Mozilla does not transfer e-mails from e-mail clients in Linux either (it does that on Windows only).

And being the *Linux* person, I feel really pissed that windows don't even recognize my ext3 partitions.

Windows is not ready for desktop. Neither is OSX, I can't transfer settings to OSX either, or install on the same machine as Windows.

When normal users fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, e-mail client, instant messenger client, file manager ... each need to carry over as much as possible -- from the Windows application settings to all or very nearly all of the user data. Without this, the hill is just too steep to climb and these users will not make the climb.

As I already said, bigger problem here are patents (ntfs is not really free) and which user do you transfer. I would like that Firefox or Thunderbird under Linux would be the first examples of bullshit he named.

I don't mean the "not crashing" kind of stability. I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from Download.com.

Yes, I agree. Web frontend like download.com for repositories would be welcome.

A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.

Or just they could install comat libraries. It is part of distro.

Developers may think it's cool to reuse as much code as possible but the user doesn't care whether it was Linux that failed to include the necessary compatibility components or Mozilla that failed to make the build work for that particular dot release of libstdc++.

So, translated. NOT GUILTY, BLAME ANYONE ELSE.

Regular users expect to be able to download software, install it, and have it just work. Asking them to figure out complex system library and kernel compatibility issues is a one way ticket off of their desktop.

As I said web frontend like download.com would be welcome. But if download service would start using apt or yum. Don't see any difference here.



Just because you can include a feature doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a user preference doesn't mean you should.

People bash gnome for the other side, for not providing option. kde (agreed)

I don't want to start a desktop war but I really gotta say to the distros, pick a desktop and be happy. Normal users shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when they're installing your product. They don't need 15 to 20 mediocre games in a highly visible Games menu at the top of the Applications list.

Freedom is where it all started. And there is a little fact that I don't see FFox as native KDE or Gnome application. Basicaly, their own software is contributing to his own bitchin'

And what is a user to think when confronted with a choice between Helix Player, CD Player, and Music Player? Does the Music Player not understand CDs? What's "Helix" mean? Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window; Notepad has about three.

Windows, CD player and Media player, after that if you want to look .rm, there is a real player...

What does for example "Nero Burning ROM" means or Alcohol 120%?

Notepad hasn't got synthax highlighting, hasn't got spell checker, not to mention all extensions.

You and I know that the difference between Settings and Preferences is that one is system wide and one is per-user but regular users don't know that and shouldn't need to know that. If they don't have access to it because it's a system wide setting, then why put that entire menu of options in front of him? If normal users have equal access to both, then why are they split? It's just a confusing mess.

It could be asking too much of him to think. I have to, whenever I go trough control panel hell on windows.

Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users. Most people using computers today have been at it for a while now and they've been at it on Windows. Don't mess with their basic understanding of how things work. Regular people do not know what it means to "mount a drive" and they shouldn't have to.

Yeah, screw security.

They don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely-tuned muscle memory. They shouldn't have to learn what /home means or how it differs from My Documents. They don't want two clipboards that seem to constantly overwrite each other.

1. It is MacOSx way
2. OSX has users, Windows has c:documents and settingsusername
3. I think that developers are adressing that one in G2.12

Linux UI fundamentals need a reworking to match the habits that Windows users have been building over the last decade. Get the users first, then try to teach them a better way (if you've have one). Putting things in the "right" place for Windows users will go a long way. You can never do too much to ease the transition.

Windows is not the best option. And you can't win them with a copy. Copy is never as good as original.

Same question pops up why they at Mozilla screwed people with placing type position below quote (when replying), while all Windows users are used to Outlook way.

Again, having two signatures was a real pain in the ass to find.

I think of Linux today the way I think of Mozilla 1.0 from just a few years ago: a very capable product with a very limited audience. If Linux makes major inroads on the desktop, it will probably be as a result of the same kind of focus that put Firefox on tens of millions of desktops, a focus on migration, stability, simplicity, and comfort.

Nah, it wasn't FFox that did that. It was IE and all its holes. People just wanted something better. Or in Linux case it was the best option.

Now,... I'm not bashing FFox, I enjoy using FFox, then again I did it even before with Mozilla. I just had to accept difference, while this article was a compete bullshit

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why would he be relevant?
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 09:33 UTC in reply to "Why would he be relevant?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, I agree. Web frontend like download.com for repositories would be welcome.

Its being done:

http://klik.atekon.de/

Reply Score: 0

re: ok so... (sodapop)
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i would put money on it that you tired rpm baded distros (mandrake, redhat, fedora core (same as redhat), suse, and their derivitives)

you should try a debain based distro (Xandros, Simplymepis).... package management is can all be done via gui and is easy... you search for what you want, click install, and it installs that package and any dependencies automatically.

Gentoo and SourceMage will also satisy dependencies automatically, but really are not newb distors...

give xandros or simplymepis a try... they are both nice... come with plugins preconfigured and if you click on the K menu, click configuration or settings, then click synaptic.. you can install new programs totally graphically

Reply Score: 0

ugh, whatever, dont use it then
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"I've only been using Linux for about six years. I've been using Windows for about twice that long, and I've been using Macintosh for about 20 years."
-from said article

There should have been an international law passed years ago banning whining disguised as an article.

Reply Score: 0

For Joe user...
by bluecode77 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:20 UTC
bluecode77
Member since:
2005-07-20

Joe user loves chatting with friends online, enjoys being able to voice chat with pals abroad cheaper. See friends online and video chat with them. There is no webcam driver support over linux at the moment(they have been removed from the kernel, because of property rights issues. So joe user has to compile kernel,wow good luck). Most of us, cant do video chat over linux. No decent voice chat software. Gaim is far away from being something close trillian. USB and wireless integration getting better over linux, however still needs work.

I am comfortable over Gnome, and I don’t think its slow or anything, just I guess software like xcompp and transperancy slows it down unexpectedly... weird

ATI,NVIDIA drivers, even experts says easy.. trust me people, really not easy for joe user. And why would i not utilize every capability of my ATI Card? Well things like that... Actually those I guess are small issues, and most of those are related to property rights .. license issues... Please somebody resolve that license issue.. GNU license is good, however please chnage your policy and allow those drivers into kernel.. Don’t know how but we need those...

And maybe a new Instant Messanger... a better one even... than msn messanger,icq and so on... voice chat... video sessions.. webcams.. I believe so many users would feel more comfortable and miss less of windows or OS X

Reply Score: 1

what linux needs
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I use Linux on my every day desktop and there is one major thing ... wait 2 things that would absolutely make my day, week...hell. year, first..... Winamp.. not xmms, but winamp or somethign almost the same.. with full video and audio codec support and support for xinerama...

I know i will get 10 people that say there are plugins for xmms to do this..... but they all suck..... i need commercial quality, i use my computers for video and audio in commercial settings where i need a playlist and video and audio support with all codecs

the other thing.....OpenOffice.org needs to fix Impress.... and by fix i mean.... make it dual monitor aware.....
I hate PowerPoint but ... for christ sakes.... make it like powerpoint.... full presentation in one monitor and the slide show in the second monitor.... this wouild at least make Openoffice useful

I honestly think.... if linux got a high quality media player (eg winamp) and openoffice impress became dual monitor aware... linux would jump to 10% on the desktop market in a year or 2

I use linux for everything... but i'll tell you what...i would never in a million years expect anyone to jump through all the hoops i do to make things work for commercial multimecia applications.

my $0.00001

Reply Score: 0

False arguments
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

1.'The first issue, migration, is pretty serious...We learned this lesson in the Mozilla world. It wasn't until we implemented a very capable migration system in Firefox, which carried over the user's IE favourites, cookies, history, passwords, etc, that regular people started moving over in serious numbers -- and staying (and bringing others over). Linux needs to do the same.'

