Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:15 UTC
Linux Toby Richards wrote an opinion article for NewsForge, claiming that for him, Linux won't get mainstream until Evolution - or another capable Outlook-like client - gets optimized and offers 100% compatibility with Exchange. In the comments section of Newsforge readers offered more reasons as to why Linux is not mainstream, offering a view on their needs. My take: While for my personal, home usage of Linux my needs are different, I agree with Toby that companies won't switch their desktops if full Exchange compatibility isn't reached and if Evolution stops being the memory beast it currently is.
Order by: Score:
Alternatives
by archiesteel on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:30 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

That's true for companies that currently use Exchange, but what about companies that are using Lotus Domino? There's still quite a few of them. My own company moved from Exchange to Notes/Domino a few years ago, and even though Notes' interface can be a bit daunting at times, it's actually a robust (and extensible) groupware platform.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Alternatives
by kwanbis on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "Alternatives"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

Many, many companies use Notes/Domino. For those, Domino runned on linux since years. Now, the Notes client is available as well.

ARMONK, NY - 10 Jul 2006: IBM today announced the availability of IBM Lotus® Notes® on Linux®, the industry's first business-grade collaboration software to support Linux on the desktop. Lotus Notes on Linux now provides millions of Lotus Notes users worldwide with software that enables an open desktop alternative to proprietary desktop operating systems.

The openness and flexibility of the Linux desktop combined with widespread availability of server software running on Linux has increased demand for tested and market-proven, desktop applications such as Lotus Notes. For the first time, IBM is delivering business-grade e-mail, group scheduling and thousands of high-value Notes applications that run on the Linux desktop. Combined with server support for Intel and mainframe Linux, IBM now offers end-to-end support for Linux on the Lotus Notes® and Domino® 7 collaboration platform.

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/19940.wss

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Alternatives
by Ronald Vos on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternatives"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Now it all depends on how smooth the transition tools are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Alternatives
by hobgoblin on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Alternatives"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

well, the idea with groupware systems is that everything is stored in a sentral location. i dont think you will need much in the way of transition tools for putting a linux based lotus notes client into the existing system.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Alternatives
by Eugenia on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternatives"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

My husband's company of over 1000 employees are using Exchange, not Domino. The company is unix-friendly (many of their dev systems are running solaris, freebsd or linux), but they would not consider moving their desktops to linux without a good Exchange client. You see, their desktops are all running Windows...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Alternatives
by dotMatt on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Alternatives"
dotMatt Member since:
2005-07-29

Why waste time trying to become Exchange compliant, if the community is trying to squash Exchange? Why not instead work to create a server-side Outlook-compatibile Exchange replacement? Linux has been better accepted server side than client side, so leverage that acceptance with a server side replacement. Then, there is no more "must be Exchange compatibile" argument against moving the clients.

Note my personal belief here - I believe a company with majority Windows admins is not ready for Linux desktops (who supports the desktops? and their interactions with the servers?). A company with majority *nix admins is ready for Linux desktops.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Alternatives
by twickline on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Alternatives"
twickline Member since:
2005-12-31

Well there is a solution out there and i'm sure 99.99% of the regular readers here know what it is.. right?

http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1498637333

"The best way to ensure 100 per cent compatibility with Exchange/Outlook features is to run Outlook itself. Crossover Office from Codeweavers (http://www.codeweavers.com) allows you to do just this. "

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Alternatives
by Cloudy on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Alternatives"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

"The best way to ensure 100 per cent compatibility with Exchange/Outlook features is to run Outlook itself. Crossover Office from Codeweavers (http://www.codeweavers.com) allows you to do just this."


From the codeweaver web site:

*1 - Outlook 2003 is not supported.

You were saying?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Alternatives
by twickline on Mon 24th Jul 2006 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Alternatives"
twickline Member since:
2005-12-31

*1 - Outlook 2003 is not supported.

You were saying?


Outlook 97,2000 and XP are supported at this time. 2003 will be supported in the upcoming 6.0 release. Outlook 2003 installs and runs in the latest alpha build of Crossover!

Do you want me to send you a screen-shot?

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4727367100.html

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Alternatives
by Cloudy on Mon 24th Jul 2006 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Alternatives"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Do you want me to send you a screen-shot?

At that point, I'll be more interested in Outlook 2007.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Alternatives
by aaronb on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 17:06 UTC in reply to "Alternatives"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Groupwise is good (Version 6.5 and newer).

The company that I work for has about 4400 users on it. It supports linux, Mac and Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Alternatives
by HappyGod on Mon 24th Jul 2006 01:07 UTC in reply to "Alternatives"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Except that Notes is an absolute nightmare. Having had to support both Exchange and Notes in the past, I'll take Exchange any day.

Reliability aside, the fact is that Notes is losing ground, while Exchange is gaining. Couple that with MS having 60% of the market to IBM's 25% and it's clear where the focus should be.

Besides, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Provide support for both, then you don't have to worry about it.

Reply Score: 1

An important app
by jjmckay on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:35 UTC
jjmckay
Member since:
2005-11-11

Yeah an app that works well with MS Exchange is very important for main stream acceptance. It seems to me that Windows was accepted at home because people used it at work. I did computer consulting work for years and people almost always wanted computers not for hacking but for practical applications, business related.

Reply Score: 1

RE: An important app
by hobgoblin on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "An important app"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

yep, it can be important that you can use the same tools at home that you use at work.

thats why apple are still strong in music and photo, and many people that do that for a living use apple at home as well.

Reply Score: 2

Evolution vs. Stability.
by leech on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:49 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

The problem isn't that Evolution doesn't work with Exchange. It does. The problem is that the exchange plugin for Evolution makes it very crash prone. Or at least it did when I last used it, which was version 2.2.x and 2.4.x.

This is not why Linux is not mainstream though. It's not mainstream because of OEMs. If OEMs like Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc would provide the option for operating systems besides Windows, then it could be mainstream. That supposedly is going to change, but unfortunately it'd need to be advertised, not just mentioned in passing like it is on most vendors' websites.

Reply Score: 4

Kolab
by Carewolf on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:52 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

What baffles me is that he is not seeing all the replacements that are out there..

Try Kolab for instance

Reply Score: 4

RE: Kolab
by hobgoblin on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:07 UTC in reply to "Kolab"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

thats the one thats getting funding from the german state right?

Reply Score: 2

Not so specific
by Archangel on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:52 UTC
Archangel
Member since:
2005-07-23

I think the reason is a bit more general than this - most companies simply don't really want to move to Linux. They don't dislike it, but they just stick with the status quo because it's easier, and enormous IT budgets cover Microsoft's astronomic license fees.

If a company really wanted to migrate, they'd find an alternative or a way to make it work. But the people who'd be responsible for that decision stand a chance of getting fired if it totally bombed, whereas they're not going to be fired for doing what 95% of other companies are doing.

Reply Score: 5

Hmm
by flywheel on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:54 UTC
flywheel
Member since:
2005-12-28

Yet another "Why Linux Isn't Mainstream/Why Windows rules and Linux sucks" article - how extremely boring.

Funny I haven't met anybody, that likes working with an exchangeserver. IBM Notes on the other hand - and its right there for Linux

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm
by elsewhere on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:19 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Funny I haven't met anybody, that likes working with an exchangeserver. IBM Notes on the other hand - and its right there for Linux

Maybe, but good luck finding anyone that like working with a Notes client on any platform.

I've heard dozens of reasons from engineers about why Domino is better/more robust than Exchange, I've yet to find a single person that finds the Notes client itself anything but horrible. Myself included.

My own organization's IT dept is actually being forced by the higher ups to conduct a feasability study for migrating from Domino to Exchange. We've been on Domino for years as our global messaging platform, but Notes is consistently the single biggest complaint across all of our divisions, including the higher ups. When evaluating our annual employee surveys, consistent hatred of Notes has been highlighted as the single common thread that unites our various business units. It is pretty much universally despised across all regional and cultural boundaries. And it's a kick in the nards everytime we acquire a company and force them to migrate, the complaining never stops.

If IBM was smart they'd read the writing on the wall, seize the opportunity and just produce a simple optimized Notes groupware client and spend a little more effort on making the interface useable. Something that weighs in at, oh, let's say less 200MB and doesn't require a reboot to flush the orphaned processes when it frequently crashes. Something that doesn't try to utilize a gui designed more than a decade ago that still looked clunky back then, even by Win3.1 standards.

How many people forced to use the Notes client are actually running Domino-based collaborative applications besides mail and calendaring?

Even their Sametime IM client is awful. Given a choice, I'd rather just go back to cc:Mail. Well, almost anyways.

It will be interesting to see the new client paradigm, using Eclipse as a platform-neutral application framework. The thought of running an already horribly bloated app like Notes under Java gives me the willies, but hopefully they've made attempts to optimize and clean it up a bit.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hmm
by butters on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Notes has its share of problems, to say the least. I don't think you'll ever see Notes get smaller, but you'll see its interface radically improved:

http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/hannoverscreenshots.ht...

Also agree on the default Sametime client (you can't even click on links and have them open in your browser), although "NotesBuddy" is much more capable replacement for Notes users. I find that GAIM with the Meanwhile plugin is an excellent Sametime client, much better than IBM's in-house Sametime client for Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmm
by somebody on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Looking at these

http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com/
and
http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/hannoverscreenshots.ht...

it seems like those are two products. One with improved look and one looking like the old one (aka. like horses ass). It got me wondering. And based that the layout is completely different those two are different apps.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmm
by chemical_scum on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

"Looking at these
http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com/
and
http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/hannoverscreenshots.ht...
it seems like those are two products"


They are. The first one is the Linux 7.01 Notes client just released. The other screenshots are mock ups of the up and coming "Hannover" Notes client for Windows, Linux and Mac, with the new interface that will probably be Notes 8.x and released sometime next year.

