Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 29th Nov 2005 08:45 UTC, submitted by sebFlyte
Linux Following up on their tests to work out which Linux distribution works best for business, ZDNet has taken a look at the wider issue of whether or not Linux is actually ready to replace Windows on the majority of Windows desktops.
Order by: Score:
Oh please... Not again...
by Simba on Tue 29th Nov 2005 08:53 UTC
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

Oh please... Not this discussion again. Can this topic be discussed any further into the ground than it already has? This one gets my vote for "Most recycled topic in the history of online IT forums."

Edited 2005-11-29 09:00

Reply Score: 3

From TFA....
by Walter on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:14 UTC
Walter
Member since:
2005-07-12

First, Linux distributions usually expect to find at least one existing operating system on your machine.

HUH? I don't think so. The difference between a windows installation and a linux installation is that linux is checking if there is an OS installed and changes its bootloader (grub/lilo) when nessecary. Windows doesn't do this.
Windows simply installs its own bootloader without even thinking about checking for another OS let alone place it in its bootloader.

Edited 2005-11-29 09:15

Reply Score: 4

RE: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:40 UTC in reply to "From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Get a clue, please. All NT versions of Windows are aware of editions of Windows that came before it, and add that installation of Windows to the list.

If you install 2000 alongside NT 4, 2000 will add the NT 4.0 item to its boot menu. The same applies to XP and 2000. You can even use the NT boot loader (NTLDR) to load Linux -- and I'm sure with some tinkering, FreeBSD as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: From TFA....
by Walter on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE: From TFA...."
Walter Member since:
2005-07-12

Get a clue, please. All NT versions of Windows are aware of editions of Windows that came before it, and add that installation of Windows to the list.

And only Windows versions. When I install Linux first, windows removes grub/lilo and installs its own bootloader without asking me. Of course I can edit the bootloader, but not during installation, nor is it asked to me if there is another OS installed on my system.

Linux does ask me if I want to add other OS-es to the bootloader and even better, adds existing OS-es almost automatically.

This is a non wanted feature for me.

Edited 2005-11-29 09:53

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: From TFA....
by morglum666 on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From TFA...."
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

"When I install Linux first, windows removes grub/lilo and installs its own bootloader without asking me."

Failure to plan, is planning to fail..

You can't blame an OS for your lack of planning skills.

- Microsoft Fanboy

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, if it's such an issue for you, you'll ...

#1. Have to make sure you make a bootdisk for your Linux install.
#2. Have to petition Microsoft to include detection of Linux installs during the boot menu creation portion of Vista's installation -- because as we all know, Microsoft users are flocking to Linux, and this whole boot loader mess is turning out to be a nightmare for a lot of Microsoft's customers!

Look at it this way ... Linux is a fringe OS. Microsoft can't be bothered to write detection routines for a hobby operating system, because it's just not a concern for them on the desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: From TFA....
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From TFA...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

You do make a point there.

Its not that MS is writing a bootloader that disallows selection of non MS OS's. MS would have to explicitly write software so the bootloader would detect other OS's. Its not much work, but why should MS do any work to help their competitors =P

However, I believe that MS should be obliged to put in software to check and see if another bootloader is in the MBR. If there isnt one, or if it is the nt bootloader, it should reinstall the bootloader in the MBR. However, if lilo or grub is found in the MBR, then MS should keep its nose out of it. This is because I believe that the MBR is way outside the "domain" of the OS. I like an OS when it knows its place on my system

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, that's also true, but it goes back to the point of "they would have to write extra code". Think about it ...

LILO/GRUB look like garbage bytes to NT's installer simply because it doesn't recognize them -- so how would the NT installer differentiate between LILO/GRUB/FreeBSD's boot0 or any other MBR program unless there were specific detection routines built *INTO* the installer for that purpose?

"... but why should MS do any work to help their competitors ... "

;-)

That said, a smart Linux user will grab the first 512 bytes of his /dev/hdX, save it as a file, and then he can use that file to create a "Linux" entry in NT's bootloader menu. I can explain further if anyone is interested in doing that. You basically select "Linux", and then you get the LILO/GRUB menu. It's quite neat.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: From TFA....
by segedunum on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE: From TFA...."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Get a clue, please. All NT versions of Windows are aware of editions of Windows that came before it, and add that installation of Windows to the list.

Not the same thing, is it? In the context of what he was talking about he was right.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

No, he was not right:

Windows simply installs its own bootloader without even thinking about checking for another OS let alone place it in its bootloader.

That statement is factually incorrect, as I explained. "Another OS" here can mean anything. He is generalizing. If he is talking about Linux when he says "another OS", then perhaps he should write "Linux" instead?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: From TFA....
by segedunum on Tue 29th Nov 2005 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From TFA...."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That statement is factually incorrect, as I explained. "Another OS" here can mean anything. He is generalizing.

Another OS means anything apart from Windows. Don't split hairs by generalising between Windows XP and 2000.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

No, "another OS" means "any other OS". That's where the word "another" comes from, in case you don't know.

Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP, and Vista are not the same operating systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: From TFA....
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: From TFA...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Another OS is another OS and as stated before, MS shouldn't write code that allows their bootloader to find other OSes, however the bootloader is not part of the OS...

MS shouldn't go around replacing bootloaders if the user doesnt want them to. They are explicitly going in there and taking something that is exsisting in your MBR, and overwriting it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: From TFA....
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: From TFA...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Bleh Im sorry I misworded that.

I mean mean that there should be a prompt to the user as to weather the bootloader should be installed to the MBR.

As a slackware user, I like how it ask where and if u want to install lilo.

Linux distros that dont do this are just as guilty as MS is however.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: From TFA....
by ma_d on Tue 29th Nov 2005 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE: From TFA...."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You can boot almost anything with the NT Boot loader, with a lot of tinkering and broken systems when you make a mistake...

The fact is, most Linux installers do this, the Windows installer does not: It will only check for previous versions of Windows. That is simply not checking for other OS's, it's checking for other OS's with a prejudice.

This is very different. One says "use our software in conjunction with whatever you like, if we know about it we'll try and make it easier" the other says "forget other vendors, we're king anyway."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Way to read into things.

"Another OS" to me, as a writer, means "any other operating system which is NOT the one being installed". The statement is factually incorrect in that case, because Windows NT installers DO check for other versions of Windows -- and the last time I checked, those were operating systems too.

Microsoft can't be bothered to write detection/setup routines for a fringe/hobby OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: From TFA....
by rcsteiner on Tue 29th Nov 2005 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From TFA...."
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Maybe you need to think as a technologist, not just a writer. Words have different connotations in different contexts.

For what it's worth, Microsoft also doesn't bother to check for OSes like OS/2 (which had a 20% market share at one point in the mid-1990's) or Solaris (which is neither a fringe OS nor a hobbyist OS), so it really does seem like all non-Microsoft OSes are strictly ignored by Microsoft's.