Linux needs to do the same? What about Windows? What have Microsoft done to ease that kind of migration? Nothing. Can you export your bookmarks, history etc. from Outlook to Firefox, for example? No. Can you export your Microsoft Word documents to Open Office, Kword or Abiword formats? No way.

So, I think that your argument about migration is false.

2.'The second problem that blocks massive Linux desktop growth is stability... I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from Download.com....A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.'

When you say 'stability' you probably mean 'resolving dependencies'.

I thought you were working for Mozilla foundation? And who created that dependency? Mozilla team. Why Firefox suddenly needs libstdc++? I had a previous version of Firefox installed as default browser, and it didn't need libstdc++. I want to install a new version and it needs it. No a big deal. Open Yast, or whatever package manager and install it. But don't accuse Linux distros that they don't install libstdc++ by default, because distros didn't know that you guys at Mozilla team would require it for an upgrade of Firefox.

So, your second argument is false too.

3.'The third issue is a lack of simplicity...Users don't need 15 to 20 mediocre games in a highly visible Games menu at the top of the Applications list.'

Of course not, but they've chosen them during installation of their distro. Any decent distro gives you a lot of options which packages to and not to install. Mediocre users choses mediocre games.

'And what is a user to think when confronted with a choice between Helix Player, CD Player, and Music Player? Does the Music Player not understand CDs? What's "Helix" mean?'

What does PhotoShop mean? A web shop where I can buy some photos? And What does Outlook mean? Something which I can use to look out? Come on.

'Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window; Notepad has about three.'

Gedit is 30 times better than Notepad. Isn't that easy to understand?

'You and I know that the difference between Settings and Preferences is that one is system wide and one is per-user but regular users don't know that and shouldn't need to know that. If they don't have access to it because it's a system wide setting, then why put that entire menu of options in front of him? If normal users have equal access to both, then why are they split? It's just a confusing mess.'

You don't need to mess around with settings and preferencies if you uncomfortable with it. And if you are a newbie you will not do that. Microsoft Word etc. menus are as much mess to me. Application menus are as complex as an application is complex. You can't tweak Microsoft Windows desktop as much as you can tweak KDE desktop. Therefore a tipical Linux desktop has so many preferences and/or settings menus.

4.'The final major issue is comfort...Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users. Most people using computers today have been at it for a while now and they've been at it on Windows. Don't mess with their basic understanding of how things work.'

In a KDE desktop things works exactly as they work in Windows. Just tonight I watched my 12 years old daughter working with Kopete, Amarok and Konqueror. This was the first time ever she worked in KDE, and she didn't asked me for help at all. I just told her that Kopete is like Messenger, Konqueror like Explorer and Amarok like iTunes, and she didn't asked me for help at all. When I tried to tell her how to use application, she was got angry and told me: I know, dad, I know. I was simply amazed how fast she learned it, and how fast she was when using them.

'They don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely-tuned muscle memory. They shouldn't have to learn what /home means or how it differs from My Documents.'

Are you really think that other people are so dumb that they need many years of fine-tuning muscle memory to understand a simple thing like OK/Cancel buttons. My six years old son doesn't even notice it.

Yes, and in Microsoft Windows in My Document you put everything: music, pictures, videos etc. And since when are videos and pictures documents?

As I mentioned before in my previous posting: Linux is ready for the desktop, but you are obviously not.

Reply Score: 2

Linux isn't ready
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I agree on everything Asa Dotzler has said and I'd like to add one more I find very important: Directory structure and Directory naming(lib,usr,bin....), this is 2005.

I guess for most people here that are satisfied with the current situation of Linux as a Desktop computer ignorance is a bliss.

If You have ever worked as an Admin in a midage employee enviroment You would be singing a different song. These folks have absolutely no computer education whatsoever. They have kids, grandchildren....they don't have time to browse forums, blogs, repositories to learn a thing or two of underlaying Linux common practice, practice that badly needs a change.

They need things working with 1 click, not whatever.tar.gz -a-ds-rp.....this is why .arj has died (no usable graphic interface).

Ignorance and pride will be a Death judgement for Linux as a viable Desktop solution, more so now with Apple move to x86 than before.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux isn't ready
by JLF65 on Wed 20th Jul 2005 22:54 UTC in reply to "Linux isn't ready"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

they don't have time to browse forums, blogs, repositories to learn a thing or two of underlaying Linux common practice, practice that badly needs a change.

They need things working with 1 click, not whatever.tar.gz -a-ds-rp....


So don't use whatever.tar.gz - use Synaptic or the Smart Package Manager or a variety of other GUI based package managers. Both Synaptic and SmartPM give you a nice GUI that lists all available packages in several repositories, shows what version of the package you have installed (if you do), allows easy searching for packages, and one-click install that resolves all dependencies for you. Installing 99.9% of programs is by far easier on linux now than Windows.

There is still that 0.1% that needs more than a single click, but Windows has the same problem - most Windows programs come in a executable installer, but there are some that don't and require at least as much effort to install as the worst packages in linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux isn't ready
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:00 UTC in reply to "Linux isn't ready"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

And if you have an admin, you won't have to mess with Linux this and that.
But in any OS you still have to ask people about this and that oddity. It's a part of life. People keep saying this, but I keep seeing people very willing to learn these sorts of quirks:
1.) Get anti-virus going.
2.) Get spyblock turbo killer uber beta Q going.
3.) Turn on the firewall.

People act like learning is a bad thing. It's not that OS's should involve no learning; it's that learning should be made easier and more available. That means: Less searching, better organization, better searching when it's needed. It means, more complete documents. Seriously, documents are the biggest help to the new guy.
RedHat docs helped me on occasion when I was a total newb; and they weren't even very good!

Reply Score: 1

Lets be realistic
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"A random user pulled of the street should be able to use a computer."
A computer is a multifunctional tool. Or a multitude of instruments. Everyday the complexity of software and hardware increases.

And now some dude of the street that can hardly operate a book is supposed to use a computer without even thinking once? And what's he supposed to do with a computer anyway?

Let me change the statement from before a little:
"A random person pulled of the street should be able to play a violin."
Ok, he will be able to play it, but it certainly won't be music. But it's commonly accepted that you have to *learn* how to play an instrument in order to make music.

Another example:
"A random person pulled of the street should be able to use a chainsaw."
Sure, after a few tries he will have it started up. But without *instructions* he will most likely lose a limb or two, unless he is VERY carefull.

Just because I know what bricks and mortar looks like, doesn't mean I can build a three story house and have it statically sound.

And if you are looking for the perfect computer for the masses:

http://www.homesteadhomehealth.com/images/buttons/clipboard_pen_and...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Linux isn't ready
by Yogurth on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:22 UTC
Yogurth
Member since:
2005-07-20

Hi JLF65, it was my post before Yours(just registered).

You are absolutely right for package managers but only in non modem/ISDN internet access enviroment.

All package installers assume that You are on high speed bradband, the way they work and the size of certain packages is absurd to try and get with modem connection(sadly most modems aren't evemn working on Linux(soft modems), not to mention no download resume option. If Package installers were some download manager/setup installer hybrid maybe things would be different but they aren't.

I have modem connection at home myself and Standard external US robotics 56k serial, and still can't dial from Linux (not one distribution I tried and tested(Mandrake 10, Ubuntu 5, redhat 9, FC 3, Suse 9...) wouldn't let me dial in pulse mode), no matter what I tried to force through ppp.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux isn't ready
by JLF65 on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux isn't ready"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

You are absolutely right for package managers but only in non modem/ISDN internet access enviroment.