Disclaimer I am not an IBM employee or insider. I am just a Notes user who sometimes reads Ed Brill's blog.

Edited 2006-07-23 01:39

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmm
by somebody on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

They are. The first one is the Linux 7.01 Notes client just released. The other screenshots are mock ups of the up and coming "Hannover" Notes client for Windows, Linux and Mac, with the new interface that will probably be Notes 8.x and released sometime next year.

I seem to remember when Linux client and Hannower were two different things (it was in article where IBM first mentioned native client) comming out in two months diff. It seems Hannower won't be so soon.

Disclaimer I am not an IBM employee or insider. I am just a Notes user who sometimes reads Ed Brill's blog.

No? but thanks anyway. And I would appreciate one more info if you know. Will Hannower support older Domino? Or it will work with 8.0 only? I doubt that company I'm supporting will move on 8.0 on server (one reason being that coders won't move on until it shows as stable), but changing the client to something less like a horses ass would solve a lot of my problems (people are constantly bitchin' about how clusy, how annoying, how slow... client is (server on opteron simply rocks, client simply sucks)).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmm
by Kokopelli on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

No? but thanks anyway. And I would appreciate one more info if you know. Will Hannower support older Domino? Or it will work with 8.0 only? I doubt that company I'm supporting will move on 8.0 on server (one reason being that coders won't move on until it shows as stable), but changing the client to something less like a horses ass would solve a lot of my problems (people are constantly bitchin' about how clusy, how annoying, how slow... client is (server on opteron simply rocks, client simply sucks)).

Hannover client will support connections to older versions of Domino. If your mail file is based on the older mail template however you will be missing some features/functions of the new interface, this is not a show stopper however. (Think online awareness from in R7, which requires you to upgrade the mail file and be using an R7 mail client.)

Funny though I never have problems with speed of the client. The speed problem is far more likely to be your configuration or the bandwidth of the connection to your domino server. If you are connecting to the server for mail and not replicating to local then your mail will be limited by the speed of your connection to the server. (I use a local copy from out of office but connect directly to my server copy when in the office for instance.)

Many people do not like the Lotus Notes interface but I do. I guess I have just gotten used to it over the years. It does the job and I like the calendaring and freetime methodology of notes. shrug.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmm
by somebody on Mon 24th Jul 2006 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

First thanks for being so informative.

Funny though I never have problems with speed of the client.

No:) Slowness of the interface. Server-Data-Client simply flies (1GBit network), that would be a mistake to say. But interface redraw can be painfully slow, or to interpret one of more descriptive users "it redraws like painfully slow web page".

Many people do not like the Lotus Notes interface but I do. I guess I have just gotten used to it over the years. It does the job and I like the calendaring and freetime methodology of notes. shrug.

My best guess (according to users that I support, I can avoid using client, lucky me) is that if one is beaten with a stick for a long time... first stops feeling it and in case that beating stops suddenly feels something missing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm
by aGNUstic on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:15 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

`Funny I haven't met anybody, that likes working with an exchange server. IBM Notes on the other hand - and its right there for Linux.`

I work at a small university in its IT department. We have, what I nick name, two `Extra Change` servers. One old and, of course, new. There is an AD migration in process across campus. The people performing this migration are in near daily agony.

I listen to these people daily and they've been working in this area for well over two decades each. One has nearly 40 years in. EC is not quite as friendly as marketing would have you believe.

One even asked me to trade all my BSD, Linux, and Unix servers for her MS EC servers. You can proably guess my response as it was mixed with laughter.

I sometimes wonder how far they would get without a wizard or a rather expensive call to a little company in Redmond.

In any case, define mainstream. Seriously. I see it bantered about by arm-chair or home-based critics who've never run an industrial-level mail server on a daily basis.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmm
by chiwaw on Mon 24th Jul 2006 05:56 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
chiwaw Member since:
2006-02-05

Funny I haven't met anybody, that likes working with an exchangeserver.

*Waving my hand*. Glad I'm your first. I'm sure if you search a little bit you should find, say, a few millions.

Seriously, I work for a moderate sized company (250) which I agree is nowhere near the size of some F500 companies. But we're still at zero complains on that dept. Exchange goes the distance for us, and then some.

Reply Score: 1

Not This Again
by segedunum on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:03 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is simply not feasible for open source developers to go around hunting for Exchange compatibility for a throw-away e-mail client. It also doesn't give you what desktop Linux strategically needs - an Exchange replacement. All that will happen is that very, very few people will look and say 'Oh wow, it connects to our Exchange server', and they may even use it happily for quite a while. Meanwhile, Exchange doesn't get replaced and a new version of Exchange gets upgraded to. All the Linux desktops stop working and they then get thrown out.

What desktop Linux needs is supporting server and groupware infrastructure that is freely available and is extremely neat to manage, with some nice pretty management tools. People who can will pick it up and run with it, and eventually it will become so popular that someone using Exchange will think 'Hey, why aren't we running this?' I know it doesn't sound plausible to many people, but you get a wave behind it like Firefox and it will work. What you want is to create some Exchange compatible tools to get people off it.

Unfortunately, there is no such groupware server. Kolab does pretty well, but nothing has the management tools that Exchange does. Novell strangely believes that people will still actually use Groupwise.

As for Evolution, I really have no clue whatsoever why people keep touting this thing as some enterprise class e-mail client when Thunderbird and Kontact, which does groupware, are around. Circa 2001/2002 Evolution was a half-decent e-mail client (I know, I used it full-time for a year), but now I just don't know what it's become. The number and depth of bugs has gone into the stratosphere, and it really doesn't scale well performance-wise when you have large amounts of e-mail and multiple e-mail accounts you want to manage. And I don't even use any groupware. There was even some talk of it being dropped (http://lwn.net/Articles/179639/ and http://lwn.net/Articles/179640/) from Fedora because of some of the fundamental bugs in it. I really don't see why they should need a full-time maintainer and bug fixer for it. The software should be managed upstream and simply be packaged up.

And if you can shave up to 40 MB of memory usage off your software in one fell swoop, wherever that may happen to be, trust me, there's something very wrong with your software.

Edited 2006-07-22 22:17

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not This Again
by Beresford on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:45 UTC in reply to "Not This Again"
Beresford Member since:
2005-07-06

Agree'd.

Reply Score: 1

Kontact&Kolab
by divansantana on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:09 UTC
divansantana
Member since:
2005-12-15

I think Kontact kicks serious butt!!

The more you use Kontact the more you'll love it!
I rate its far better than Evolution and certainly better than MS Outlook 2003 even!

It doesn't use much memory and is quick and awesome!

The current html support for sending and reply to emails in kontact is far worse than thunderbird,outlook and evolution, but that is a current sacrifice.

I'm sure they'l fix that but otherwise all works awesome!

And kolab seems good for now. Getting better too.

Currently have this setup for a 700 PC network with Kolab server. All awesome!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kontact&Kolab
by unoengborg on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:10 UTC in reply to "Kontact&Kolab"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, kontact and kolab are great applications, that could be potential Outlook/Exchange killers. The problem is that they currently don't run on windows.

At least that is a big problem for kontact. Most companies would like to have a uniform E-mail/Calendaring structure regardless of platform. If you run different tools on different platforms you are bound to get in trouble as upgrades may lead to incompatibilities, as they most likely have different release schedueles if they comes from different venders.

Perhaps the situation will change once KDE4 is out. It will use QT4 that is available for windows under the GPL. This will make it much easier to port KDE apps to windows.

Another problem with Kontact, is that it in most distros doesn't support S/MIME by default. S/MIME is much more common in busines than e.g. gpg, so not having that might be a showstopper.

Reply Score: 4

more reasons...
by tbostick78 on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:12 UTC
tbostick78
Member since:
2005-12-16

1) Even my mom can insert a CD in windows and click install after "autorun" kicks in.

2) People have grown to expect things in a certain place. My "stuff" is in "My Computer". If I forget, I just ask a friend.

3) Off the shelf hardware is packaged with drivers for Windows that usually pass MS HQA

4) File browsing - which file browser? some don't support columns, some are slow and clumbsy, some don't do what I want when I drag and drop. Inconsistent between apps that use gtk vs qt vs other decorations.

5) application -> file type mappings. Can't I just double click a wmv file to play???

6) how to share a folder... right click, share? Or vim /etc/samba/smb.conf; /etc/init.d/smb restart; ? Yast? Redhat tools? Other?

7) how about setting up wireless networking?

8) wizards

9) feeling "protected" with norton, symantec, toolbar "helpers", etc.

10) I want professional tools (e.g. Photoshop) and not a hack means of running them.

11) I like being able to right-click desktop and change resolution.

12) a default windows installation has a lot less "crap" on it than a default linux distro ;) ~ it's true!

So I think there are a few more things to STANDARDIZE and REFINE. It's getting there... and very cool indeed, but I wouldn't call the desktop env ready for "mainstream" either. I use linux 8 hrs per day, and windows for Exchange and Firefox.