If you can think of an exception, please cite one (and no, PC-DOS and DR-DOS don't count).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: From TFA....
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From TFA...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

The onus is not on Microsoft to detect and configure boot options for other non-Microsoft OSes. It is on *you* as a user making the choice to install multiple operating systems.

"Another" means "any other", by the way. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: From TFA....
by rcsteiner on Fri 2nd Dec 2005 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From TFA...."
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

While it's true that Microsoft has no "obligation" to provide such functionality, the automatic detection of other OSes is a convenience for the advanced user that Microsoft should really consider.

Once a user has installed a non-Microsoft platform such as Linux, OS/2, or BeOS and has seen how well some of them are able to detect and configure multi-boot environments, it quickly becomes apparent that Microsoft has given little or no thought to the needs of such people.

It becomes Yet Another Windows Shortcoming...

Reply Score: 1

Because it's too limited(Software wise)!
by RawMustard on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:19 UTC
RawMustard
Member since:
2005-10-10

Title says it all! Unless all you do is type letters and send and receive emails, what can linux do in most businesses?

It's a no show in the manufacturing sector where I come from, so I bet others from different sectors will say the same thing! So then the problem of interoperability with other systems becomes a problem, how's is linux going to solve those problems?

Where am I going to get CAD/CAM software to run my 5 axis machining centre's, or my wire cut machines, or where am I going to get software to program my Baldor drives, my Seimans PLC's, where can I get Partmaker or Autodesk Inventor, Solidworks for linux?

How am I going to make the tools that make the computers that linux is going to run in all these offices?

Linux needs another 10 years minimum and then you have to convince everyone it's actually going to be better for them, which it is far from doing in its present state!

The world does not run on Doc files and Web-Servers alone you know - just thought I'd remind you guys of that!

Reply Score: 5

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

100% agree.

Plus, development on such platforms is not only limited by spare presence (a very low market share), but also by an overall environment which is not as advanced (under developers' point of view) as in Windows.

Failing to acknowledge this means hearing "Next year will be our year!" forever...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I believe that Linux can provide certain functions that make it just as viable as Windows in certain business enviornments.

Albeit, Linux cannot do EVERYTHING windows can for businesses can, but it can certainly do more than Word Documents and Emails. And it is moving ever so fast towards that goal of doing everything.

I think the development enviornment under linux is top notch. The tools available off the bat trump what windows offers and companies are providing great IDE's and other software engineering tools.

It is the end user application development which is being stifled. Part of the reason may be (as you said) that the developers just dont view the Linux enviornment as advanced. That in itself is not linux's fault imo because I think it is a fine enviornment with lots of capabilities. And of course there is always the low market share issue. Developers dont want to make applications that dont want to be used.

Linux will get there imo, but it may take a while. At this point in time, it provides really well for some businesses.

Reply Score: 1

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me say that I said that not as pro-this or pro-that. As a developer, I appreciate Windows environment and integration it can deliver.

I'd be interested in releasing solutions for Linux and that's why I welcomed MONO. However, *nix is still failing to provide an unified ecosystem of integrated services and frameworks (and APIs) as complex as Windows provides. Hence, developing for Windows still is much simpler.

Take a look at Apple which understood this and it's starting to provide basic low-level system-wide services (isn't new CoreData just like Windows data services, available for years? Isn't new system-wide graphics services just like DirectX?). The development model surrounding Linux and xBSD is dispersive. The GPL is harming integration because everyone can go on his/her own and it doesn't encourage developers to stay together and to unify. The GPL model applied to big business is forcing Linux to stay basic and raw because then, on top of bare system, everyone is building their solutions and inteoperability among them is not a goal because could harm selling of solutions from different companies as a whole. This effectively prevents the basic system to evolve and doesn't attracts developers.

On the other side, you have a company which is happy to fill the gaps. When Microsoft thinks a certain service / extension is needed for their system, they will develop it (sometimes harming or crunching partners... sadly, but that's life...) because they're interested into platform as a whole (they can do because they control their technology... something IBM cannot do... nor Novell and so on... while that's something Apple can do).

As an example, check brilliant new Worflow Framework (WWF). That's a basic, low-level evolution to which Linux should reply but, as of now, it's not able to. You can bet a few euros that I will use WWF a lot in my future solutions and that would keep me hooked to Windows again. But Windows will benefit from my solutions as well.

A suggestion: stop thinking Microsoft achieved dominance by unlawful or marketing means. This only partly true. You cannot achieve dominance by marketing but that can help. I suggest that developers for those platforms to carefully watch what Microsoft is doing. At worst, copy. At best, improve.

Reply Score: 1

llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"Let me say that I said that not as pro-this or pro-that. As a developer, I appreciate Windows environment and integration it can deliver.

I'd be interested in releasing solutions for Linux and that's why I welcomed MONO. However, *nix is still failing to provide an unified ecosystem of integrated services and frameworks (and APIs) as complex as Windows provides. Hence, developing for Windows still is much simpler.

Take a look at Apple which understood this and it's starting to provide basic low-level system-wide services (isn't new CoreData just like Windows data services, available for years? Isn't new system-wide graphics services just like DirectX?). The development model surrounding Linux and xBSD is dispersive. The GPL is harming integration because everyone can go on his/her own and it doesn't encourage developers to stay together and to unify. The GPL model applied to big business is forcing Linux to stay basic and raw because then, on top of bare system, everyone is building their solutions and inteoperability among them is not a goal because could harm selling of solutions from different companies as a whole. This effectively prevents the basic system to evolve and doesn't attracts developers.

On the other side, you have a company which is happy to fill the gaps. When Microsoft thinks a certain service / extension is needed for their system, they will develop it (sometimes harming or crunching partners... sadly, but that's life...) because they're interested into platform as a whole (they can do because they control their technology... something IBM cannot do... nor Novell and so on... while that's something Apple can do).

As an example, check brilliant new Worflow Framework (WWF). That's a basic, low-level evolution to which Linux should reply but, as of now, it's not able to. You can bet a few euros that I will use WWF a lot in my future solutions and that would keep me hooked to Windows again. But Windows will benefit from my solutions as well.

A suggestion: stop thinking Microsoft achieved dominance by unlawful or marketing means. This only partly true. You cannot achieve dominance by marketing but that can help. I suggest that developers for those platforms to carefully watch what Microsoft is doing. At worst, copy. At best, improve."

There is some truth in what you say, but it's not as big an issue as you imply. True, the GPL does not force or even encourage developers to work to a common set of interface and interoperability guidelines. Linux itself has no single programming "standard" that applications must adhere to. And a large number of developers develop for themselves or their narrow needs, not for the larger community. If they then release their work to the community, any usefulness to others is incidental.

However, there's also nothing *preventing* developers from working to a common set of standards. And the GPL allows, in a way that proprietary licenses do not, a developer to pick and choose the best features of the applications that are available, write new functionality, and integrate it with a standard interface.