All package installers assume that You are on high speed bradband, the way they work and the size of certain packages is absurd to try and get with modem connection(sadly most modems aren't evemn working on Linux(soft modems), not to mention no download resume option. If Package installers were some download manager/setup installer hybrid maybe things would be different but they aren't.


Okay, I'll agree with that. Package Managers are meant to be used with broadband. Dialup people will have to get individual packages and any dependencies by hand. Although meant to be used with a package manager, all repositories can be browsed like an ftp site. You can download individual packages with the Save As context menu.

It's one reason why most linux distributions come with so much stuff. If you don't have broadband, you buy the CDs and DVDs which will have a couple thousand packages. Then you are only stuck doing a few packages by hand. Not as good as having a package manager, but not as bad as only having the OS to start with.

If you have dialup and Windows, you get nothing with Windows and have to get EVERYTHING individually. At least with linux, you have a couple thousand of the most popular packages to start with. So with Windows and dialup, it's more downloading, but less work on installing. With linux and dialup, it's less downloading, but more work on installing.

Personally, I don't think either has a clear advantage with dialup, but linux has a clear advantage with broadband.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Linux isn't ready
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux isn't ready"
RE[3]: Linux isn't ready
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux isn't ready"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I can only speak for one package manager, cause it's the only one I've killed in the middle of a download, and that's pacman. It resumes downloads fine. I'd imagine most do, but like I said I haven't tried it.

Soft modems aren't usually supported because it involves writing some really unsexy software. You usually have to use linuxant or something of that nature; or shell out and buy an actual modem ($30-$80). Heck, you'll probably even get a slight speed gain off the hard modem.

But the other guy who responded to you is right: You don't wanna use network based distributions with dial-up unless you're patient and think ahead. You will probably want something on a CD; or on 5 CD's.

Reply Score: 1

Ready? Not Ready? Which is it?
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Every week there is a story on some site telling us why Linux is ready and then another story telling us why Linux is not ready.

Can someone please write a story that tells those authors that no one really cares what they think? People should just use what works for them. These articles have grown extremely tiresome.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ready? Not Ready? Which is it?
by Manik on Thu 21st Jul 2005 10:32 UTC in reply to "Ready? Not Ready? Which is it?"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Apparently, people cares. A lot. Otherwide, there wouldn't be so many comments in this thread.

Reply Score: 1

lol
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

osnews loves these article its really the only articles that get 90+ comments

Reply Score: 0

TCO arguments for both OS desktops
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Pro's and Con's of each evaluated in
'Linux vs. Microsoft TCO debate rages'
By Jo Best, Silicon.com
Published on ZDNet News: July 19, 2005, 8:56 AM PT

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-5794560.html

Reply Score: 0

v Fucking winblows users
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 00:44 UTC
Re:RE[3]: Linux isn't ready
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Um you want to see package management pain try PKGSRC from NetBSD and the rest. I spent hours yesterday fighting dependancies again. If the firefox package fails to install it downloads the package again on your next attempt, and again, and again....(12MB x 5)

When I was on dialup (not softmodem) Gentoo/Portage was nice to me as it uses wget to resume downloads if required. Its all automated, always is. emerge firefox. All dependencies taken care of - everytime. I even had the luxury of removing some "USE" options to reduce the packages to download sometimes.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re:RE[4]: Linux isn't ready
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:16 UTC in reply to "Re:RE[3]: Linux isn't ready"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Yea, I spent hours today hanging around to fight fbsd's ports system. Apparently, if the applications makefiles need automake17 they aren't smart enough to install it first; and automake17 wasn't smart enough to install automake first; which subsequently errored for some reason. I know, I know, I should cvsup or something? I was installing cvsup!
Anyway, that was totally off topic!

My preference has always been a big set of packages to choose from at install time; or a very good binary package manager. But generally, I like to just have the stuff there and not do any application installs! Of course, that requires you to know what applications you use, or have a really big disk.

Reply Score: 1

linux
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ubuntu is fun but only when all your hw works. I had a hell of a time getting my modem to work. First I had to fetch some obscure driver that someone kind enough made a binary of then had to match it to the ubuntu kernel version then I was able to get on the net but had to run the config script each time. Trying to get it automated resulted in halting my linux box and then it was uninstall time and back to windows. What a relief.

Don't get me started on the ultra dma setting in ubuntu and file searches stupid mechanism. Why is it that whenever I make a new folder or file or install new sw I have to update the database again? If I don't then it take ages to find stuff. In windows searching is much faster. Also, ubuntu has both its own config files and those of linux as well. Confusing because I never know which file to update for ubuntu to work with. There was too much command line craziness in linux and I'm too old for that crap today. I used to be into DOS when I was a teenager but thesedays I want to get my work done and not administer my box all the time.

Reply Score: 0

Linux isn't ready
by Yogurth on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:21 UTC
Yogurth
Member since:
2005-07-20

I haven't tried Gentoo, but for what I have read about it it certanly isn't an OS for uneducated Linux or Windows user, and that is my point actually. I could probably use it or install it but I'm not an average computer user(probably no one here on OSNews is), but trying to "sell" someone who isn't computer savvy Gentoo's update or app install is next to impossible.

It is just too damn complex for 95% of people using computers.

Linux has made great progress in past few years, but biggest problems then are still the biggest problems today concerning Desktop use...

I just hope Gnome/KDE/XFC(I hear these guys are working on a completely new install system - unlike anything there is currently on Linux)/Kernel developers will hear some of the most requested changes and features and won't let this great oportunity run by them.

Reply Score: 1

if linux is to go to the desktop...
by Isaac on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:31 UTC
Isaac
Member since:
2005-07-20

more than the issue of linux being better than windows is the way linux doing things getting to the average windows users' satisfaction.

you can read a lot of "linux is ready for the desktop!", "kde/gnome is better than XP!", etc. but get a bunch of non-technical windows users to try out linux and then ask if they would like a shift to it. you'll get more no than yes. why? because linux makes users adjust so many habits that they are accustomed with.

users are accustomed to the look, feel and tradition of windows. a linux lover may ask, why should i follow that of MS? that of linux is much better. no problem with that. but if linux is to go to the desktop, then you have windows lovers to convince and no talk of "less virus", "no spyware", "good server" will ever convince those non-technical windows users.

and what will? simple. let them have the windows look and feel, with their favorite windows progs working and files used in windows read.

immitate windows? if it is the way for users to shift to linux, then do it.

mindset plays a role here. linux must play along with the perspective of desktop users. linux must adjust to that perspective.

convincing users to use linux is more of showing them that linux has the same use and comfort, and not it being better after adjusting the users' mindset, which is actually what is most linux distro doing. it's an approach more likely to failas MS has won those mindsets and has a tight hold on it. thus, go with it to win users.

Reply Score: 1

Best Member since:
2005-07-09

there are desktops that do just that. Just don't ask Gnome to start following Windows exactly. XPde is already here, and theres at least one other project in the works whose aim is to copy Windows.

Reply Score: 1

v Agree with the article..
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 01:47 UTC
This Article Was Crap A Couple Weeks Ago
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

when it originally surfaced.

Is this site borrowing Slashdot's method for handling duplicate articles now?

Try not to waste my time with astroturfers trying to pretend they really want to "fix Linux". If you can "fix Linux", code and shut up. Otherwise just shut up.

Windows is crap.

Linux is also crap. We know this already.

BUT Linux is FREE crap.

Which makes it infinitely better than Windows no matter how many little stupid geek quirks it has (and it does have plenty.)

Not to mention vastly better security, reliability, stability and performance. Linux blows Windows 2003 Server away by a factor of at least 2 in trade journal tests - with the bloat in Longhorn, despite Microsoft's "faster than XP" claims, I expect this to grow to 4-5 times faster.