Reply Score: 4

RE: more reasons...
by somebody on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 23:10 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

1) Even my mom can insert a CD in windows and click install after "autorun" kicks in.

Which is one of the constant IT troubles

2) People have grown to expect things in a certain place. My "stuff" is in "My Computer". If I forget, I just ask a friend.

??? My computer here, my computer there. But if you forget something you ask your friend? Is your friend indexing your files or what? I use beagle for that.

3) Off the shelf hardware is packaged with drivers for Windows that usually pass MS HQA

MS HQA is overrated. You still have to think carefully which HW you buy. No matter which OS (except for example Apple when you're bound with hardware)

4) File browsing - which file browser? some don't support columns, some are slow and clumbsy, some don't do what I want when I drag and drop. Inconsistent between apps that use gtk vs qt vs other decorations.

Simple solution, don't install more than one desktop. Choose one. As for filemanager? DnD works as it should.

5) application -> file type mappings. Can't I just double click a wmv file to play???

??? Do that with ogg, mp4 etc. Without installing codecs. Your mum doesn't know how to do that.

http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/menus/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entr...
Here is where linux actualy leads.

6) how to share a folder... right click, share? Or vim /etc/samba/smb.conf; /etc/init.d/smb restart; ? Yast? Redhat tools? Other?

??? System -> Administration -> Server Settings -> Samba?

7) how about setting up wireless networking?

For my notebook, it meant one click in package manager (after I made search for intel 2200).

8) wizards

???

9) feeling "protected" with norton, symantec, toolbar "helpers", etc.

???

10) I want professional tools (e.g. Photoshop) and not a hack means of running them.

Most (99%) of my windows using friends with this excuse are inadequate to know why Photoshop is usable. If you're not in serious dtp photoshop is one of the worst possible softwares.

p.s. I do a lot of drawing and I appreciate gimp the most. In features it could do better (I'm mostly missing rotating canvas as in Painter) but in working on dual screen and how you interact with alpha channels it is a clear winner.

11) I like being able to right-click desktop and change resolution.

Ok, since I have all 24" LCDs I can't imagine why you would need that. But here it is "randr applet".

12) a default windows installation has a lot less "crap" on it than a default linux distro ;) ~ it's true!

Based on your comment about File Managers? Yeah, I understand you. It is a common feeling of everyone that does "full install".

Edited 2006-07-22 23:15

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: more reasons...
by tbostick78 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

I mostly agree with your replies. But I still think it's easier for a non-comp-savvy user to get this with a default windows instal, no? Keeping that configuration however... like you said, "...one of the constant IT troubles".

13) can I trust open source drivers for my critical business work? even seldom corruption or process deadlock could cause big problems. And when it's time to upgrade hardware will the O.S. drivers be ready, even after they've had to reverse engineer the spec?

14) where the heck is X installed? well does the dist use GNU /usr/local/... or the LSB standard, or more of a debian deriv or slack or bsd?

15) boot problems but don't want to reinstal whole system? win = /fixmbr, lin = (lilo, grub, hda0, hd0, /boot, dd if=/bkup/hd0_boot_part.img of=... bs=...)

I'm with ya though... I totally 100% grew up on unix. I breathe unix. But I gotta admit, the average "PC Enthusiast" can fix my moms computer. The average "Linux Enthusiast" has 2+ years of CompSci and can admin or find the documentation they need for their own system.

shane

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: more reasons...
by dotMatt on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: more reasons..."
dotMatt Member since:
2005-07-29

One key point I want to throw out, (it will apply most to #14):
Windows to Linux is oranges to apple-seeds. We need to either compare the NT Kernel to Linux, Win32 to GNU/Linux, or compare Windows XP to Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, etc. When comparing to Windows, distros are so unique and varied that you cannot just refer to them as "Linux". There is no Linux "OS" in the Windows sense of the words "OS". And we should not *expect* Ubuntu, SuSE, and Redhat to be any more similar than Apple and Windows, as they are different companies. It is purely well-planned convenience that there *is* software that can be used on all Linux distros.

13) can I trust open source drivers for my critical business work? even seldom corruption or process deadlock could cause big problems. And when it's time to upgrade hardware will the O.S. drivers be ready, even after they've had to reverse engineer the spec?

Can you trust closed source drivers? What if you are a US government contractor or big US company oft targetted for corporate espionage? Can you run those closed source Taiwanese motherboard drivers?

The driver readiness for your hardware upgrade has little to do with the OS. Microsoft does not write the drivers in the Windows-space; the vendor does. More and more vendors are releasing Linux drivers with their new hardware, and the FOSS community writes the rest, with much larger variety. Try finding drivers to make Windows run on your Sparc or PowerPC hardware!

14) where the heck is X installed? well does the dist use GNU /usr/local/... or the LSB standard, or more of a debian deriv or slack or bsd?

Why does it matter? We are using software for either Windows, or Ubuntu, or Redhat, or ..., and therefore it is packaged appropriately for that environment. It doesn't matter to me, the normal user, as the packaging takes care of it.

As a power-user, it might matter, as I may want to step outside the box, but as a power-user I know enough to control that - even if it is Windows freeware that wants to install to "c:", or c:[company name][software].


15) boot problems but don't want to reinstal whole system? win = /fixmbr, lin = (lilo, grub, hda0, hd0, /boot, dd if=/bkup/hd0_boot_part.img of=... bs=...)
How do you run fixmbr if you can't boot? You must be using a very limited, command-line only, DOS based, user-unfriendly Windows boot disk. Or you are using the ASCII graphics based Windows Install CD Rescue mode. I'd much rather use the GUI repair modes of your distros LiveCD/Install CD.

I will admit, users do not want to change from what they know. But if Linux distros simply become what is already known, we will lose all of the possible innovation. It will take time, but if some Linux flavor is truly the best, it will be accepted. But mark this - Linux will not gain acceptance by simply mimicking what already exists. Why change at all, if it will just be more of the same? Developers - don't waste your time striving for compatibility with product X (e.g., Exchange) - strive for compatibility with innovative standard Y (e.g., CalDAV), supported by N other products. As these products get better and more accepted, those that are not compatibile will fade away.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: more reasons...
by kaiwai on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: more reasons..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

<delete duplicate>

Edited 2006-07-23 03:43

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: more reasons...
by kaiwai on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: more reasons..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

One key point I want to throw out, (it will apply most to #14):
Windows to Linux is oranges to apple-seeds. We need to either compare the NT Kernel to Linux, Win32 to GNU/Linux, or compare Windows XP to Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, etc. When comparing to Windows, distros are so unique and varied that you cannot just refer to them as "Linux". There is no Linux "OS" in the Windows sense of the words "OS". And we should not *expect* Ubuntu, SuSE, and Redhat to be any more similar than Apple and Windows, as they are different companies. It is purely well-planned convenience that there *is* software that can be used on all Linux distros.


You are correct about that; lets take it even further; what about distros like gnusolaris ;) hence I can understand in regards to the reason why it should be called GNU/Linux - because GNU userland can be transplanted into any environment; or in the case of gnusolaris, IIRC, they use the gnu compilers, Debian packaging system and other opensource components.

Regarding the 'planned' part; one could compare the distros to Apple; and how Apple bundle all that you need in the box; you get a system, iLife etc. In the case of GNU/Linux, you get the operating system and all the stuff you need to get on with work.

Can you trust closed source drivers? What if you are a US government contractor or big US company oft targetted for corporate espionage? Can you run those closed source Taiwanese motherboard drivers?

Now how about how ISPs worked with the US government to tap peoples emails and correspondance; considering how compliant the US public is, when ther is the 'if you don't comply and worship the government, you're obvious a terrorist and anti-American' theme in the air (and been like that since the formation of the US), I wouldn't be surprised if the chipset manufacturers don't start adding 'features' in accordance to 'government directives' for 'counter terrorism and protecting the democracy'.

The driver readiness for your hardware upgrade has little to do with the OS. Microsoft does not write the drivers in the Windows-space; the vendor does. More and more vendors are releasing Linux drivers with their new hardware, and the FOSS community writes the rest, with much larger variety. Try finding drivers to make Windows run on your Sparc or PowerPC hardware!

What I hope is this; Intel and AMD purchase Ati and Nvidia respectively, they open up all the specs and allow prices, supply and demand, and volume to sort out things. Screw secrecy when you have the production facilities to provide the whole kit to the OEM vendors; video card, chipset, processor etc. all under the same roof; they'll compete supplying the whole thing, not just the graphics card, thus, if they do opensource their drivers, they won't actually lose any competitive edge.

inux will not gain acceptance by simply mimicking what already exists. Why change at all, if it will just be more of the same? Developers - don't waste your time striving for compatibility with product X (e.g., Exchange) - strive for compatibility with innovative standard Y (e.g., CalDAV), supported by N other products. As these products get better and more accepted, those that are not compatibile will fade away.

True; create a product, end to end; server and client, which utilises open standards protocols and provides the same level of functionality as the commercial products.

These exist NOW; Sun sells the Solaris Enterprise System, which includes EVERYTHING which is included with Exchange; you can use Outlook with it, or Evolution - and yet, why the hell don't people use it? I mean, I'd love to know why a company chooses expensive proprietary software from Lotus or Microsoft when Sun can provide the SAME level of funcationality at a LOWER price.

Same goes for the Kolab project as well; why are these pushed off by the high flying CIO's - the fact that there aren't multibillion dollar marketing budgets behind them? the fact that they don't include cheap gimicy crap; the fact that they don't have smooth talking, silver toungued sales represenatives with ethics so low, they rival Karl Rove in in the "who can be the most unethical".