You're wrong, then, that the GPL "forces" Linux to stay basic and raw. It allows it, certainly. But it also allows an accumulated sophistication that demonstrates the best Darwinian algorithm for progressive change. I see the changes happening. That the evolution hasn't reached the niches you prefer is a shame. But it's a temporary shame at worst. Nothing is forcing Linux back. And you have the opportunity, right, and privilege to influence the direction its progress takes.

Can you do that in Windows?

Reply Score: 1

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

However, there's also nothing *preventing* developers from working to a common set of standards. And the GPL allows, in a way that proprietary licenses do not, a developer to pick and choose the best features of the applications that are available, write new functionality, and integrate it with a standard interface.
This is, however, not part of "elaborating a standard". Doing what you want in a non-organized way is not helpful to build a standard.

And you have the opportunity, right, and privilege to influence the direction its progress takes. Can you do that in Windows?
Well, guess what? You can actually influence every platform by releasing good software. There are tens of software/applications/extensions originating from unknown developers which were "evolutionary" for a platform and thus became part of it. And that's not a Windows only thing: do you remember Konfabulator issue?

Here's why view: the assumption was the free software model was economically sustainable and it was able to drive innovation more than other models (let's not consider supposed social reasons, which are a myth IMO originating from a cheap and meaningless philosophy). Facts are that after more than 10 years, thousands of developers and (since a few years) millions of euros/dollars, this model still is weak, has not produced good results (if not via donation of already existing applications by corporates), let alone starting driving innovation at a faster pace than other models.

Will it work, someday? Maybe. But a 10+ years frame is enough for me to judge results. Expecially when other models proved to be successfull in half of that time or less (OS X).

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

That may be the case in your manufacturing site, but it is not the case in the one I work in. Everything that is currently done in Windows in this office/plant can be done with Linux. Even including CAD/3D Modelling/Finite Element Analysis with Pro Engineer and Ansys (both of which are available for Linux.


It never ceases to dissapoint me how so many conclude that Linux is not ready for them, therefore it is not ready for anyone.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

gEDA is quite a joke compared to Mentor Graphics.

I'd rather use Multisim than gEDA.

I come from the electronics field and I have the same impression as the guy from the manufacturing field.

It seems that Business Linux would be best suited for Call Centers in India or for secretaries. That's great that it fills those niches, but I can't make a switch yet.

On the Siemens PLC issue, I think you can find some open source tools for that on Windows & Linux, but they probably won't support the latest chips for at least 6 months.

I've used GCC and some open source tools that someone built for the Atmel AtMEGA family and liked em a lot, but there are easier to use solutions available.


It never ceases to amaze me how so many conclude that Linux IS ready for everyone since it has openoffice and firefox.

Reply Score: 0

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

For sure, almost annoying as that, "I'm not ready for Linux so it's not ready for anybody", conclusion so many people mysteriously come to.

"My vendor...", is no reason not to switch, but a reason to switch vendors.

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Amen, most of the employees out there are just browsing anyway, the company will be a lot safer.

Reply Score: 1

Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

You have the source the use the FOSS Luke! You are supposed to hire a team of FOSS developers to custom develop all these applications and drivers for your company! That is the nature of the FOSS.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

There is a Unix CAD program.. ProEngineer is it if I remember correctly. I've been told it's quite good, they require it for a couple of ME courses here at ISU (well, the edu version or something like that). It's also available for Windows I think.

Of course, your in-house Windows only software may be a lot of work to get working; and it might involve a major rewrite to get it working; and so it's probably not a good idea to start moving it. But you can't honestly expect anyone to write your in-house stuff for you, that's why it's in-house to start.

CAD is not the only use of Computers. I just thought I'd remind you of that. Neither is manufacturing.

And I believe there was a story on slashdot about Autodesk and FOSS... Ah here it is:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/28/1940207&tid=185&tid=187

Doesn't help you. But maybe you should tell them that you'd be interested in using Autodesk on Linux, if you really would be. Many people just remain quiet about this stuff; and given enough customer requests companies will start to do major stuff like porting their flagship product. But people have to ask.

Reply Score: 1

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Re: "Where am I going to get CAD/CAM software to run my 5 axis machining centre's, or my wire cut machines, or where am I going to get software to program my Baldor drives, my Seimans PLC's, where can I get Partmaker or Autodesk Inventor, Solidworks for linux?"

While using Google would provide most of the answers for you it would take some time ;) Instead I've created a detailed list of software both ported to Linux and those that work on Wine. See the post "Software for 3D/2D Artists, Designers, etc" here http://www.linuxforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=53452

Edited 2005-11-29 17:45

Reply Score: 1

monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

I hate to admit that you are right about industrial automation... Unless you use a handheld to program your PLC, you're pretty much damned to using windows.

I can't imagine that many of these apps would be that hard to port to linux if the demand was there, but There doesn't seem to be much demand. A couple manufacturer's offer Linux Software developers kits, but these are designed to let linux software access the PLC for data aquisition not to actually program the controller.

Reply Score: 1

Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Les Timms found that users preferred GNOME to the similar KDE environment.

People here seem to have a different experience.

http://www.novell.com/prblogs/index.php?blog=5&c=1&page=1&more=1&ti...

> Anyone used to opening, closing and minimising windows
> in a Microsoft environment can go straight into GNOME
> and get busy.

Exactly, they get busy because nothing really works with GNOME.

As a former contributor and developer on the GNOME architecture for many years I can say that GNOME is in no way ready to serve as the corporate desktop. There are simply to many issues inside and around the entire GNOME movement that should be mentioned here.

First of all GNOME has a very broken development framework with a lot of fragmentation. A lot of libraries are not working properly enough even in stable releases to give users a full working desktop environment. A lot of stuff are simply not working properly and a lot of stuff simply look too far disharmonic to be usefull. Not to speak about the poorly written third party applications that exists that don't serve any corporate needs.

From a developers view I believe that GNOME has reached a dead end where scalability isn't possible anymore. People have realized that with the C languge there is no progress and thus decided to code under Python, C++, Java, Ruby or MONO. But personally I believe that having a mature GNOME desktop these days require you to have Python, MONO, Java running next to your regular application, which makes it hard to have all of them incooperate correctly (to work correctly). This is not the problem of having different languages laying around or running in the background but more architectual nature as soon as it comes to bugtracking, feedback, expandability etc. Many bindings are not well implemented and have a lot of attributes not correctly defined which makes applications look and behave differently.

As example I always get back to the legendary Toolbar issues that I like to explain. I do explain it because it's the by far easiest thing people can test on their own system.