Reply Score: 0

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Not to mention vastly better security, reliability, stability and performance. Linux blows Windows 2003 Server away by a factor of at least 2 in trade journal tests - with the bloat in Longhorn, despite Microsoft's "faster than XP" claims, I expect this to grow to 4-5 times faster.

And again, tell that to a normal user and they just won't care.

I think the article is very well written. It's from your normal user's point of view. They don't care about the difference in security, reliability, stability, or performance as it relates to linux as long as those aren't major issues with their system. I deal with people who's machines are crippled with viruses/spyware/malware and won't do anything about it until their system just stops working.

Some people here need to get their heads out of their butts and stop trying to extrapolate what they view as the way to go or looking down on normal users as the end all be all of computing. What do normal people want? They want be able to download pictures of their grandkids, take pictures and use the software provided with their digital camera to crop them, use the printer with the easy to install windows drivers. They want to walk into best buy and buy some home improvement software app and install it without having some meaningless command line stop or other useless error message. They want to be able to call someone in the event that they get that message, even if it's someone in india. Windows, despite it's bubble gum and tape construction offers that experience better that any other OS/distro short of maybe OSX. There's no way around it. Adapt or show no real penatration in the home market. I fail to see what's wrong with the article. It's not crapping on a developers work. Well, maybe a developer whose ego is out of line with the spirit of FOSS. I'm under the impression that they do the work because it brings them enjoyment some way. Some because it scratches an itch.

Now the corporate user is a different ball of wax. You can basically tell them, this is what you're using, use it or sod off. But corporate users normally used "imaged" computers with pre configured setups needed to get the job done. Home users are not offered with that outside of windows. The right tool for the right job, simple as that. Leave your political nonsense("I hate M$ or linux is a commy devil!!) out of it.

But hey, let's keep this in mind. There's more to life than computers...especially at home. Have a beer or a screw, you'll feel better!

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I disagree. I think the home user wants to do whatever he damned well pleases with his home computer and not have people like you talk to him as if he truly was incapable of anything more than what you list. He doesn't want to be talked down to, he just doesn't want you to try and look smart by using acronyms and techno words. He's not too stupid to understand what's going on under the hood, he just often doesn't want to know (but sometimes he does!).
Geez, you'd think the people here were planning the world. It's funny, one side says:
Linux is desktop ready, you should try it if you've got some time.
The other side says:
No it's not, you won't like it; it's for smart people.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I disagree. I think the home user wants to do whatever he damned well pleases with his home computer and not have people like you talk to him as if he truly was incapable of anything more than what you list. He doesn't want to be talked down to, he just doesn't want you to try and look smart by using acronyms and techno words. He's not too stupid to understand what's going on under the hood, he just often doesn't want to know (but sometimes he does!).


Buh? You probably don't have any experience with tech support outside of a company or outside your friends. Many people just want simple to use and known systems. That's what windows provides better than linux for a majority of people. You're exactly right, joe user just might not care what's going on under the hood. If someone does, they're more than welcome to download * linux distro or freebsd and have at it. The options are available.

That still doesn't discount the article at all or deny anything written in it.

Reply Score: 0

Enterprise desktops, anyone ?
by elsewhere on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:34 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

If we're going to discuss Linux on the desktop with any kind of rationality, can we at least separate the concept of linux as a home OS from linux as a business OS ?

If I asked my gf to install linux on her laptop, she'd panic. If I installed it for her, but then asked her to start downloading software or working around dependencies or install some drivers, she'd panic. But if I hand her my laptop which is already running linux and has common applications installed (mainly openoffice and firefox), she is easily capable of using it. She even comments that it's smoother than XP on her newer laptop. I'm not saying that she claims it's better or that XP sucks or anything like that, I'm just saying that given a properly installed and configured linux desktop, she is perfectly capable and content using it.

So goes it for the enterprise. Few employees in mid - large sized organizations install their own OS, applications or drivers. In fact, they're usually prevented from it. An IT staff with properly trained and competent personnel could easily role out linux on the desktop, pre-configured for their users, and those users could easily grasp the fundamentals of using the OS. People aren't that brain dead. A decade ago the company I worked for migrated from Win3.1 to NT4.0 and had to hold sessions for employees to learn how to work around the differences. Laugh if you will, but it was a different kind of desktop from what they used. Not everyone had home computers at that time, and Win95 was still relatively new, 3.1 still dominated. But guess what ? After a couple of days in the new environment, it was a non-issue.

So yes, linux as it stands could easily be deployed in enterprises and it is already happening. A little company called Novell even has a full product suite built around supporting and managing linux desktops for the enterprise. 90% of the PC-using corporate workers out there are running Windows only for simple apps like Office or IE, and using only a subset of their functionality at that (hence the number of companies p*ssing off Microsoft by sticking with Office97 and NT4.0). Linux could be a very easy replacement in some of those circumstances. My own company uses HP desktops that come delivered with Windows pre-installed, and the first thing they do is overwrite it with a corporate OS image. It wouldn't be a big stretch to change that to a linux image, if the infrastructure was in place to support it.

Is Linux ready for the Joe Average home user? Maybe for some, but probably not quite. But so what? The low-hanging fruit and the more lucrative market is corporate anyways. Linux can't and won't displace Microsoft across the board, any more than something like OSX will. But it's ridiculous to think that a properly configured and properly managed linux desktop could not displace proprietary Windows applications in common light useage. Not everywhere, not for everything, but certainly some places for some things.

Microsoft will be around for a loooong time, and they have their place. There certainly are situations where Windows is the best solution for what is required, particularly when you stray away from the garden-variety office productivity apps. But it's not an absolute requirement, there are alternatives and linux will find it's way into organizations. It's already starting, albeit slowly, and will continue. It's inevitable. Doesn't mean the end of Microsoft by any means, just means change. That's all.

Reply Score: 1

how about...
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Let Linux grow and move on it's own, stop writing this opinion pieces that layout some ridiculous onesided plan. Although I enjoy watching real debates over "what needs to happen", I find these editorials either restating the obvious or a case of soap-box-standing developers.

I think we should spend more time writing code and asking what other users think.

Reply Score: 0

"linux" as fc4
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

All the Fedora Core distributions earned themselves notorious reputations as "crash test dummies" distributions at my favorite installfest. Use a good .deb like kaNOTix 2005.03 or simply MEPIS 2004.06 but avoid the sudo guys, the gnome guys and non-GRUB distributions. I would recommend Ubuntu but I only just got their 5.04 to boot and could not get k3b even with apt-get under kubuntu. Libranet is another good distro. The business of adding marillat to sources.list stinks but I get my stuff working ok otherwise. Usability is way down with the latest distro's, the problems tell me MEPIS should go testing for a while and switch back to unstable if testing gets stale again.

Reply Score: 0

Linux Distributions are ready...
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Many different Linux distributions are ready but the community certainly is not.

I've yet to find a linux "user" who actually uses his/her computer. Most of them just install, customize, toy around with everything to make a (sometimes grossly oversimplified) opinion of that particular version/distribution and then they move on to another release in a week or two. Anything created that was actually useful or productive during that "testing out period" is purely unintentional coincidence.

People like to say "I've been using linux for X amount of years"; but if you really ask its actually X amount of years - with Z number of distributions that all existed on their system for no more than a month tops. Irrespective of if anyone can give an accurate assessment of if something is ready for "the desktop" if it has such a transient existence; when are the linux users going to actually sit down an have a serious go at being productive with their toys?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux Distributions are ready...
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:55 UTC in reply to "Linux Distributions are ready..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I use mine. In fact, I generally hate installing new versions of linux on computers I use for work.
I've had Arch installed on one computer for almost 2 years now -- STRAIGHT.
I've had Arch on another for the last 8 months or so.
I've had slackware on the machine I'm on for about 3 months; I got really angry at Ubuntu one night and I wasn't attached to it.