Edited 2006-07-23 03:47

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: more reasons...
by somebody on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: more reasons..."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

These exist NOW; Sun sells the Solaris Enterprise System, which includes EVERYTHING which is included with Exchange; you can use Outlook with it, or Evolution - and yet, why the hell don't people use it? I mean, I'd love to know why a company chooses expensive proprietary software from Lotus or Microsoft when Sun can provide the SAME level of funcationality at a LOWER price.

/* personal */
Simple case in my opinion. Why Novell, IBM, MS over Sun? I wouldn't trust something beng written in java.

Beside the fact that Notes is the most usable and extendable platform as server.
p.s. I couldn't say that I wouldn't make a suicide if someone would force me to use their client for one day, though.

Lower price is not what it is setting the limits. When people consider prices/features, they mostly only see two limits, features or free. Between those two is where decisions happen'.

Same goes for the Kolab project as well; why are these pushed off by the high flying CIO's - the fact that there aren't multibillion dollar marketing budgets behind them? the fact that they don't include cheap gimicy crap; the fact that they don't have smooth talking, silver toungued sales represenatives with ethics so low, they rival Karl Rove in in the "who can be the most unethical".

Problem with Kolab is that it is mostly KDE specific. And mostly lacking functionality comparing to any platform named before.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: more reasons...
by kaiwai on Mon 24th Jul 2006 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: more reasons..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Simple case in my opinion. Why Novell, IBM, MS over Sun? I wouldn't trust something beng written in java.

Dear god, I hope you're not in a decision making position, because that has to take the cake as the most clueless response yet; the Solaris Enterprise System isn't written in Java; Solaris Enterprise system is the old rebranded Netscape iPlanet range of products.

Beside the fact that Notes is the most usable and extendable platform as server.

But its nothing more than a really overly convoluted application server that IBM is doing its damnedest to kill off in favour of their websphere setup. I certainly wouldn't feel safe knowing that my investment is going to be worthless once IBM has its way, and bolt everything ontop of the DB2/Websphere combo.

Problem with Kolab is that it is mostly KDE specific. And mostly lacking functionality comparing to any platform named before.

How many actually USE the funcationality of Exchange or Lotus; most of the cases I see Lotus or Exchange being used, is as a glorified mail server, with none of the collaborative functions actually utilised, thus making the, at times, investment of hundreds of thousands, a complete waste of time and money.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: more reasons...
by somebody on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: more reasons..."
RE[4]: more reasons...
by tbostick78 on Mon 24th Jul 2006 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: more reasons..."
tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

While I appreciate your comments, can we agree to share some professional respect? It's not my intention to insult you -- whatever league you're in. I'm well schooled, fairly well experienced, and a darn good Linux S.E. There will always be others with better insite and more experience. You may be one. By "I'm with ya", I meant, "I agree with you". No insult intended. The points I made were to bring some ideas to the table regarding why linux isn't mainstream... and I think most of them are valid considerations or hurdles for a predominantly Windows IT world. Yes, there are solutions or alternatives, and yes, some of them shouldn't be show-stoppers for Linux platform integration or even migration. I'm not standing behind these with a pitchfork as arguments against GNU/Linux platform. Did it really come across that way?

Regards,
shane

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: more reasons...
by somebody on Mon 24th Jul 2006 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: more reasons..."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

While I appreciate your comments, can we agree to share some professional respect?

Yes, post true and non-obsure things (more on that in my two examples). At the same moment you have my respect. Vice versa logic.

I agree that Linux isn't there yet for average Joe Sixpack. And as contrary as it sounds, on right conditions it can become something where everyones jaws drop on the floor, no matter how sophisticated other OSes are.

The points I made were to bring some ideas to the table regarding why linux isn't mainstream... and I think most of them are valid considerations or hurdles for a predominantly Windows IT world.

No, you should try thinking more granma like. Problems you named are either solved long ago or geekish nature problems, where you even disputed your self in some of your arguments.

Few nice examples of unfair bitchin' for ya.

User puts new drive in computer and nothing happens. Ok, so what? Windows offer to format in NTFS by default. Meaning it won't be read on other OSes. OSX offers UFS+ by default, again nothing on other OSes. But if linux would offer ext3, everyone would be bitchin' how it can't access these files when it connects this drive to their OS.

Then again, no one seems bothered by the fact that Windows don't support any non-MS fs, while everyone bitches how linux doesn't support NTFS.

MP3 support? How can you get something for free, but they have to pay for it? There are commercial distros that come with mp3, but all those lamers that bitch how there is no mp3 support aren't prepared to pay?

And yours were just unfair as these ones. Now answer these questions:
Why no one expects corporate and commercial to support something, but then they expect everything from free?
Why are people expecting always more from free (I mean they expect all proprietary and free, but all for the price of free)?

I'm perfectly happy where linux is now, on most of my desktops and all my 70 servers (except two). I don't expect someone to wave a magic wand and all proprietary problems will go away. But there are cases when linux is more perfect on desktop and where some other OSes are more perfect. As long as you choose your best hammer, it will rock, be that linux, windows, OSX or any other OS.

Yes, there are solutions or alternatives, and yes, some of them shouldn't be show-stoppers for Linux platform integration or even migration. I'm not standing behind these with a pitchfork as arguments against GNU/Linux platform. Did it really come across that way?

Yes, it simply sounded arrogant, and the same tone in my answer for that reason. Granma is not interested where X is installed and not where realplayer is installed as long as it works when she clicks associated file and she can select realplayer from menu. Be that on Windows, OSX or Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: more reasons...
by astroraptor on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
astroraptor Member since:
2005-07-22

My God ... these articles never cease do they? Well, thankfully there's less and less comments on them, so I guess these articles are fading away.

Listen, if Linux really is God's only son as many of you deem it with your heart and soul, then most people would actually use it. They really would. I mean, does every kid and his dog use Windows Media Player? No. A lot of people use WinAMP, a lot of inept computer users too. It's not hard to go and download it and use it. Does everyone use MSN Messenger? No. Once again, a lot of people use AIM, amongst others. Where am I going with this? Windows has programs that are preinstalled which many in the Linux community like to believe that people couldn't be arsed to try anything else. Given, this is true for some, but consider those who use 3rd party applications and tools, and there are many. I mean, Windows comes with a word processor built-in, a photo-editor (of sorts ;) ), a media player, a web browser, etc etc. Do people use them? A lot of people do but choices are available, and an OS with little hardware/software support and configuration which is difficult to many is not the answer.

So why isn't Linux mainstream? It's been mentioned time and time again and it's going through one ear and out the other or some lame excuse for a rebuttle follows.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: more reasons...
by somebody on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: more reasons..."
RE: more reasons...
by jessta on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:03 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

1) I'm sure that your mum can also apt-get <name of program>

2) A users files are in /home/ and with default permissions left as they are, your mum won't be able to put her files anywhere else. Therefore beening unable to lose them.

3) This is an issue of hardware manufactures.
It still makes no sense to me why they don't open their drivers and get them included in the linux kernel.
It would save them development money and offer better quality drivers.

4) ROX is pretty nice.

5) wmv files are covered by microsoft patents.
You'll probably notice that the same issue occurs on windows and you'd have to change the file extention mapping there too for any file formats that windows doesn't know about. eg. .py, .php, .ogg

6) Depends on your distro and desktop environment.

7) Again, largely an issue of hardware manufactures.
The solution is to only buy supported hardware.

8) Druids

9) WTF? Antivirus software is spread through FUD. Is basically pointless. Much better to spend 30mins explaining to the user how best to avoid untrusted executables.

10) That's an issue for Adobe.

11) Are you sure you want to use a linux distro?
From this statement I think you'd be better off with Microsoft Windows.

12) Depends on your distro.



Most of these issues are about wanting GNULinux distros to do things the Windows way.
GNULinux is not Microsoft Windows. If you want Microsoft Windows then use Microsoft Windows.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: more reasons...
by tbostick78 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

Agreed, it's possible that "Linux isn't mainstream" because many users want "GNULinux distros to do things the Windows way". Alternative methodologies, applications, permission schemes, system updates, and metadata cataloging exist -- and I enjoy these very much. But the concern is, "why isn't linux mainstream". Just ideas... that's all.

Re: Antivirus... FUD
Ideally we'd be able to reach all end users (or those within our corporation, for example) and convince them that cute emails shouldn't be opened, that outlook shouldn't have msg preview on, etc. And that they haven't really inherited a fortune from the ambassador of South Africa. But in reality, this doesn't work. Attachments come through the firewall, and content scanners (antivirus software) help. In the long run, it's cost effective to maintain a battle front.

shane

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: more reasons...
by pandronic on Mon 24th Jul 2006 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

10) That's an issue for Adobe.

Let me just say this: "ha ha". Maybe it's an issue for Adobe to support all the Linux desktop distros out there. I really don't understand why there are so many. To most users they all look the same, except for the wallpaper and the theme.

And while I'm at it ... why is there such a complicated and cryptic directory structure: can't there be dirs like linux/ (for the OS), software/ (installed programs), users/ (documents and settings) instead of usr, bin, etc, var, local, root, lib, mnt, tmp and so on? Why is there a need to use the command line on a daily basis to get anything done? I don't want to compile anything ever, I don't want to use package managers - I just want to click the installer and click away through the wizard, I want my OS easy so it doesn't get into my way and I can get work done.