When looking at this legendary example picture:

http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot34ji.jpg

You see a bunch of GNOME applications showing different types of Toolbars. I don't want to speak about the images inside the Toolbars but rather how they look. They all look differently, behave differently, react differently, some toolbars are higher than others (a few pixel) others have a drag handle, others show icons only, then others again show text below icons. There is no common approach of doing this correctly. Sure some people say these things are not important. But from a developers point of view - they are. It only shows in what bad shape GNOME really is even today with latest CVS you see the same issues still present. It should give the beginner and advanced users an impression what's wrong. A Desktop Environment should provide a consistent API and framework to do these things correctly. Please load up GNUMERIC, Abiword, Evolution, Evince and a few others and go through your "Menus & Toolbars" capplet (control center) and change around the values and you see that the majority of applications bundled in the corporate GNOME desktop do not react on these changes. Personally I consider these things to be a bug. I already reported many of these issues and recently my toolbar bugreport to gnumeric got closed as NOT A BUG with some random intransparent excuses why the HIG cant be applied to gnumeric. This is quite frustrating since the applications look bad that way (only the aesthetic view that GNOME always wanted to lay big values on). There are so many other areas like button padding, button padding between other buttons and and and.

It's a never ending story. Also I ask myself why tools like Evince or Epiphany (both part of the GNOME desktop) come with an own Toolbar editor while other applications don't support that. From a developers point of view this should be part of the GTK+ Toolkit and made available default to all apps or everything that uses the Toolbar.

Thats the big disadvantage of writing apps in C without proper object orientation (yes I know GNOME has some sort of object orientation). If we look over to KDE for example then we see that every application that uses a Toolbar (not all apps need one I know this too) share the same Toolbar object, if you change global settings then it automatically affect all applications (icons only, text under icons, drag handles etc.) the Toolbar object comes with an toolbar editor (to change icons, text under icons, draghandle, icon size etc.). This speaks about KDE's great architecture which is pretty well designed.

Again this is just a small example to not make the understanding overwhelming complex. There are many other issues (architectual nature) inside GNOME and it goes on in many areas such as gnome-vfs (which is quite broken, there is no progress information when copying files from FTP (deep directory structures with many files), aborting is nearly impossible and so on (not to speak about many other modules, but FTP is the one I know best) like copying 0 byte files over and so on.

Basic stuff still in stable GNOME that don't work reliable enough to get serious work done. People always come up with the same BS that GNOME is the light desktop, that it's so great, clean and so on, that it's the desktop to get work done. Evince crashing when selecting text, crashing on exit, gnome-print saving documents as *.ps files show other font or save corrupt data and and and.

But this is not the case to say the truth. As a former student of computer and economics science as well as I am now an IT-Project leader I depended on doing stuff for University such as drawing diagrams or UML stuff. I depended (since I was a hardcore GNOMER) on tools like DIA to try getting the work done. But DIA was a poor applications that gave bad results, felt really bad, saved corrupt data to disk (with lost hours of work). My university professor one day looked at me, and asked me whether I painted the use case diagram with a paint program. I told him that I was using DIA and I saw a smile on his face which he left uncommented afterwards.

Even printing doesn't work reliable in DIA, nor does it work reliable enough in other applications. I had to search for alternatives and landed on KDE using Kivio and Umbrello. These apps surely aren't the best apps existing, but they gave me more the feeling to get my work done. They worked, felt ok and the printout results was great. Not to mention that my learning curve was minimal since the apps reminded me quite a lot on commercial counterparts found on Microsoft Windows.

Like printing GIF images as black image (totally black paper printout), like not supporting printing more pages on one physical sheet (evince for example) and these things exists in gnome-print/ui and are an elementary thing of the stable gnome releases recently. I wanted to print a document with 120 pages in evince on 4 pages per 1 physical sheet, which should end up in 30 pages of paper. but after I came back from dinner I saw that evince printed it on 120 pages rather than 30 as I was assuming. These things can not be.

Same applies for Evolution which recently (before the 2.4.0 announce) started to trash all my sync files mf my local mailbox. It's quite frustrating and irritating to get dialogs all the time telling one that something is broken. same applies for the "get emails as soon as you start evolution" bug, specially if you use freemailers with timeout you keep stuck in getting dialogs all the time you start evolution telling one that it can not pop emails due to timeout of the mail isp.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:15 UTC in reply to "Not GNOME!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

it seems that you are having a hard time accepting that the average user almost unanimously prefers GNOME, and you are now throwing your toys out of your pram as you usually do when you hear the facts contradict your broken framework of reality.


"GNOME user interface
This is similar to Windows but perhaps a bit more like the Mac in that it feels less cluttered. In a trial in Birmingham, where users were given two days with each, Les Timms found that users preferred GNOME to the similar KDE environment. Anyone used to opening, closing and minimising windows in a Microsoft environment can go straight into GNOME and get busy."

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Not GNOME!"
v RE[3]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not GNOME!"
v RE[4]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not GNOME!"
RE[3]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not GNOME!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hurray for online polls and blogs. The most accurate way at which to achieve reliable statistics.

**rolls eyes**

Thats like me running to Distrowatch and mentioning how Ubuntu is in 1st place with page hits, and Kubuntu is in 12th place. Or saying how Red Hat is the most used linux distro in the enterprise world.

Oh oops.

For real, please make this stop.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not GNOME!"
RE[5]: Not GNOME!
by h-milch-mann on Tue 29th Nov 2005 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not GNOME!"
h-milch-mann Member since:
2005-10-27

No answers so far because no one can back anything up. They only repeat the same old junk spread by some moron.

Tell me more about some moron spreading old junk please. I consider you an authority on that area. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not GNOME!
by Trax on Tue 29th Nov 2005 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not GNOME!"
Trax Member since:
2005-07-19

>Desktop Linux votes have proven that KDE has 2/3 of the >entire Open Source marketshare for Desktops.

> http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2127420238.html

This was the same survey that found Yoper was the most popular Linux distribution!

So much for credibility! heh

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not GNOME!
by SlackerJack on Tue 29th Nov 2005 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not GNOME!"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Thats not news and is nothing to do with the artical. Windows owns 95%, does that mean it's better?

People prefer KDE for many reasons just like GNOME, dont get high and might just because of this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Not GNOME!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> "GNOME user interface This is similar to Windows but perhaps a bit more like the Mac in that
> it feels less cluttered. In a trial in Birmingham, where users were given two days with each,
> Les Timms found that users preferred GNOME to the similar KDE environment. Anyone used to
> opening, closing and minimising windows in a Microsoft environment can go straight into GNOME
> and get busy."