Heck, I use the same GNUstep directory on a couple computers! Several people in IRC channels that I'm wasting my time in also have been using one for months, or sometimes years; and several more just changed today ;) . Of course, these are people hanging out in channels about linux...

Anyway, one reason people can do this; and I do it on my laptop sometimes (distro hopping) is because we keep our data when we load a new OS. Because we have /home (where ALL user files are, unless you do otherwise intentionally) as a seperate partition. Not everyone does, I think those who do actual work are more apt to do it; and those who actually enjoy setting up KDE the way they like don't.
I installed Kanotix on said laptop on Monday night, or was it Sunday(?), and was working on stuff the same night. The only trouble I ran into was remembering to reown my home folder to myself because Kanotix and RHEL gave me different UID's (obviously not something Aunt Tilly does without some help, but then again she doesn't distro hop either).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fedora Core 4
by Finalzone on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:55 UTC
Finalzone
Member since:
2005-07-06

Because Fedora is the RHEL test bed.
Not entirely true. For example, RHEL has RHN (an awesome feature from Red Hat) which is not available for Fedora.
Reread http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fedora Core 4
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fedora Core 4"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

From the front page:
"The Fedora Project is an open source project sponsored by Red Hat and supported by the Fedora community. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc."

I told you so ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Another one of those articles...
by ArKay on Thu 21st Jul 2005 02:57 UTC
ArKay
Member since:
2005-07-13

which pop up every 2 months or so... I don't need anyone to tell me whether it is ready or not, it is totally up to me to use it, geez.

Reply Score: 1

Real problem
by Finalzone on Thu 21st Jul 2005 03:11 UTC
Finalzone
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is not that Linux is not ready. Like some posters pointed out, it is the people unwilling to adapt to a new Desktop OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Real problem
by Isaac on Thu 21st Jul 2005 03:20 UTC in reply to "Real problem"
Isaac Member since:
2005-07-20

actually, no.

people unwilling to adapt to a new Desktop OS is understandable, as they are already happy with what they have.

linux going to the desktop tells them to look here and be happy as well. thus, it is linux (or any new Desktop OS) that must adapt to what people are used to, and not get people to try to adapt to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Real problem
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Real problem"
Anonymous Member since:
---

well, you just can't please everybody can you?

how do you accomplish this when some will be moving from Windows, some will be moving from OSX, and some from other more obscure OSes?

the answer: you can't.

why create a desktop that is exactly like another desktop, especially when the desktop you're basing your ideas from sucks (windows)? what people want is another windows. will they get this? no.

the truth: you had to learn windows. think really hard and you'll remember it. you had to learn where things were placed, etc. if you use linux, you'll have to take a little time to learn linux. if you switch from windows to osx, it'll take some getting used to--believe me!

switching OSes may not be easy at first, but with a little time, it'll get better.

btw, "Joe User" doesn't load windows on his own computer, does he? think about it. it comes preloaded and ready to go. J.U. doesn't have to load any drivers (unless he buys an aftermarket printer). maybe if we saw more of this happening with linux, linux on the desktop would be on the rise. just a thought.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Real problem
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Real problem"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That doesn't really work either. Even those shipping Windows and Mac expect people to adapt to what they change;' and it's fair because usually it's fixing some attrocious error or adding a very useful feature: Either way, adapting benefits the user a lot.

It's not a light bulb, you can't honestly expect them to all work the same.*

*The irony here is that not all light bulbs function the same even in the users mind.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ok so...
by Sodapop on Thu 21st Jul 2005 03:59 UTC
Sodapop
Member since:
2005-07-06

jziegler, ok i'm down with that whole you come from windows, I come from linux thing ;)

@Anonymous, Ok, I'll give those a try ;)

Thanks. However, I think i'd be pretty set if some kind soul would tell me how to get 4.1 sound out of my Revolution 7.1 (Envy based sound card). I can't get more than one speaker working. An easy way, please lol.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ok so...
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Ok so..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/doc-php/template.php?company=M...

That's probably the best howto you'll find; if it doesn't work....

It's marked as supported...

Reply Score: 1

I'm sick
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 04:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm really sick of all this Linux/Windows SHIT.

Use the right fucking thing for the right fucking job and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Reply Score: 0

opinion
by shiro on Thu 21st Jul 2005 04:35 UTC
shiro
Member since:
2005-07-20

http://www.angelfire.com/geek/glug/sc1.png
http://www.angelfire.com/geek/glug/sc2.png

Look at that, and don't tell me I have misconfigured my X, I've tested all Linux distro and FreeBSD manually and automatically to detect my monitor; that thing keeps showing sometime (not all the time but sometime). Never happens in Windows product.

Still on that screenshot, it took me 2-3 days installing, tweaking and upgrading that OS. It takes less than 1 day to install win2k to run smoothly w/o any glitches like that and with several apps installed. I have other things to do than to sit and search for an answer that may or may not exist.

Here's my laptop spec:

AMD K6-2 3D tech, 440mhz, 160MB Ram, S3 Virge MX 2MB, 4.1GB HDD.

Windows runs faster compare to any linux distros + freebsd, the only reason I have fbsd now is because I'm studying OS theory and want to play around with FBSD kernel. Thanks to the previous article about boosting Win2K performance now the laptop could've run faster if I switched back to windows.

Forget SuSE, forget Fedora, those are bloated Linux distros that might be the closest thing to Windows. At least now Fedora has an updater, something that I look forward in the future in every distros. FreeBSD has its own portupgrade that does a very good job.

The laptop is behind a BSD (ipf based) firewall and no worms, virus, or trojan ever installed there. My other desktop that is outside the BSD firewall has never gotten any viruses at all. I use sophos and free version of zone alarm. It's just 2 additional software that are very easy to install and user friendly. Sophos can update itself automatically.( I got sophos from my school ).

I cannot load ANY linux distro that uses kernel >= 2.4, I don't know why they always crashed during /sbin/ifconfig up. (ANY = distro + livecd). Kernel 2.2 and lower would work, but it's no fun to use a very old kernel. I'm using PCMCIA D-Link DE660, if anyone can help me, feel free. ALL LiveCD crashed when it launched that command during boot time. I can only load LiveCD if I passed nopcmcia as kernel option; no internet no fun.

For those who think that CLI is far superior, don't comment anything in this article. It is not for you. This article discuss heavily on GUI and you're yapping about CLI. Find your own place. If you still have Gnome/KDE or even X installed in your *nix, you just agree to move to GUI environment.

Just because people around you are using Linux and maybe say nice thing about it doesn't mean Linux is ready yet, there are millions other that think that Linux is not ready, and your arguments are not convincing for them. Ask people around you WHY they feel more comfortable in Linux compare to Windows. Just because they said it is nice it doesn't mean it is more comfortable than Windows.

Maybe I'm tired too to see articles like this because there isn't anything to debate about Linux current state. Nothing has change. Distros are getting bigger and bloater, at the end of the day, who would guarantee that these distros will run faster compare to Windows in the desktop environment ? (Leave server w/o X aside, that is another discussion that I'm sure Linux could've won)

Don't say Linux is better, you should pick a distro and compare it to windows, not just Linux in general, not just "debian package manager is good, fedora updater is good", PICK ONE and debate it with Windows, don't pick certain element from all distros and create this imaginary perfect linux distro and debate it with windows.

I agree with most people who said Linux should be standarized and I am looking forward to that day.

Reply Score: 1

RE: opinion
by joelito_pr on Thu 21st Jul 2005 06:58 UTC in reply to "opinion"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

I barely understand your arguments and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that comparing a linux distro that came out recently to the version of windows that came with your computer is not the best aproach. If you don't believe what I say then try putting WinXP on that laptop...