I like very much the way PC-BSD is going. The PBI installers are so darn easy to use. It's something that linux should learn.

Maybe Linux's problem is that it's a server OS that also aspires to be a desktop OS. It would be so easy to make it user friendly if only the developers could think from Average Joe's perspective and not only from theirs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: more reasons...
by kaiwai on Mon 24th Jul 2006 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: more reasons..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe Linux's problem is that it's a server OS that also aspires to be a desktop OS. It would be so easy to make it user friendly if only the developers could think from Average Joe's perspective and not only from theirs.

Truth be told, it was original designed as a desktop operating system, and linus still aspires for that to be the case; as he said, "Servers have fixed requirements, desktops are alot more interesting".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: more reasons...
by SpasmaticSeacow on Mon 24th Jul 2006 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: more reasons..."
SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

The Linux directory structure is kind of a funny thing to complain about since users rarely deal with anything save for their home directory and it's very similar to Windows in most respects.

Mac OSX actually beat Linux and Windows hands down in this department. Linux tends to beat Windows in consistency (that is to say, Windows and Windows apps tend to distribute different types of files in across more directories than Linux, which is typically more consistent).

Reply Score: 1

RE: more reasons...
by mjmoran on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:38 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
mjmoran Member since:
2005-08-13

All but one of your reasons don't even matter in a enterprise enviroment.(which is where Exchange is mostly going to be used)
In an enterprise enviroment, you don't want your users either setting up hardware, sharing folders, changing resolution, or adding file mappings. Those jobs are for the IT guys who should know the setup.

Now, for the more general issue of use...
The average home Windows user neither can nor do install Windows. They use what is installed on the machine when they bought it, and if their is a problem, they have someone else help them. Also, if you install a Linux Distro on someone's machine(who doesn't need any windows apps) and show them the ropes, they can get along pretty good. Point them to Ubuntu Forums and help them for a few days, and unless there is a major problem they can get along pretty good. Now, none of these people are computer geeks. One of them didn't even know how to operate a computer. Could they fix a major problem by themselves..probably not..could they have if they were running Windows..just as unlikely.

Ive found that its mainly an issue being not familiar with the interface or things being slightly different, but those with no computer experence seem to have no problem. Afterall, they have no existing notions on how the machine should operate.

Also, about point 9 on your list. As opposed to "feeling" protected, they are protected. Running Linux there are no Viruses or Spyware which can infect the system. This may change sometime in the future, however, for not the issue really doesn't exist.

Point 10 however, is very relevent though. Where I work we have Windows on the client machines, why? Photoshop and Dreamweaver. If those tools ran fine under Linux, we could ditch the beast for good. We are a j2ee shop, and all our development tools are multiplatform(eclipse and friends) We investigated using the GIMP and NVU and for a few of us it would work, however, there are some features that you just want a professional class app.

Personally, I think the OS(collectively) is ready NOW, however, the third party support(pro apps) just isn't there. Also, the mindset isn't there yet. People can be suspicious of something thats free; especially with the average users fight with spyware from "free" apps.

-Michael Moran

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: more reasons...
by tbostick78 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

Great points. I disagree though that linux users are protected due to the nonexistence of viruses or spyware. Certainly the casual unix permission scheme (compared to SE-Linux) is helpful. But send an executable by email that a user can download and exec, and they are at the mercy of their own file permissions -- or any files with group wx enabled. e.g. system("rm -rf ~"); And as the user-base grows, I would speculate that tampered packages and code will surface. In this sense, no OS can be safe as long as users are able to download and execute. In general is the platform more secure? I believe so.

shane

Reply Score: 1

RE: more reasons...
by walterbyrd on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 12:23 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

1) Even my mom can insert a CD in windows and click install after "autorun" kicks in.

Can she uninstall afterwards? I mean really 100% uninstall? No junk in the registry or anything? Also, IMO, doing an online install with a debian based distro is much easier than messing with CDs.

2) People have grown to expect things in a certain place. My "stuff" is in "My Computer". If I forget, I just ask a friend.

Trivial, at best.


3) Off the shelf hardware is packaged with drivers for Windows that usually pass MS HQA

On install, most linux distro do a far better job of detecting most "off the shelf hardware." than windows.

4) File browsing - which file browser? some don't support columns, some are slow and clumbsy, some don't do what I want when I drag and drop. Inconsistent between apps that use gtk vs qt vs other decorations.

You have to make the same choice in windows. More and more people seem to think that msie sucks.

5) application -> file type mappings. Can't I just double click a wmv file to play???

Of course, I do it all the time.

6) how to share a folder... right click, share? Or vim /etc/samba/smb.conf; /etc/init.d/smb restart; ? Yast? Redhat tools? Other?

May have point. It's never been a problem for me.

7) how about setting up wireless networking?

Very good point. Setting a wireless router is just as easy with linux, as with windows. But Linux may not have drivers for the wireless card.

8) wizards

More msft pain, IMO. Next will tell me about clippy.

9) feeling "protected" with norton, symantec, toolbar "helpers", etc.

I feel much more protected with linux, than with windows. Even if winodws to loaded to teeth with anti-malware crud. From my experience, Linux is *much* less likely to become infected, and I have substantial experience.

10) I want professional tools (e.g. Photoshop) and not a hack means of running them.

Applications are a real issue.

11) I like being able to right-click desktop and change resolution.

Trivial.

12) a default windows installation has a lot less "crap" on it than a default linux distro ;) ~ it's true!

It is not true. Try the network install of debain, by default, it doesn't even install x-window.

I use linux 8 hrs per day, and windows for Exchange and Firefox.

For somebody who linux 8 hrs per day, you sure don't seem to know about it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: you sure don't seem to know about it
by tbostick78 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

Well allow me to retort! ;)

I was just brainstorming ideas from a linux newbie point of view. Wasn't my intention to play dumb about linux administration or tools. In condensed form... I think windows users have grown accustomed to the "windows way" and the "hand holding" that the installs and shiny print-outs accomodate. It's been a good discussion about the "Linux way" of accomplishing the same tasks.

Do I know linux? BSCS compsci, linux/hp-ux/solaris over 10 years, comfortable writing PCI drivers, real-time app dev, custom builds, JAPH, and a very reasonable amount of administration. I have too many machines to admin though, so I must use distributed, load-balanced scripting instead of those cute gui's that help edit config files. I tinker my own rc.d tree, smb.conf, httpd.conf, rotating backups and cron jobs, hard-link snapshots, SVN over ssh and ssh keys, *.auto, and sometimes inetd to inherit a socket handle as stdin -- depending on the project reqs. I don't do enterprise NIS and network topo design, but I know linux.

thx for the good input... i've been enjoying everyones comments.

shane

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: more reasons...
by Novan_Leon on Mon 24th Jul 2006 14:10 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

To: tbostick78

Never bash OSS on OSNews dude... even though your points ARE valid, you'll just get bashed in return.

Reply Score: 1

RE: more reasons...
by SpasmaticSeacow on Mon 24th Jul 2006 15:07 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

@tbostick78: From your post, it's pretty obvious you haven't used Linux for a while since all of the things you mention operate more less precisely in Linux as they do in Windows. Save a couple of things: when you insert a CD, the CD appears on the desktop but no software runs (for obvious reasons) -- you'd have to double-click the icon and double click on the install. Also, file-type mappings for most types (more than Windows) are typically pre-installed and are also far easier to manipulate in Linux -- but for patent reasons, people in the US can't distribute all of the codecs widely used in Windows (though you can download them).

File sharing does indeed involve right-clicking and selecting "Share" in Linux (as opposed to right-clicking, selecting "Properties" and going to the "Sharing" tab) -- perhaps the user would be confused to find check-boxes for NFS and Windows filesharing, though.

Obviously there are Wizards, though wireless configs can be confusing because the setup wizards for Linux wireless require you to provide the root password.

Obviously Norton and Symantec's illusory security is not necessary.

There's no "My Computer" icon on most distributions, and "My Documents" is called "Home", but you could put a "My Computer" icon (hint: the URL to use in KDE is system:/ ) and rename "Home" if it makes you feel better.

Windows doesn't have an option to right-click on the desktop to change the screen resolution, but it does have the "properties" just like Linux (KDE anyway), and you can always click the resolution change icon in the tray under Linux, or use the hotkey.

I don't know of any drag-and-drop issues. GNOME and KDE are both more prevalent and consistent than Windows in that regard.

My impression is that your familiarity with Linux is with distributions at least 3-4 years back.

As far as "crap" -- the distributions typically come with lots of software, but you don't need to install it all just because it's free. And having bought a number of PCs with Windows pre-installed, there's far more "crap" on an OEM PC than a typical Linux install (ads, adware, demo copies of software, AOL and a half-dozen other services, crash-prone OEM multimedia apps, etc.)