And here what user #55 said in the above Novell link

"Ok, I have read all comments so far. I am using Suse at my home pc from ver 6.1. All of them are bought, if someone cares. I work on the IT department at the second biggest telco at my country. On my home office I use Suse on 3 different systems (1 headless server, 1 desktop 1 laptop). At my office I use WinXP Pro. Now, We try to find out our next desktop OS for the IT department. I am responsible for the proposal and for that I run a test program. I asign 1 desktops with KDE and 1 with GNOME to each personel for 3 weeks. The tests are over. Here are the results: 90% of the personel preferes KDE 10% preferes GNOME because they already using it at SUN (yes they are the sysadmins!) no crashes on major softwares/desktop for 3 weeks for KDE users. More than 20 (still!) open tickets for support regarding the GNOME desktop. A lot of complains about usagility, fonts (no we are not using the simple latins...), printouts, hardware support etc... Our choice was OpenSuse or Suse Pro. The IT manager put on hold the migration after the announcemnet. He prefers to stay at WinXP than to migrate to a "buggy" desktop..."

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not GNOME!"
RE[2]: Not GNOME!
by llanitedave on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Not GNOME!"
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"it seems that you are having a hard time accepting that the average user almost unanimously prefers GNOME, and you are now throwing your toys out of your pram as you usually do when you hear the facts contradict your broken framework of reality. "

I'm an average user, and a Mac user too, but I prefer KDE on Linux. I don't think your statement is backable.

Neither GNOME nor KDE is perfect, nor is either one bad. I happen to think KDE gives me more configurability. I appreciate that. GNOME does indeed seem simpler. I appreciate that too. The clincher for me is that KDE apps look better on KDE, and my favorite app, Kstars, comes with KDE.

Now, was that easy or what? No name calling, no trashing, no chest-beating or self-promotion or paranoid poor-mouthing.

Accept my choice, I accept yours.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not GNOME!
by Sphinx on Tue 29th Nov 2005 15:16 UTC in reply to "Not GNOME!"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

People have realized that with the C languge there is no progress and thus decided to code under Python, C++, Java, Ruby or MONO.

I ... have been rendered speechless.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Not GNOME!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"People have realized that with the C languge there is no progress and thus decided to code under Python, C++, Java, Ruby or MONO.

I ... have been rendered speechless."

LMAO that quote made me bust a gut.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not GNOME!
by ma_d on Tue 29th Nov 2005 16:49 UTC in reply to "Not GNOME!"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That's because KDE's toolbar is radically different from GTK's. So is their menubar. The menubar and toolbar in GTK can be thrown anywhere on your program, and you do it, manually. It's a simple widget, and it shouldn't be accompanied by a toolbar dialog (although including one in GTK would be nice, or some sort of template for making one).

It's a different way of looking at the problem I suppose. The GTK way is very flexible, the KDE way is very easy to get running fully featured.

It has nothing to do with the programming language used.

I don't think Evince is even considered stable yet, is it? If it is, it's been in the last 3 months...
But KPDF does rock hardcore, that's half the reason I use KDE heh. KPDF > Preview > xpdf > acrobat(FREE$$) ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 15:41 UTC in reply to "Not GNOME!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ignore the parent it is nothing more than a troll, copy and pasting an article from linux world. He has been pasting it to forums all over the place.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Not GNOME!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

everyone ignores him anyway. he claims that he used to develop for gnome, but nobody believes him. i've asked him several times as to what attracted him to developing for gnome instead of kde, but i'm still awaiting an answer. and the reason why i'm still waiting is because he has never developed for gnome. whats more, he is constantly getting his 'facts' wrong about gnome. if he's ever developed for gnome, then i'm alfred the great.

Reply Score: 0

v Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:41 UTC
v Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:42 UTC
Conclusion says it all
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Overall, a good article. I thought the author dwelled on installation too long, especially after he stated that the IT dept should be installing it.

But here's the most important point of the article:

Linux desktops are ready to step into the shoes of Windows, but IT managers have to make a decision for it to happen. Linux may be free, but Windows is already there when you buy the PC.

Until one of the big vendors -- Dell, HP/Compaq, Toshiba, IBM -- starts selling business PC's pre-loaded with GNU/Linux and starts providing support for them GNU/Linux will be run far behind windows. Companies want a packaged solution; right now, GNU/Linux isn't part of the package.

Reply Score: 1

v Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 09:59 UTC
v RE: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:03 UTC in reply to "Re: Not Gnome"
RE[2]: Re: Not Gnome
by RawMustard on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Not Gnome"
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

OSNews.com is known for heavy moderation abuse and thus people primarily go read the moderated down comments first rather than all non moderated ones.

Too true - I've set my level to -5, I got sick of seeing perfectly good posts disappear because some zealot disagreed with something!

And I agree with your rant, keep it up, Gnome needs constructive criticism, maybe if enough of it is said, they will change their ways and stop treating all users like complete morons!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Not Gnome"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Im sorry but all your doing is igniting a KDE/ Gnome war.

This has nothing to do with the article. They are different DE's and there has been success with the gnome enviornment on business linux distrobutions. The same may apply to KDE and there is no problem with it.

Get the hell over it. People like gnome and it has proven itself. If you can't except that, then thats your problem.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Not Gnome"
v RE[4]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome"
v RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome
by segedunum on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Not Gnome"
RE[4]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> I think you actually want to read the article - it
> has done that itself. On the second page it goes on
> about the Gnome interface, you get the usual clutter
> arguments that aren't defined and have been handed
> down from forum to forum, like this one, they don't
> apply to distributions like Suse and only apply if
> you install abolutely everything. The article is
> simply a sound bite for Gnome and GTK applications
> that have basically reached their limit in terms of
> development. There's absolutely nothing in there that
> is of any interest to a business.

Sorry for the people who have been moderating your valuable comments down but let me say that I totally agree with you.

> Sorry, but as nice as Evolution looks in places it
> simply isn't reliable. Four/five years ago it was OK
> to use (I know, I used it for eighteen months), but
> since they've tried to add more features to it and
> stuff like groupworking, large parts of it have
> simply started to drop off.
>
> God knows what they're using to connect to Groupwise
> internally at Novell these days (Outlook and Kontact
> probably), and where's the top support for other good
> free groupware stuff like Kolab, Open Groupware and
> eGroupware? That's what really would interest
> businesses. I don't think a business is going to be
> interested in half-arsed Exchange support (and
> expensive Groupwise stuff) when they want to get away
> from Windows on both the server (they'll generally do
> that first) and desktop!
>
> I'm sorry but that is of real interest to businesses
> out there, not sentences made in an article of how
> users prefer Gnome as part of somebody's pet project
> and feeble arguments consisting of the word clutter.
>
> There are also much, much, much wider issues of ISV
> support that how to get it that one person
> (RawMustard) has picked up on earlier in these
> comments. This article has not addressed this at all.
> It's simply the same old crap soundbites we've been
> hearing for ages that have advances Linux desktop
> (and Gnome) usage as far as an asthmatic ant with
> some very heavy shopping (apologies to Blackadder).