I agree that Fedora and SuSe are bloated but...

There are modern distributions that are specifically optimized for slower hardware like the one you run on your laptop...

I never got FreeBSD to work on my PC either

BTW Could you finish your site and put the screenshots on an html document because angelfire doesn't support direct linking to images(I get redirected to the image hosted by angelgire page)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: opinion
by shiro on Thu 21st Jul 2005 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: opinion"
shiro Member since:
2005-07-20

you can copy paste the link btw, DO NOT double click it.

I heard people have succeeded to put WinXP on slow/old machine, I haven't tried it myself but for sure none of the Linux Kernel 2.4 and up works with my ethernet card, but at least Win2K works, and I'm comparing Win2K vs any Distro that runs kernel 2.4. So when you said "modern distros...." I assume they run 2.4.

here's the link again.

http://www.angelfire.com/geek/glug/sc1.png
http://www.angelfire.com/geek/glug/sc2.png

I prefer FreeBSD in any given day, it's just so unfortunate that some software in *BSD requires Linux emulation, hence, adding more burden for performance and eats more space.

One thing about OO.o is that it uses Java if I'm not wrong. OO.o itself takes 160MB +/- and add Java you got yourself another 100MB+. So total would be around 260-300MB (correct me if I'm wrong with the space). Not to mention it runs a bit slower because it uses Java. Meanwhile, Office2K is enough for 90% of ppl. Last time I installed it, it takes 120MB or so (w/o frontpage)


>I agree that Fedora and SuSe are bloated but...
>
>There are modern distributions that are specifically >optimized for slower hardware like the one you run on >your laptop...
>
>I never got FreeBSD to work on my PC either
>
>BTW Could you finish your site and put the screenshots >on an html document because angelfire doesn't support >direct linking to images(I get redirected to the image >hosted by angelgire page)

Reply Score: 1

I still say it's hardware drivers.
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 05:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

All it takes in one device that you own that doesn't have linux drivers to stop any idea of switching.

I just installed Fedora core 4 (didn't like it), guess what? No drivers for my scanner(HP scanjet 4400c).
It's not worth switching unless there is a real advantage. Linux does have some advantages, but not have my drivers is a deal breaker.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, there is a driver for HP scanjet. The issue is related to Xsane where a manual setting is required. Both Fedora and Ubuntu suffered similar issues but I don't if other distros such as Mepis and Mandriva recognized scanner.

Reply Score: 0

v Linux sucks
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 05:45 UTC
laughing third
by netpython on Thu 21st Jul 2005 05:48 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

All this Windows vs Linux bickery gives OSX the sales on the desktop,Apple is the laughing third.

Reply Score: 1

twowheels
Member since:
2005-07-06

OpenOffice.org is seemingly the most frequently mentioned alternative application available on Linux.

Have those that keep pointing out that OpenOffice is missing a few features noticed that in many ways it is far SUPERIOR to MS Word? Particularly the stylist.

OO.org almost FORCES the user to learn to use styles, and then makes it EASY to use them. MS Word makes it darn near impossible to do so, leading to horrible word processing practices amongst general computer users. I have to retrain every single employee that comes to our company to separate content from style. They almost always resist at first, but once they learn to use the stylist they LOVE OpenOffice.org (in this case, on Windows -- even though they have Word installed too).

I am constantly struggling with poorly formatted documents where the user has manually applied formatting, manually aligned page breaks by adding extra carriage returns, etc, etc, etc... It's REFRESHING to work on my own documents with styles applied

Reply Score: 1

why it isn't ready ? couldn't care less
by l3v1 on Thu 21st Jul 2005 07:15 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't really care how and why some poor fellas with too much time on their hands find Linux not ready for anything from time to time. It's quite a regular event, it doesn't really disturb me anymore. Further more, I began to find most of these "articles" amusing, for two main reasons, 1) sometimes the author shows show much incompetence and ignorance of so many things that I can only laugh at it 2) sometimes the author is ok, but fails to see some of the very important issues and thus makes the whole argumentation pointless from word one.

So Why Linux Isn't Ready for Desktops ? I don't care. It is ready on my machine, for years now [although I spend half my days on windows, but not at home]. If people ask me from time to time that why it is so, I tell them. Not arguing, defending, offending, whatever, just simply tell them the truth: it is the finest OS you can use these days on your 'puters if you know what you are doing. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

After articles as this one, inevitable fight is coming. Some people know them [win/lin] enough to argue over one or the other, but the most don't, so the whole thing just ends in pointless shout. It's no use to try convincing somebody over the "goodness" of something he has not the least amount of sane knowledge.

And when known developers argue for a Windows-clone like Linux "evolution" direction, that won't generally do Linux no good. Better try solving problems, not creating ones.

Reply Score: 1

ashamed to be a linux fan !
by raver31 on Thu 21st Jul 2005 07:29 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

after reading the comments here, I can sympathise with the windows users who will not switch because of their views of linux fanboys.

the article writer gave his honest opinion on the state of desktop linux, and I know that this opinion is not that much differnet from countless others,

however, it was his opinion, and he deserves to say it as much as anyone else.

I read it objectively, and I assure you all, I am a complete linux nutter, however, I realise that linux is for me... it is not for everyone, yet.

What we need to do is work with the critics to make linux a system for them too...

what we do not need to do is say people who do not use linux are tools.

now this goes both ways.. there are obvious trolls around who come on and spout about not having Microsoft software on linux or photoshop on linux etc etc... trolls like this should be ignored, or better yet, they should be sent to places like Dreamworks or Pixars home pages, you know ? companies who use linux to create works such as Madagascar, Shrek, Final Fantasy, The Incredibles etc etc etc on linux, without photoshop etc.....

A word to Windows users;

Not all us Linux fanboys are complete fucktards like some others around here, we will genuinely help people who have an interest in using linux.

Reply Score: 1

Why all this about Download.com?
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 07:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't mean the "not crashing" kind of stability. I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from Download.com.

I don't understand why he absolutely has to download ffox or any other app from download.com. Why? Essentially all GNU/Linux has repositories and package managers, so I really can't see why users should go to download.com or any other similar site just cause that's the method they use in Windows (also os x I believe, but also there you can use fink or gentoo emerge).

In GNU/Linux you use frontends like synaptic, yum or similar. Has this guy really used "Linux" for 7 years? I've used it for about 1, and it didn't take long to find out about package-management. To me it seems easier this way then windows-way anyhow, and no it's not hard to learn.

Reply Score: 0

Trained.Monkey
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 08:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux is ready for desktop.

Reply Score: 0

Article rating
by Rodrigo on Thu 21st Jul 2005 08:43 UTC
Rodrigo
Member since:
2005-07-06

We should be able to rate all the articles posted here at OSNews, not only the exclusives ones, so maybe that would make the editors get a clue that people just _can't stand_ this theme anymore.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Article rating
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 09:17 UTC in reply to "Article rating"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Kikoo lol asv ?

Reply Score: 0

FC4???
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 09:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"I've tried KDE and Gnome desktops but my latest is FC4 so my criticism is focused on that (and Gnome) but I think KDE distributions suffer just as bad if not worse"..

Is there any FC4 desktop?? I thoght FC4 meant Redhat Fedora Core 4...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Why Desktop Linux?
by MadDwarf on Thu 21st Jul 2005 10:18 UTC
MadDwarf
Member since:
2005-07-07

"Users who just want to download a SETUP.EXE, double click on it and have the software install by itself with the icon at the right place"

And end up with the latest virus/malware.