Reply Score: 1

In my case ...
by mwerfspain on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:38 UTC
mwerfspain
Member since:
2006-02-19

OK OK, I'm ready for the replies and being flamed to the deepest bowels of hell for what I'm gonna say but what is stopping me (in my case a very small 5 person company where I'm in charge of computers, amongst other things) is ... I'm afraid to even mention it ... Access.
Yes ... Access, that database thingy by Microsoft nobody ever mentions anymore.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want to be fired (well, bought out, 'cause the company is partially mine...), therefore we use proper database backend (firebird) to store our important data. This service is provided by a Linux server which houses all data and other services we need. As workstations all of us, however, are still tied to windows.
Why is this? Not because of trivial everyday things such as word processing, spreadsheets or email, but because the quickest and easiest way to develop a frontend for a corporate database is Access, especially in a "trusted" environment, and a small company such as mine.
I've tried alternatives, ranging from web based to gtk / qt on linux and others, including openoffice's database interface, rekall, etc etc. but I still haven't found anything as flexible and powerfull as access (used properly that is)...
I certainly find the exchange arguments incomprehensible because all services can easily be provided by alternatives on linux, at least in our case.
Now I'm ready to be proven wrong here, especially on the database frontend bit. If anyone has any suggestions that make sense I'll reformat my company's workstations on monday and put linux on all of them.

Reply Score: 2

Not the real reason
by sbenitezb on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 22:40 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

That's because he thinks that people only spend their time writing mails. There are still a *lot* of business applications that run only on Windows. And there are still a *lot* of MSCE that like Windows and only know Windows. Some of them even hate Linux or are afraid of it. So don't fool yourself in these beliefs.

Reply Score: 5

v My Take
by j-s-h on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 23:12 UTC
Openchange
by lawina on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 23:54 UTC
lawina
Member since:
2006-01-20

Actually there is a group named Openchange which is actively involved in reverse engineering MAPI/Exchange.
They even challenged that they will reverse engineer the Exchange protocols within a period of one year. (But they couldnt) Check their website at

http://openchange.org/

Edited 2006-07-22 23:55

Reply Score: 2

OSER
by lawina on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 00:03 UTC
lawina
Member since:
2006-01-20

Also have a look at Open Source Microsoft Exchange Replacement Platform (OSER) site at http://www.thewybles.com/~charles/oser/ which is involved in a similar venture.

Reply Score: 2

These are not the reasons
by Joe User on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 00:21 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Linux e-mail clients are good enough. Reasons why Linux isn't mainstream were discussed in previous articles (hard to use, poor hardware support, poor commercial software support, etc...)

Reply Score: 2

Reasons
by hraq on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 00:39 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Hardware manufacturers are not supporting linux hardware with good drivers, helping software and ease of use. Examples are nvidia, Ati, Creative and Logitech web cameras, Creative Sound cards, Tablets, advanced mice from Logitech, and many many more other examples.

2. Commercial Software writters are not willing to write their codes to linux except very very very few of them: linux IBM and their lotus notes, Adobe and their Adobe reader,...

3. Financial Weakenss of the best commercial available companies that sells linux ( RHAT and NOVL market capitals total around 5+2.5=7.5 Billion while MS 290 billion); this will make them weaker to nogotiate in the market and to advertize.

4. Unwilling of people to learn new tasks let alone new platform


I don't think that the only problem is the one the author mentioned.

Reply Score: 1

simple list of reasons
by buff on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:35 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

1) No installer works yet where you can just hit next, next in a wizard UI model that doesn't require tweeking later.

2) All applications don't come dummy proof using the standard install shield wizard UI MS approach

3) 3D Games are a pain to install -- see above reasons about install shield UI missing.

Clear up all the above problems and ship it on a box you can buy at a local computer store and the users will come.

Reply Score: 2

RE: simple list of reasons
by unapersson on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 09:47 UTC in reply to "simple list of reasons"
unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

1) I've installed two commerical games in the past month with GUI installers. The Cold War (beta) and Gorky 17.

Just about all the commericial games I have for Linux use the graphical Loki installer.

You can get more here:
http://liflg-tracker.death-row.org/

2) Apps in Ubuntu install with a very easy add/remove programs style dialog called from the menu. Much easier than traking down and installing those exe files in Windows, where do you check the spyware status of these random exe files?

3) They're no different than any others. As long as the drivers are installed you don't have to do anything special.

Reply Score: 1

tired...
by monkeyhead on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:36 UTC
monkeyhead
Member since:
2005-07-11

Kick that horse... beat it with a bat. Who cares if he ain't breathing! Get the whip!

Reply Score: 2

My take on why Linux isn't main stream
by rkalla on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:43 UTC
rkalla
Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe that Linux isn't mainstream yet because of the lack of "spit and polish" that goes into getting that last 10% of the OS working for you.

Consider a person that wants to play movies and needs all the codecs especailly the proprietary ones. There is no checkbox to tick or installer to run. Due to licensing issues there is a plethora of things to do, scripts to hack, cvs snapshots (potentially) to grab or custom codec packs to unzip into the proper directory. Not to mention all the video players that you need to try.

Let's say a person wants to get their iPod working, forget it. You can mostly/sorta/kinda get it working with the newest version of Amarok, but what about the Gnome desktop? gtkpod does not count, absolutely does not count as a valid user-friend application and RhythmBox likes to act like it doesn't suck at handling podcasts, but it does.

Let's say you want flash movies (YouTube) working. That can be a trick if you are using a site that has moved to Flash9 and you are caught behind. And it's simply not an option on 64-bit builds of any of the operating systems.

Want to get your All-in-One printer/fax/copier/scanner working? Probably won't work. Any device that requires proprietary drivers will likely never ship Kernel drivers which is understandable. The amount of targets you'd have to hit for "Linux" support is incredible. Is it a 2.4 kernel module? 2.6? Was it built for 32-bit or 64-bit? Was that for SUSE, RedHat, Gentoo, etc?

Want to get your web cam working? That can be a trick sometimes to.

Want to get all the buttons working on that mouse of yours that is 4 years old? Want to use the thumb button as back? Have fun with hardware signal/processor mapping. Want to get that brand new mouse working with all 12 buttons? Yea, same problem. Christ why can't this be improved?

Want to map your windows key to something? Want to assign programs to your custom keyboard keys like Internet, Mali and Search? Yea, good luck.

This is the fundamental problem of why it's not mainstream. It's not an issue of what it does do. The things it DOES do it does well, but the things it doesn't do (hardware support, driver installs, video/audio codecs, dvd, etc.) it does horribly. Forget that old story of "my mom can't edit init scripts", forget your mom and dad. What about me? What about Joe user that just wants to get my damn work done? I just want to list to my iPod, write some code, check out the pictures on my camera, have all the buttons on my mouse and keyboard work and hibernate my computer when I'm not using it.

And that is my 2 cents why Linux is not mainstream. It has nothing to do with what it *does* do, but everything to do with how it handles doing things it *doesn't* do out of the box.

I outlined this here when I tried to switch to Ubuntu 6.06 as my primary desktop for a week:
http://www.breakitdownblog.com/2006/07/22/ubuntu-606-long-term-revi...

Reply Score: 5

What we actually need........
by silicon on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:44 UTC
silicon
Member since:
2005-07-30

........ is not Exchange compatibility but something better than Exchange itself.

Reply Score: 1

Right on the money!
by neozeed on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 03:58 UTC
neozeed
Member since:
2006-03-03

For everyone that uses email casually then they would not see how exchange gets used in the 'real world'. And yes there are people that just 'do email' for a living. Actually there are quite a few. Just go into any big corporation, and take out the email server. It’s where people keep files, their notes, contacts, work lists & everything!

There are plenty of places that if you don’t respond to an email within 5 minutes the barbarians will be heading to your desk, or phoning frantically clawing, 'did you get that thing I sent you?'

As for learning new things, most people in the office haven’t even learned to use a computer. Why do so many people stuff data in Excel? It is because it'll let you type anything in a cell & the arrow keys move around. Yeah that’s why. Real users don’t plan, they just do.

Another way to put it, is do you see people upgrading windows on existing computers? Just look at the number of windows 98 computers out there! Just as in Microsoft office's their biggest competitor is Microsoft office. (For the record I still use word 2.0 as most people don’t use any of the new features either.)

Reply Score: 3

i hate these articles
by theGrump on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 04:58 UTC
theGrump
Member since:
2005-11-11

first of all, why must linux be mainstream? the community appears to be thriving just fine. are ferraris mainstream? second, the reasoning provided by the author is lame, the world is not run by microsoft outlook.

Reply Score: 5

archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Due to licensing issues there is a plethora of things to do, scripts to hack, cvs snapshots (potentially) to grab or custom codec packs to unzip into the proper directory. Not to mention all the video players that you need to try.

Uh, no. You just run Automatix or EasyUbuntu.

I did notice you installed the 64-bit version of Ubuntu. That's a bad idea if you want to have Flash and Windows Codecs working. I'd suggest trying again with the 32-bit version, running EasyUbuntu right after installing. There's no advantage of running the 64-bit version apart from a slight performance gain when compiling software or encoding mp3s...

BTW, Flash doesn't work in the 64-bit version of Windows either. I guess Macromedia is working a 64-bit player...

Even YouTube works fine on my Dapper laptop (32-bit on a Turion64). In fact, all the hardware on that Compaq laptop work flawlessly with Ubuntu.

As far as using an iPod, you said it yourself, amaroK does a very good job - an excellent job, if I do say so myself (for using it with my Nano). So just use it, even if you're running gnome! It's the best audio player out there anyway. Seriously, iPod support has NOT been a problem for me, and I didn't do anything special like editing text files or compiling additional libraries.

Oh, and you can map your Windows key under KDE. In fact, amaroK uses Windows+(ZXCVB) for its play controls.

What about Joe user that just wants to get my damn work done? I just want to list to my iPod, write some code, check out the pictures on my camera, have all the buttons on my mouse and keyboard work and hibernate my computer when I'm not using it.