I do agree with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Sorry, but as nice as Evolution looks in places it simply isn't reliable. Four/five years ago it was OK to use (I know, I used it for eighteen months), but since they've tried to add more features to it and stuff like groupworking, large parts of it have simply started to drop off. "


have you ever tried kontact and korganiser? talking about "dropping off" (no, thats not just a reference to users trying to use those applications), but both of those applications behave like a leper in a water tank. then there's the clutter, the bloat, and the fact that they have more bugs than a brazilian rainforest.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Re: Not Gnome
by segedunum on Wed 30th Nov 2005 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

have you ever tried kontact and korganiser? talking about "dropping off" (no, thats not just a reference to users trying to use those applications)

IMAP and the groupworking stuff actually works. I've tried it. Is that not important to a business do you think?

then there's the clutter, the bloat,

Yada, yada, yada, yada. Clutter, bloat.... Bloody hell, can you people actually expand your vocabulary a little and actually describe something? It's funny you've used exactly the same words as tha fanboy in that article without actually describing anything.

People like you are bloated - with the same pointless stuff and the same words.

and the fact that they have more bugs than a brazilian rainforest.

Well, that's a nice attempt at some comedy but you're getting your PIM suites confused I'm afraid. Evolution became a very, very difficult piece of software even with all the people that used to work on it. Goodness knows what will happen to it now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome
by segedunum on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Not Gnome"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

As I was so rudely interrupted by people who don't like what I've written and can't seem to find the reply link to actually respond to something:

Im sorry but all your doing is igniting a KDE/ Gnome war.

This has nothing to do with the article.


I think you actually want to read the article - it has done that itself. On the second page it goes on about the Gnome interface, you get the usual clutter arguments that aren't defined and have been handed down from forum to forum, like this one, they don't apply to distributions like Suse and only apply if you install abolutely everything. The article is simply a sound bite for Gnome and GTK applications that have basically reached their limit in terms of development. There's absolutely nothing in there that is of any interest to a business. Like people actually use Gnome in Suse 9.3!

It then goes on to talk about Evolution:

This looks so much like Microsoft Outlook that, again, no re-training is required and it is easy to forget which program you are using.

Sorry, but as nice as Evolution looks in places it simply isn't reliable. Four/five years ago it was OK to use (I know, I used it for eighteen months), but since they've tried to add more features to it and stuff like groupworking, large parts of it have simply started to drop off.

God knows what they're using to connect to Groupwise internally at Novell these days (Outlook and Kontact probably), and where's the top support for other good free groupware stuff like Kolab, Open Groupware and eGroupware? That's what really would interest businesses. I don't think a business is going to be interested in half-arsed Exchange support (and expensive Groupwise stuff) when they want to get away from Windows on both the server (they'll generally do that first) and desktop!

I'm sorry but that is of real interest to businesses out there, not sentences made in an article of how users prefer Gnome as part of somebody's pet project and feeble arguments consisting of the word clutter.

There are also much, much, much wider issues of ISV support and how to get it that one person (RawMustard) has picked up on earlier in these comments. This article has not addressed this at all. It's simply the same old crap soundbites we've been hearing for ages that have advanced Linux desktop (and Gnome) usage as far as an asthmatic ant with some very heavy shopping (apologies to Blackadder).

Edited 2005-11-29 11:20

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Not Gnome"
v RE[5]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Re: Not Gnome"
v RE[6]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Re: Not Gnome"
v RE[7]: Re: Not Gnome
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Re: Not Gnome"
Place for both
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There is a place for both Windows and Linux in the business world, same goes for desktop. Like i've always said, people should be able to choose or be given the choice atleast. Even if Windows is better or more suited linux should be a choice still. As for the WM, well let them choose again since it's a product and whatever works best for them.

The GNOME bashing dont you anywhere, since it's subjective.

Reply Score: 0

Me
by SlackerJack on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:10 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Sorry that ^ was me, switched browsers :-)

Reply Score: 1

v They're back!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 10:55 UTC
... the business desktop
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

then why is zdnet talking about Evolution email/calendar/contacts & gaim. These are indeed by far the most used applications used in a corporate environment ... eeuhmm

Never heard of Lotus Notes/Domino, sametime or Exchange/Outlook. And as far as I know, none of these products runs on linux (without wine !).

Although Lotus Notes will be coming to the linux via workplace plug-in.

That is business !!!

http://www.windelen.be

Reply Score: 1

Not Gnome? Ok, but...
by Budd on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:12 UTC
Budd
Member since:
2005-07-08

I use Gnome if I have to use a DE. Not like I have anything with KDE, is just me.Probably just used with it. I also read the whole 2 page Gnome rant, that's fine, you don't like it but you can't force anyone to read it (complete). Personally I think you talk out your ass. There's nothing wrong with the screenshot you posted. Do you want me to post you here a screenshot from my work desktop (win) ? Lotus, Firefox,vmware everything running via citrix? No? I thought so. In fact I won't even waste some bytes to upload such a screenshot.

Reply Score: 2

If it was GNOME
by SlackerJack on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:42 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Then the KDE trolls would be here, just like now. The mension of GNOME prefered in anyway sparks a troll fest.
Can anyone actually come up with FACTS rather than there own belief?

The applications that they say just happen to be GTK+ onces more suited to the job or simular to there Windows counterparts. Evolution, gaim and GNOME itself would be great for business, thats not to say KDE's conterparts wouldn't.

Edited 2005-11-29 11:44

Reply Score: 1

RE: If it was GNOME
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:49 UTC in reply to "If it was GNOME"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I mean I might agree with you there. The kde trolls probably would pop out. Mabey, mabey not. I dont know

However in this article, noone says that one DE is better than the other one.

If a zealot war can evolve just because an article says that they chose one DE over the other..... Then I GREATLY fear where linux is heading as a whole. It seems that linux may be attracting a crowd that abides by conformity, rather then choice. I for one dont want to be involved with such a commmunity.

People need to take a step back and realize "Hey you picked this DE, thats cool"

Reply Score: 0

v ban everyone
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 12:54 UTC
Children
by Bobmeister on Tue 29th Nov 2005 13:16 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Children, Children, PLEASE.....

Edited 2005-11-29 13:22

Reply Score: 1

Is this childrengarden?
by pecisk on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:02 UTC
pecisk
Member since:
2005-10-20

Get a grip people. ;)

Some people prefer KDE and some - GNOME. Good luck for both projects. And big poo to fanboys of both side - please calm down.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Childrengarden
by Bobmeister on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:05 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Amen

Reply Score: 1

Two Words...
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE!!!

Sure, you can do email, surf the web, and have OpenOffice. That's really fantastic. Also, a lot of these distributions are becoming really sophisticated and a lot easier to use. However, if Linux doesn't come up with some good software for Accounting. I don't know maybe something as good as Quick Books would be enough, but realistically unless you are running a huge system like Oracle, your accounting system probably won't run on Linux. If you think that having it run in Wine is the answer than you are fooling yourself. Wine is a bandaid at best. Linux needs open source accounting software that doesn't suck. GNUCash is a decent piece of software, but it sucks miserably in comparison to QuickBooks or even Microsoft's Small Business Accounting software.