". I need native apps from Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft...
"

Ask Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft about this. The linux community cannot be blamed for other people not joining in. Or inform some Developers exactly WHICH features you would like to see, and how much you are willing to pay them to include.

"If you don't want to ease the pain for normal users, if you don't need normal users running Linux, then PLEASE, stop talking about Desktop Linux."

The pain of spyware/viruss? The pain of vendor-lock-in and proprietry document formats? The pain of having to agree to a EULA with no idea of what is in it, or what it means?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux Distributions are ready...
by MadDwarf on Thu 21st Jul 2005 10:28 UTC
MadDwarf
Member since:
2005-07-07

3 months on Mandrake (too simple, I didn;t learn much about Linux)
2 years on Slackware. (I learnt LOTS)
2 months on Kubuntu (My Slackware hdd crashed. Decided to try something else, seeing as I had ot re-install anyway)
I have 2 PCs KVMed together.
The Windows box is for games.
My Linux box is used for collecting my email, reading webpages (e.g. OSNews), Instant Messenger, IRC, web design, RPG design and planning, basically everything I
do on a PC apart from games.
My webpage has existed for about 7 years, surviving Windows 98, 2000, XP, Mandrake, Slackware, Kubuntu, server-crashes, re-writes ...
I don't reinstall my OS just to test a new distro - that is what my 3rd PC is for.

Reply Score: 1

I don't speak Esperanto.
by BigBenAussie on Thu 21st Jul 2005 11:13 UTC
BigBenAussie
Member since:
2005-07-09

"Don´t ask for Linux to be crippled to adapt to lazy users. "

Ummmm... I thought the whole point of software was to automate tasks so you could be lazy.

If there is a task to be done by an organisation comprising of English speakers then why would I write instructions for the task in Esperanto.
What you really want is the task done, NOT everyone to learn Esperanto.
Think about what is important here?
If people think it's fun to speak Esperanto they still can, but unless you have the instructions in English as well, don't expect the majority of people to get the task done or work with you.

And so it is with the Linux desktop experience.
If you want Linux to be more popular in a world comprising of Windows users then why would you significantly change the desktop experience?
What you really want is Linux to be useful, NOT everyone to learn Linux(GUI).
Think about what is important here?
If people think it's fun to customise Linux to their tastes they still can, but unless you cater to the majority of computer users by having a desktop paradigm extremely similar to Windows, don't expect the majority of people to switch to Linux.

And really...I think when you ask "is Linux ready for the desktop?", you are really asking is Linux ready for the majority of people to switch over to from Engl....Errrr. I mean Windows.

From what I can ascertain the answer is "No". Why not give instructions in both Esperanto and English so you can choose, or rather why not have a desktop experience using the Windows or KDE/GNOME desktop paradigms and allow the user to choose.

That can hardly be considered crippling if you're catering to both types of users......

You can still innovate...for those who appreciate it.

Ok. Going back to my happy place now.

p.s. Excuse me for running IE but.....
there is a consistent Javascript error on every page refresh this quite annoying.
A runtime error has occurred.
Do you wish to debug?
Line: 93
Error: "Ad" is undefined..

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't speak Esperanto.
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 14:13 UTC in reply to "I don't speak Esperanto."
Anonymous Member since:
---

p.s. Excuse me for running IE but.....
there is a consistent Javascript error on every page refresh this quite annoying.
A runtime error has occurred.
Do you wish to debug?
Line: 93
Error: "Ad" is undefined..


Heheheh... I know what you mean. There is nothing wrong with the site as far as I know. There seems to be some strange bug with IE since I can easily reproduce the error that you describe, but I need to make at least one instance of the browser freeze with a Flash ad or something similar before that. I noticed this problem after trying to see some articles in the eWeek website. Everytime, the browser just hangs and I have to close that instance. After that, the OSNews webpage starts to give some non-existant Javascripts errors.

But since that only happens on the company's workstation that I use, I'm guessing that this must be related to a GPO or something like that.

Reply Score: 0

news flash
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 11:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Windows user believes Linux must become Windows to be "ready for the desktop". Linus hard at work coding blue screen of death.

Reply Score: 0

new paradigm
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 11:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

to switch OSs you shouldn't have to unlearn everything you know and relearn another computer paradigm. Linux forces you to learn a new computing paradigm - OSX is a diffreent os but the paradigm is the same. Linux ain't!

Reply Score: 0

RE: new paradigm
by ma_d on Thu 21st Jul 2005 14:02 UTC in reply to "new paradigm"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You're kidding right?

Reply Score: 1

My 2 cents
by Blackhouse on Thu 21st Jul 2005 12:05 UTC
Blackhouse
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that the 'readyness' of an operating system merely lies in it's adoption by the masses not by it's actual state. I mean look back at Windows 395, 98 & ME for example. These OS's were hopeless. Crashing all the time, slow as hell, resource hungry, not userfriendly at all. Yet everybody used it. Why? M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G. Look at Mozilla, before there was just a minor group, mostly Netscape refugees who used Mozilla, while it was a perfectly usable browser and it was free. Yet it took a huge campaign of enthousiasts, newspaper ads, coverage in almost every single PC magazine to get Firefox to the point where it's now, an approx 8,5% marketshare.

Other reasons why Joe Average won't switch OS:

1. There is no good reason for him to do so. He has his games, programs, settings, bookmarks all sorted and it works fine. So there are virii *shrug* he'll install a virusscanner. Oh spyware? He'll install some app for it and continues. This all requires less effort than installing Linux, figuring out what apps to use, see if he can restore his bookmarks and settings and then find that he can't play the games he wants to play, that he cannot use the apps he used to.


2. There is hardly any native support for most Linux users (yeah sorry, wanted to address this, since not all Linux users live in America or some other native english country), whereas there is a MS helpdesk in almost every single country. Next to that everybody can help you out (or thinks he/she can) if you have Windows, while Linux leaves you alone in the cold (the internet) pretty often.

3. People use Windows everywhere: work, school even the library. They always know what to expect and how things work, while switching to Linux is a jump in the dark.

So, to 'convert' the majority of the people to Linux, you'd need a revolution: features/advantages/etc to outclass windows once and for all, a good marketing campaign and a more widespread use of Linux in public places and work, until that time Linux as well as most other OS's will only play a minor role on the desktop market.

Reply Score: 1

which Linux distribution ?
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 13:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Author should specify which Linux distribution has he worked with. Some distributions are very "users friendly" others are not. I am using very much customized RedHat 9 with IceWM window manager, and a lot of GTK applications. It works perfect for me and I am able to do my daily work very quickly.

Other people might preferr something else. Maybe some distribution comes with a price, like Linspire. For example, I have no idea what comes with Linspire, or Mandriva, Suse, Unbutu, but they might be "ready for the desktop".

The conclusion is that Linux is not a monolithic operating system, but a rich set of tools that makes possible to build different platforma, tailored to a needs of all kinds of users.

DG

Reply Score: 0

Im glad its only his opinion.....
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 13:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

News flash for n00bs and winbi***es alike:

LINUX is NOT Windows!

Accept it.
Learn it.
Love it!


-nX

Reply Score: 0

Funny...
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 14:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Funny thing, as I am posting using my Linux Desktop (FC 4)

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

There is "Windows goodness", "OS X goodness" and "linux goodness." The last is not good enough, and it could be better. The point is, kill Arts and esd, and have one network-transparent sound server for all unix variants with the capabilities of JACK.

Then, take GTK2 to diet. Gnome and KDE are not just bloated, they are bloated compared to what they do, and bloated compared to how light they could be. Kiss gconf goodbye, and find some less complicated and less heavy format than XML.

Then, make OpenOffice less ugly. Polish the GUI. See the "Properties: Check box" window. You could hardly do an uglier and less polished GUI design. Additionally, never have a window scroll its contents when it could be correctly sized by default. Do they not have the talent for this, do they not know or do they not care?