Ubuntu Linux on my Compaq laptop: I can listen to my iPod Nano, write a novel (I'm not a programmer), check pictures on my CoolPix Camera, and Hibernate by closing the lid. I don't have a special mouse or keyboard, but the volume buttons worked out-of-the-box as well, as did the Flashcard reader and the Synaptic touchpad...

Edited 2006-07-23 05:25

Reply Score: 2

rkalla Member since:
2005-07-06

archiesteel,
I really appreciate the reply. It looks like almost all of my complaints would be remedied with the use of either Automatix or EasyUbuntu.

Thanks for the clarification on amaroK, atleast I know I didn't miss something major (like how I missed Automatix and EU).

Reply Score: 1

Mainstream?
by rayiner on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 05:29 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

The article uses the word "mainstream" unnecessarily vaguely. Linux is already mainstream, and has been for quite awhile. It first became mainstream in servers, where it now holds double-digit marketshare. Then it became mainstream in embedded devices. Then it was workstations, and today Linux is very common on media, science, and engineering workstations. Most recently, it has become quite mainstream in smartphones, holding a much larger marketshare than Windows in this area. Even on the desktop, it has marketshare comparable to Apple. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that Apple isn't "mainstream".

Ultimately, the article is not talking at all about the "mainstreaming of Linux", but rather a factor that keeps back Linux's marketshare in a particular market. Now, it's not completely fair to single out this article for criticism, but its a point that has to be made. Too often I see articles spouting stuff like "Linux needs games to be mainstream", etc, especially in the context of complaints like "they say every year that it'll be the year of the Linux desktop." These ideas are nonsense. There are lots of markets in the computer industry. Just because Linux hasn't made inroads into all of them yet doesn't make it non-mainstream. Linux is in millions of places, from PDAs to server rooms. Even if it doesn't have the sheer numbers that Windows does, it's still very prevalent.

Reply Score: 5

Why isnt Linux more popular? Because...
by ssa2204 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 05:38 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Everytime one of these idiotic "Why isnt Linux more popular" people seem to always gloss over some of the most important issues.

Number one of which, aside from experienced Linux users, Linux is nowhere close to the ease of use that OSX or Windows provides. What the Linux community time and time again fails to realise is the fundemental fact that the majority of users would not like Linux at present. Although it has come along away, it is still far off.

If people continue to fool themselves into thinking that Linux is ready for the masses, then they just simple will never understand why it is still just a niche geek segment that uses it on the desktop. Fact is it seems quite apparent that the Linux community doesnt have a clue to why Linux is not overtaking Windows. Maybe if they would look at this how consumers view Linux they could begin to overcome the real issues at heart. Until then these articles are just more tireless rants of a useless topic.

Reply Score: 2

Why Linux is NOT mainstream?
by rx182 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 05:52 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

1) Starting with the installation, there are just too many options here and there. I am all for choices. I love options. But I'm an power user. Normal people don't want too many options. It confuses them. It makes them feel like they are missing something because they don't fully understand what's going on.

2) Too much stuff visible. Normal people are not going to use the command line. They don't give a ... about the kernel messages at boot time. They kinda believe there's a problem with the system everytime they see a line of text in the console. All they want is to see a GUI 5secs after they powered up their computer.

3) They want things to work automagically. In the worst case, they can install something themselves if it's only 1 or 2 steps. Years ago, I mean, a long long time ago, the computer industry came out with the "plug and play" concept. It's still relevant today. Unfortunately, Linux went completely in the opposite way.

4) Normal people want a solid GUI. Something that doesnt feel desynched. It's a common problem on Linux. I dont want to start a debate on this subject but you know what I mean. I'm talking about stuff like GTK. It got issues.

5) They want things to work all the time. Copy/paste? They take it for granted already. Playing music? Watching video? Same old story.

6) They want to be able to get the latest and the greatest on their computer. When Winamp came out, everyone wanted it. When Napster came out, same thing. Kazaa, ICQ, AIM, MSN, mIRC in the old days, etc... If someone tell them there is something new to try out, they want to try it. Unfortunately, almost everything is made for Windows.

7) More advanced users (but not too much) want reliable tools that are widely used. Some people need Microsoft Office. They are used to it. They used it for more than 10 years. They will never trade it for something else. Some programmers need Visual Studio. Why? There's nothing like it. It's a good platform. And Windows is a good platform to develop for. MFC and .NET are covered by so many books. They are stable. MSDN is full of ressource. People can put their trust in them because they know they will be supported for a long time.

8) Windows is everywhere. God, I read the Dr. Dobbs. Journal for more than 10 years and alot of it is dedicated to Windows. People know that many professionals use Windows. Look at all the applications written for Windows. Quality stuff, nothing less. Complete products, several versions, etc. 5 years ago I couldnt live without mIRC. I still cannot get away from Winamp. MS Office? It does the job really well and it starts fast. FlashFXP/Filezilla? Just perfect. Winrar, Daemon Tools, DVD Decrypter, Nero, download managers, etc. Too much good stuff. I just cannot find equivalents under Linux and Mac. Why would one trade the original for an incomplete clone?

That's why Linux is NOT mainstream. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux daily. I like it. I didn't want to prove you that Windows was better or anything. I just think Linux should remain what it used to be: an advanced os for power users. Anyway, making it mainstream would require too many changes. Remember when Microsoft removed DOS from Windows. Can you imagine Linux without a shell? Think about it.

Reply Score: 2

kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

I'm not going to go through your entire post, and some of it I even agree with, but I have to point this out as it is one of my pet peeves.

5) They want things to work all the time. Copy/paste? They take it for granted already. Playing music? Watching video? Same old story.

Why the hell do people make things needlessly complex? I hear people bitching about copy and paste between different applications and on different window managers. Here's a little tip, don't do it the way Windows does. Highlight the text and middle click on the target. It's so simple it's painfully obvious. Not only that, but this is a feature of X itself. X does not care what program you're doing this from/to and it damn well doesn't care about your window manager. It just works.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why Linux is NOT mainstream?
by Cloudy on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Why Linux is NOT mainstream?"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Highlight the text and middle click on the target.

*looks at 2 button mouse*
*thinks "middle click?*

It's so simple it's painfully obvious. Not only that, but this is a feature of X itself. X does not care what program you're doing this from/to and it damn well doesn't care about your window manager. It just works.

So when I cut a bit of a gif from gimp, X does all the necessary magic to allow me to paste it into a vi buffer properly?

Must be an X11R7 feature...

Reply Score: 3

kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

It's a troll, but I'll bite.


*looks at 2 button mouse*
*thinks "middle click?*

Both buttons at once is middle click.

"So when I cut a bit of a gif from gimp, X does all the necessary magic to allow me to paste it into a vi buffer properly?

Must be an X11R7 feature..."

Nope it copies the alt tag, if there are any. X is smart enough to know a damn gif isn't going to work in vi. Guess it's got one up on you.

Reply Score: 0

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

It's not a troll, but, apparently, it was too subtle.

The point about "middle click" was to highlight a mistake in assumptions about relative expertise. The laptop I'm currently typing on has a glidepoint two button device. It doesn't, in fact, generate "middle click" when you hit both buttons at once, and you have to edit various configuration files to make it behave that way. So, no, it's not as simple as "middle click". And the variation breaks least astonishment.

Nope it copies the alt tag, if there are any.

No it doesn't. X doesn't know anything at all about Gimp's internal data structures. If is entirely up to the application what it puts in the paste buffer and X has no say in that. Some applications will do something reasonable, others won't. Some, such as emacs, will have co-opted "middle click" for another purpose.

X, in fact, is flexible and allows each application to bind whatever action it wants to mouse events. So it's a matter of the window manager, the application, and configuration files, what happens when a user does a "middle click."

There is no single way to c'n'p between applications under X, and worse, there's no single agreed to standard for key stroke equivalents.

Reply Score: 3

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Dude all I have to say is you really need to spend some time on a box that actually runs X. Because as of right now, you're speaking complete nonsense.

Isn't 20 years enough time?

Son, I was using X before cut and paste support was first added to it, and I've written a lot of X programs, some of which are still floating around various source archives.

I recommend you read http://tronche.com/gui/x/icccm/ and get back to me.

Reply Score: 2

corporate mainstream,Scalix..
by netpython on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 06:19 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

What's being used in the corporate environment makes a greater chance of being used at home aswell.

To draw even greater attention it's paramount to adchieve greater integration with the ruling existing technology.Which means better working exchange clients for the time being.At the same time development time could be spend to further develop alternatives such as
Scalix http://www.scalix.com/de/index.html

In my country yet another county (Groningen) is converting everything to OpenOffice on the desktop which saves them more than EURO330.000 per year on licence costs.The key is not the average desktop but corporate environment.I sincerly agree with the author that what is being used at work has the greatest change of being used eventually at home.And thus one way or another draws the needed attention.Word of mouth is very powerfull.

Most people are simply unaware of costworthy alternatives,that has to change.

Edited 2006-07-23 06:20

Reply Score: 2

Some Replies
by Peter Besenbruch on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 08:00 UTC
Peter Besenbruch
Member since:
2006-03-13

Some of the comments betray a lack of knowledge about Linux.

Starting with the installation, there are just too many options here and there. I am all for choices. I love options. But I'm an power user. Normal people don't want too many options.

I like options, too, but for those that don't, show the potential switcher a distro with fewer choices.