Reply Score: 0

business - home usage
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Please stop making a difference between business desktop linux and home desktop linux. In my country, more than 80% of companies or commercials entities have less than 20 employees (with at least 4-5 employees using computer applications). They (we) use the same OS at work and at home, mainly Windows. They buy their PC's on the closest "Walmart" and install windows applications (book accounting applications or some specialized applications and so on). Linux should work in any case, I do not see why there should be a difference between business and home usages.

Reply Score: 0

RE: business - home usage
by rcsteiner on Tue 29th Nov 2005 19:57 UTC in reply to "business - home usage"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I've seen SOHO (Small Office/Home Office) users grouped with home users quite often, and both are kept separate from large corporate users.

I've worked for three fairly large companies, and believe me the tools in use here (and the attitudes towards both PC hardware and software) are *very* different from what you're likely to see in a home or SOHO context.

Reply Score: 1

WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why on earth do people get upset about KDE vs Gnome, I've used em both, I like em both, who the hell cares?!

I'd like more electronics design applications please!

I'd like more non-linear video editing applications please!

I'd like more PCB Layout applications please!

I REALLY like Audacity, gaim, firefox, openoffice, nvu, mozilla, thunderbird, & samba.

These are excellent apps most of which I use every single day. Now let's work on:

A Project Management Suite with Gantt charts with WBS'

A Shipping / Supplier / products in stock Management Suite with Accounts Payable / Receivable tied to a Webstore front & to an RFID tagged warehouse.

An Engineering Design Collaboration Tool with all open formats covering CAD/CAM, Electronics, Chemistry and other Engineering Processes.

Where is the Open Source CRM Suite?

There are so many business applications (some are very specific) that have no equivalent on Linux that Linux will not penetrate further than the secretary's desk.

If these customizable application suites begin appearing for linux I predict you'll see hundreds of thousands of small companies begin sprouting up all over the place. Maintaining a small company's infrastructure takes either A LOT of effort, or expensive proprietary software.

Reply Score: 0

RE: WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:25 UTC in reply to "WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Where is the Open Source CRM Suite?

Worlds best kept secret - SugarCRM - but please don't tell anyone.....

Reply Score: 0

RE: WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 14:35 UTC in reply to "WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"There are so many business applications (some are very specific) that have no equivalent on Linux that Linux will not penetrate further than the secretary's desk. "

I am writing such applications, mainly specialized technical applications. I'm doing this on Windows for Windows platforms. Porting, packaging, and testing these applications on the different Linux flavours is just a nightmare, practically impossible.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!
by rcsteiner on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Why wouldn't statically linked binaries in /usr/local work universally?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!
by llanitedave on Tue 29th Nov 2005 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF D.E. WAR?! WHAT FOR?!"
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

'"There are so many business applications (some are very specific) that have no equivalent on Linux that Linux will not penetrate further than the secretary's desk. "

I am writing such applications, mainly specialized technical applications. I'm doing this on Windows for Windows platforms. Porting, packaging, and testing these applications on the different Linux flavours is just a nightmare, practically impossible.'

Could that be because you aren't separating your application layer from your presentation layer?

Reply Score: 1

Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

gEDA is quite a joke compared to Mentor Graphics.

Well most tools ends up like a joke compared to Mentor Graphics, and that's why Mentor gets payed the big bucks too.

I come from the electronics field and I have the same impression as the guy from the manufacturing field.

To some degree it dependson which part of the field you frequent, but you should take a closer look as linux has a quite strong presence. It's strongest in the chip layout and simulation tools, not surprising since it's an area where clusters come in handy. But less so in the domain of workstations where PCB layout and schematics are done.

The big boys like Mentor and Synopsis both have Linux solutions of their toolchains. The same for Xilinx and their ASIC tools. In the low end segment you have the schematics and layout tools from Eagle. And I guess some of the other vendors also offer Linux tools.

Reply Score: 1

Linux is more than ready
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 16:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We've had severe security issues with Windows so about a year ago we decided to switch our servers to Linux and about 6 month ago we replaced all of our leased desktops with new ones of our own, all running Linux. It turned out one of the best moves our company has ever made and we have already saved thousands in licensing fees and software cost.

Reply Score: 0

His reasons...
by ma_d on Tue 29th Nov 2005 16:33 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

His reasons for needing Windows are getting pretty weak. I remember the good old days when people said things like:
"I need photoshop XYZ, and I just can't live with the GIMP it doesn't do qyl!"

"There's no webpage creation utilities!"

"I can't view our company webpages in Mozilla!"

And he is saying things like "I need a skype toolbar, cause it saves me 18 seconds everyday!" I'm sure the Skype software on *nix probably provides ways to save contact information....

"I need my mediocre phone to keep my appointments synched with my PC!" They used to say "it doesn't work with my Palm version ABCD!" At least they were speaking of a tool that was good at its job when they complained...

"I need something to copy the interface of my search addon in Outlook!" Remember ... "Evolution search stinks.." Me neither.

"I need google desktop! I've stopped organizing and I can't start again!"

"I can't use Windows shares!" Wait, yes you can. "But I want the cheesey backup software it came with, I can't learn any new backup software!"


How will we know when Linux is ready for the desktop? When people complain about things that would take them an hour to get used to... Or cost them the whopping cost of two Windows licenses for a new cell phone/PDA.. (Remember, business, not home users; I know Joe Sixpack doesn't have $300 to blow on a new PDA, but Joe CEO definitely does).

This article is amazing because they solved a lot of difficult problems (likely the ones that IT knew everyone would need and did for them) and they couldn't figure out things like some new Skype software.. I bet they'll switch Skype software on their Windows platform within the next 12 months anyway! Some people just want this stuff handed to them on a platter...

There are valid complaints out there. I know there must be! Let's here them. Please. Not complaints over some little niceties you're used to.. If you actually do *work* on your computer (not just use it to communicate) you'll save more time with the extra features of a robust window manager than you lose typing in your skype contacts (or, heaven forbid, copying and pasting).

Reply Score: 1

They can but they won't
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 17:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Running Linux on business desktops means throwing MS out. What happens to all the big money these businesses invested in MS? What would happen to the huge chunk of investment these rich executives of the various businesses? They will not go for anything of that stupid, they like to keep continue with MS no matter how bad it is and how much revenue loss in billions it causes due to security related bugs and viruses.

Reply Score: 0

Enough about Gnome vs. KDE
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Nov 2005 19:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Browser: ELinks/0.10.5 (textmode; Linux 2.4.26 i686; 108x45-3)

It's got little to do with the article. Gnome, KDE, Xfce, WM, E, use any/all/none of the above, it's still GNU/Linux. If this article was about "Is Windows ready for the desktop" would you argue about "Firefox vs. Mozilla vs. Opera"?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Enough about Gnome vs. KDE
by segedunum on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:33 UTC in reply to "Enough about Gnome vs. KDE"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It's got little to do with the article.