For those bored of these "win vs. linux" threads. We know you exist, and saying it brings nothing to the discussion. Go home and be quiet if you don't have anything to say. Your "point of view" is so known and familiar that we are sick of it. It is plain stupid to just thump one's chest and say "my windows is better" or "my linux is better", but it is just an easy way of feigning maturity, and equally stupid to yell that "I'm just so tired of all this win vs. linux chest-thumping."

We are here to determine, to have better knowledge of, and to draw conclusions on "what is wrong with linux" or "what linux could do better" and other questions like these. Have the most intelligent and exact discussion on how bloated, bad, ugly or wrong is linux on the desktop. Bring out your best musings and let the knowledge increase.

Take a note: my suggested improvements were all for making linux _better_, not "like windows" or "like OS X."

Reply Score: 0

@BigBenAussie
by polaris20 on Thu 21st Jul 2005 16:45 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ummmm... I thought the whole point of software was to automate tasks so you could be lazy.

No, you have it all wrong! How are you supposed to grow hair on your chest if you use automation?

Apt, Yum, all for sissies! Compile it yourself, wimp! Linux is a man's OS!

Reply Score: 1

Why England isn't ready to be a country
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 18:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why England isn't ready to be a country

The issues fall into four basic categories: migration, stability, simplicity, and comfort. These issues each cover both technical capability shortcomings as well as usability failings.

The first issue, migration, is pretty serious.
For "regular people" to move over to England (which usually means leaving their home), it is going to need a serious migration plan. The country will need to install transports next to the home country, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the citizens's data and belongings.

The second problem that blocks massive growth of England is stability.
I'm talking about a stable currency that doesn't require the citizen jump through hoops when they want to make a new purchase from Ebay.com.
A citizen should be able to have a purchase work without the need for converting weight systems or whatever.

The third issue is a lack of simplicity.
Just because you can include a fancy word doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a snorky accent doesn't mean you should.

The final major issue is comfort.
England must feel comfortable to new citizens. Most people using cars today have been at it for a while now and they've been at it on the right side of the road. Don't mess with their basic understanding of how things work. Regular people do not know what it means to "use a shift-stick" and they shouldn't have to.

They don't want their steering wheel on the other side -- tossing out years of finely-tuned driving memory. They shouldn't have to learn what automibile means or how it differs from car. They don't want two words that seem to constantly overlap each other.

If England makes major inroads on the world population, it will probably be as a result of the same kind of focus that put USA on tens of millions of peoples tickets, a focus on migration, stability, simplicity, and comfort.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

lord help old england.... I bet they didnt even know they weren't ready to be a country. All them sad people living there, not surviving, not able to work and get the same stuff done that is so easy in another country. I know people that have moved from there to here and thank the light they did so. What would they have done to stay in a country that is like sooooo not a country! Strange tho that it has lasted this long, strange that people move TO there, strange.....

how on earth will linux oops i mean england survive....

Reply Score: 0

Command Line Curse
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The command line is both a curse and a blessing. It is a blessing to those of us that know the commands and how to use them. But it is a curse becuase we have reply on them too much. The adverage computer user out there doen't know or want to know commands. They want to point and click.

hell, I'm tired of the command line too. I moved to Ubuntu after using slackware for years just got get away from it. I'm tired of typing all that crap and I've been doing it for over 10 years. And yet, even with Ubuntu, I find there are just some things that can only be done with commands. Rats.

IMO, Linux won't be adopted by the masses until the command line goes away. That's right. It has to go before Linux will be adopted in great numbers. Don't believe me? Think about it. Windows took off like a rocket when it reached 3.0 because users could do everything they needed and never had to look at a dos commmand prompt.

Point 'n click is the way to linux success. Not hunt and peck.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Command Line Curse
by jziegler on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:46 UTC in reply to "Command Line Curse"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

Point 'n click is the way to linux success. Not hunt and peck.

But I type faster then I point and click ;)
Why do you want to slow me down?

I mean. Yeah, go out and make you joe-user-perfect-mouse-only linux, but don't take away any of the tools and features that made me like linux - command line, simple text-based configuration files, package managers, package repositories, reasonable directory structure.

I actually don't care, whether linux gets adopted by the masses or not. If it gets adopted in its current form - cool with me. If it has to become a windows-clone with one graphical environment only, with the necessity to download each application separately (for the sake of having setup.exe some people are used to), with applications linked statically or each having its libraries in its own dir - then I'll have to find myself another OS. Not for sake of being different or out of the main-stream, but for the sake of having an OS that makes sense to me and does not slow me down...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

That was the wittiest thing I've read in OSNews for a long time.
As a matter of fact, the only witty thing I've read in here ever :/

Reply Score: 0

rename
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why Linux Isn't Ready for MY Desktop

I mean we could all pick apart our non-favorite whatever and come up with numerous reasons why it is not "ready" but it would still only be our reasons not someone elses...

I love these articles, i mean if NO ONE was using linux then I would think they have a point! But considering a fair number of people use it then it obviously IS ready for the desktop, at least the people using it....

is my logic flawed...

Reply Score: 0

I'm loving it
by astroraptor on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 13:34 UTC
astroraptor
Member since:
2005-07-22

I love how an article containing the word "Linux" will bring a slew of comments, usually in the hundreds. What this guy wrote is true. The Linux community wants people to switch to Linux but they don't offer the users anything viable to switch to. Apple only started with their "Switch to Apple" campaign not that long ago. People switched to Mac or simply used it because it was good, because it's still good and it had what it is they wanted/expected. I'm not saying that Linux isn't good but I mean if you want people to switch to Linux then by golly give them something to switch to and that's what the point of the article is. I've been "using" Linux for a few years now, and I do say "using", and it's got its ups and downs but I'm certainly not going to format my NTFS partition and just use Linux and never play my barrage of games again and use my smorgasbord of programs as well. To get down to it, there's nothing at the moment to completely switch to. Is there something to use in conjunction with Windows? Sure, I'll use Linux along with Windows, learn it but I highly doubt that I'll be switching completely to Linux, MacOS "maybe" (and that's a big maybe) but not Linux.

Reply Score: 1

it's a matter of software
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 19:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

a desktop system should have programs like

Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Dreamweaver, MS Internet EXplorer, MS Office, and so on.

I know only two system which are really useable for work: MS Windows and Mac OS X.

So thats the real reason why Linux isn't useable as a desktop system for me.

Reply Score: 0

Loverboy
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 19:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't see how his inability to maneuver a mouse when Bill Gates isn't patting him on the back will affect me.

'If I'm a retarded Mozilla developer and can't operate a mouse that's Linux's fault.'

'If Bill Gates gets mad at me and doesn't take me on a moonlit carriage ride for trying FC that's Torvalds' fault. He is obviously jealous of our undying love and trying to separate us.'

The only thing he's doing with this article is licking Bill Gate's boots as many others have done. Windows is going to be replaced by Linux and Mac OS X soon and Microsoft and it's contracted freelance writers will have to deal with it.

"I'm a developer for Mozilla."
So? My dog could figure out linux better than you and he wouldn't be a worthless tool publishing BS articles either.
---------------------------
I don't care if Asa is crying because Bill Gates bit his co** off either.

Reply Score: 0

it's a matter of software
by Anonymous on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 23:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

a desktop system should have programs like

the gimp, Nvu/bluefish, firefox/mozilla/skipstone/dillo, openoffice/gnumeric/abiword/, and so on.

I know only two system which are really useable for work: linux and bsd

So thats the real reason why windows isn't useable as a desktop system for me.....

(all this on a students budget as well)

Reply Score: 0