It shouldn't have been about that but the article turned it into that. Which part of that don't you understand?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Enough about Gnome vs. KDE
by kelvin on Wed 30th Nov 2005 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Enough about Gnome vs. KDE"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

It shouldn't have been about that but the article turned it into that. Which part of that don't you understand?

The article certainly didn't do that. The article compared a popular Linux desktop to the Windows desktop. You decided that the GNOME preference was reason enough to turn this into a flamefest.

You are apparently dissatisfied with the desktop preference of this ZDNet article, so why don't you complain to them instead of us?

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The article certainly didn't do that. The article compared a popular Linux desktop to the Windows desktop. You decided that the GNOME preference was reason enough to turn this into a flamefest.

Then you haven't read the article from the second page. If the Gnome preference was made for business reasons, fair enough. Some bloke doing some closed test and then proclaiming a choice based on the usual word clutter isn't one of them. Is it going to save me money? What's it going to do? Can I program on it?

Which part of that don't you understand?

You are apparently dissatisfied with the desktop preference of this ZDNet article, so why don't you complain to them instead of us?

Dissatisfied? For the reasons given yes, because they are not in any way business related (business is in the title!). I'm not going to repeat myself given that you can't read. We've had more than enough of articles like this and they do nothing to promote desktop Linux.

Read this and elighten yourself:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12813&comment_id=66581

Edited 2005-11-30 09:03

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Enough about Gnome vs. KDE
by kelvin on Wed 30th Nov 2005 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Enough about Gnome vs. KDE"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

Some bloke doing some closed test and then proclaiming a choice based on the usual word clutter isn't one of them.

You have no way of knowing whether or not the choice was based on "clutter." The article doesn't say much about the user trial. You're essentially basing your entire flamefest on two sentences:

1. "In a trial in Birmingham, where users were given two days with each, Les Timms found that users preferred GNOME to the similar KDE environment."

That is all! Based on that sentence, you infer that it was some random bloke down at the pub with an axe to grind against KDE.

2. "[The GNOME user interface] is similar to Windows but perhaps a bit more like the Mac in that it feels less cluttered."

The word "cluttered" is used to describe the GNOME interface as compared to Windows and Mac. The article doesn't state that "clutteredness" factored into the above mentioned trial.

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You have no way of knowing whether or not the choice was based on "clutter."

The word clutter is used. It's a very well worn word, used in many desktop comparisons in the past, it means nothing, nor is it defined.

The article doesn't say much about the user trial.

Exactly. What would a business get out of this piece of advice and why?

That is all! Based on that sentence, you infer that it was some random bloke down at the pub with an axe to grind against KDE.

Considering this article is supposed to be for businesses you would expect reasons as to what a business would actually get out of that advice. Bending it based on personal preferences just isn't going to get anywhere. Like I said - where's the talk about free groupware and support for stuff like Kolab, Open Groupware etc.? How much use is an unreliable Exchange plugin for Evolution actually going to be?

I'm sorry but you're being the fanboy here. I have never suggested he had an axe to grind against KDE, just that the reasoning and advice in the article is non-existant.

The word "cluttered" is used to describe the GNOME interface as compared to Windows and Mac.

Well yer. Gnome is less cluttered how? What does this mean? What relevance does it have for a business?

The article doesn't state that "clutteredness" factored into the above mentioned trial.

Since that is the only thing they mentioned in the context of this article as to what desktop you'd use, they are recommending Gnome on the basis of it. I'm afraid that's of no interest to a business, not just in a comparison between KDE and Gnome but in a comparison between desktop Linux and the Windows desktops they probably already have.

That's why this article is totally useless. If you inserted KDE for Gnome everywhere it wouldn't make any difference either (unless you actually went into detail about things like groupware, license savings etc). Articles like this only hurt the perception people have of desktop Linux.

Edited 2005-11-30 14:14

Reply Score: 1

I tried to read the comments.....
by BluenoseJake on Tue 29th Nov 2005 20:20 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

But my head exploded halfway through. I've been reading osnews for years, but I am almost done, Please let people choose the tools they are most confortable with, and stop confusing personal choices with Best Practises. This entire gnome/kde battle this article has unleashed is off topic and childish.

Use what you want, let me use what I want. that's what I say

Reply Score: 1

Desktop
by Seth Quarrier on Tue 29th Nov 2005 22:33 UTC
Seth Quarrier
Member since:
2005-11-13

I find it amusing that people are claiming that the choice of desktop is irrelevant and then calling for more apps to be written for Linux, other people still complain about a lack of unity, the thing that people are missing is that thinking of Linux as one operating system works fine on the sever but it falls down on the desktop. It is the desktop environment that provides control and unity, when it comes down to it I don't use Linux on the desktop, I use KDE and KDE is my operating system (working over a GNU/Linux substrate). From a desktop perspective my Debian box running KDE has more in common with a FreeBSD box running KDE then it does with another Debian box running Gnome. Sure I can run GTK+/GNOME programs in KDE and others can run QT/KDE programs in Gnome but I could also run Windows applications in Wine if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that my operating system is Windows. Now you may wonder why this matters, well it does twofold.

First it means that any important app that fills one of the above mentioned niches it will be either a GTK/Gnome app or a QT/KDE app (or it will be based on a third party tookit so that no one is ticked and no one is happy), so desktop Linux users are competing for desktop usage so that their preferred desktop will have more important apps written and ported to it.

Second thinking about the desktop environment as the defining characteristic of a desktop operating system illustrates that the article is incorrectly titled, the article should be really titled 'Why not put Gnome on the Business Desktop' as that is the real question being written about as I fail to see how which kernel is used has any bearing on such a question. By using a Linux in the title Gnome gets judged according to KDE's failings and KDE gets Judged according to Gnome's failings, neither of these judgments are fair. The only real unifying aspect of desktop Linux is that one can choose DEs at login and let us rejoice in that.

--Seth

Reply Score: 1

Its in this business!
by nii_ on Wed 30th Nov 2005 03:34 UTC
nii_
Member since:
2005-07-11

Well, in this business, looking around the room now (and this is common of all rooms):

This room, 9 People:

- 10 Linux desktops (Most are centrally managed Gentoo machines) for the 9 people, (one idling).
- 3 Linux laptops.
- 1 Windows laptop (for doing Power Point Presentations etc.)
- 1 Windows desktop (hardly used, used for converting files etc, or stuff that we don't happen to have on the Linux boxes)
- 1 coffee machine


I don't see any problems of having a business rely on Open Source software... Pretty simple.
Particularly Free Software, as 'Free' means the freedom to change it and use it in anyway you wish. This is the best option for any business.

Edited 2005-11-30 03:36

Reply Score: 1

v Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 05:11 UTC
v Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 05:11 UTC
v Not GNOME!
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 05:12 UTC