They want things to work automagically. In the worst case, they can install something themselves if it's only 1 or 2 steps. Years ago, I mean, a long long time ago, the computer industry came out with the "plug and play" concept. It's still relevant today. Unfortunately, Linux went completely in the opposite way.

I just set up a computer for my father. It's a Shuttle with built in card reader. Kanotix found everything. I had my father stick a memory stick into the card reader. The desktop asked if it should open the card. The same thing for the external hard drive. Nice.

Normal people want a solid GUI. Something that doesnt feel desynched. It's a common problem on Linux. I dont want to start a debate on this subject but you know what I mean. I'm talking about stuff like GTK. It got issues.

Agreed, that's why I use KDE. ;) What GTK and KDE offers is consistency within the family of software. It's a consistency that is far greater than what the usual Windows software offers. Now, of course, Microsoft is changing the interface, messing up things still further. On the other hand, differences in interface never bothered me.

They want things to work all the time. Copy/paste? They take it for granted already. Playing music? Watching video? Same old story.

I like the KDE clipboard better than Windows. It has features (like a history, and middle click pasting) that are superior to the Windows clipboard.

Winamp. MS Office? It does the job really well and it starts fast. FlashFXP/Filezilla? Just perfect. Winrar, Daemon Tools, DVD Decrypter, Nero, download managers, etc. Too much good stuff. I just cannot find equivalents under Linux and Mac. Why would one trade the original for an incomplete clone?

Here is what I use: For FTP, I used to use gFTP, but have switched to Konqueror. For compression I tend to use Midnight Commander. I simply wouldn't want to use anything else. Regarding Daemon Tools, I changed to Linux because of copy protection. It is such a relief not to have to deal with that crap any more. For burning I use K3B. I have used Nero, and it's good, but no better than K3B. Indeed, I prefer K3B over the bundled version of Nero that comes with many drives.

Want to get your All-in-One printer/fax/copier/scanner working? Probably won't work. Any device that requires proprietary drivers will likely never ship Kernel drivers which is understandable. The amount of targets you'd have to hit for "Linux" support is incredible. Is it a 2.4 kernel module? 2.6? Was it built for 32-bit or 64-bit? Was that for SUSE, RedHat, Gentoo, etc?

I have installed about a half dozen multi-function printers. They all worked fine, scanning, printing, and sometimes faxing. For quite a number of items you don't want kernel driver support. For other items you do. Two examples of the latter: Wifi support for my daughter's school laptop (Mad-Wifi) came with the distribution I installed. It just worked. The second instance is the video driver for my Nvidia card. My distribution offers an install script, but I elected to go the "Debian way," which is entirely menu based.

Want to map your windows key to something? Want to assign programs to your custom keyboard keys like Internet, Mali and Search? Yea, good luck.

I use the Windows keys in combination with the PgUp and PgDn keys to change desktops, something that's not available with the standard Windows. I tend to avoid keyboards with extra keys, but I refer you to this page: http://www.shoprcubed.com/proddetail.asp?prod=LS1250%2DL

What I thought interesting is the following: "Every laptop has special buttons for things like Web Browser, Email, Wireless, Touch Pad Control, Power Management, Sleep/Hibernate, Volume Control and Multimedia Playback control. These do not work on the standard Fedora Core install. R Cubed has worked hard to provide this functionality. For instance, when the Web Browser button is pushed the default Web Browser is launched. Or when the Stop button is pushed then the multimedia application is notified and the playback is stopped. Currently xmms, xine, totem and CD Player are configured to work with the multimedia buttons. If a new user is added to the system their environment is automatically configured for use with the buttons. Users can customize what happens when a button pressed or acpi event occurs."

I like it that Linux is coming customized for laptops. My son needs a laptop for college. I could install it, and get most things working, but like the people who buy Windows machines, it's easier to have it work out of the box.

As for Linux, there are some advantages. Windows networking is faster under Linux by a wide margin (with the possible exception of Windows 2003 Server). You don't have the issue with locked files with Linux, so backups are easy. I really like some of the KDE software, especially KOrganizer. For installing and updating software, almost ALL my software, there is Synaptic and Apt.

Then there is the stuff I don't use, like anti-virus and anti-spyware software. I have also yet to defrag a disk.

Most of all, the key software I use is open, which means I can use the programs on any platform. I use Mozilla products for e-mail and browsing. I use and like OpenOffice. Yes, I have used Microsoft Office. It's decent for shorter documents, but for me OpenOffice is a far better buy. For finances it was an easy switch from Quicken to Gnucash. Some commercial software is multi-platform. I use Opera and Bibble.

Like I have written elsewhere. I changed to Linux primarily because of copy protection. My father just went through a bout of it on his Linux machine, running Tax Cut. Tax Cut runs under Qemu. Some day I may get it to run under Wine, but I would like it even better if H.&R. Block would quit making life miserable for honest users. By "miserable," I mean two hour hold times to get a series of new "unlock" codes. Here is one area where Linux lags, but the Windows alternative frankly stinks. Since copy protection is increasingly part of Windows itself, I am grateful not to be burdened with it.

I am happy for Windows users who like their systems. They should stick with what they like. For the others, Linux is a viable option in many cases. When Linux becomes a pre-installed option for new computers, that's when you will see usage increase. Another part of Linux expansion comes from guys like me. I have told the people whose computers I support that if they want to install Windows, they will need to look elsewhere for support. Yes, lack of support drives people from Windows to Linux. ;)

Edited 2006-07-23 08:03

Reply Score: 4

ask the users
by Morin on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 11:22 UTC
Morin
Member since:
2005-12-31

One thing you learn when reading such articles and the comments in this forum is that geeks should *not* decide on a theoretical basis why Linux isn't mainstream. Approach some non-Linux users and *ask* them why they don't use it. You'll get plenty of reasons.

Reply Score: 1

Crap
by mkools on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 11:29 UTC
mkools
Member since:
2005-10-11

This article is crap.
It tells that Exchange is the only reason for company's not to move to Linux.
If a company has his desktops on Linux why would it still use Exchange and not another solution like Open Groupware.

Further more, Windows is still far better to manage than Linux, I can deploy clients through RIS, I can set GPO's, I can do everything through the Active Directory, I can add Terminal Services etc etc. and everyhting is done with a couple of mouseclicks.

I'm a linuxfan too, I run it at home and I run it on my company laptop but let's face it, Linux is not ready yet for companywide usage, it still needs a whole lot of work before it can even come near Windows.

Reply Score: 2

It's not just Exchange
by walterbyrd on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 11:58 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

If linux supported the same hw/sw as winodws, I wouldn't even think about using windows.

There are all sorts of speciallized barcode printers, and scanners, and other such hw that just doesn't work with Linux.

But mostly it's the apps. Linux is fine for common things like wordproccessing, spreadsheets, email, and mp3s. But there are all kinds of specilized 3rd party apps for small bussinesses, i.e. UPS worldship, specail apps for auto-body shops to look up car parts, and so on. Then, of course, there are games.

An OS that doesn't run the hw/sw you need is useless, it doesn't matter how stable, secure, fast, or whatever.

Reply Score: 1

morganth
Member since:
2005-07-13

For you users out there who want Linux but are forced to use Windows, why don't you just get a decent Windows X-Server (Hummingbird Exceed is best, but expensive -- chances are, however, that your corp already bought licenses) and a free copy of PuTTY. Now set up your Linux laptop at work to allow X11 forwarding and share your home directory via Samba. Voila. Open up a Putty terminal that connects to your laptop, and anytime you need to open up a Linux window on your Windows machine, just enter in your commands. Wanna use gvim, or emacs, just enter it in. It'll all be forwarded--and fast--across the LAN to your Windows X-Server.

Reply Score: 1

Zzzzzz
by Bringbackanonposting on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 13:29 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

The comment on the review site "Why you shouldn't care" hits the nail on the head. Stiff s**t if Linux doesn't make mainstream. Linux does not have shareholders to please and doesn;t NEED to be mainstream. In fact, go and have a look at where Xandros is heading. When Linux becomes mainstream with all the bells and wistles that come along with making it profitable - I will look for something else to use. Every day that passes and Linux is free and un-obstructed by businesses/compays/profit is another day Linux wins the REAL battle. BTW, Apple, their users and OSX can get bent as well.

Reply Score: 1

Linux is Mainstream
by tpaws on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 14:26 UTC
tpaws
Member since:
2006-06-02

If we are equating "Dominant monopoly desktop market share" with "Mainstream", then I suppose this myopic premise may be correct. It makes as much sense as saying that Apple is monopoly because Mac's "dominate" desktop publishing. Linux is everywhere, and it is growing in many platforms. Linux has growing public awareness in "brand" recognition, if you will. What is the magic number of installed desktops needed to consider Linux finally becoming mainstream? Macintosh is certainly mainstream. Are market share stats the definition? Mac now has 12% of the notebook market so they must be edging close to monopoly status. Linux has far more market share in many industry segments than Apple, but Apple "dominates" notebooks compared to Linux.

I assume that in the current context, mainstream equates more with monopoly busting. That's fine. Let the pundits and the geeks argue their points adnauseam. I have always used the tools that are best for me, and it has never been any form of Windows. Of course we live in a Windows dominated world, but I have never been at a loss having to work in a cross-platform environment.... not always easy, but there have always been appropriate solutions when ever MS has tried to break things.

I have frequently been at a loss trying to understand why people put up with Windows crap. I do understand why Windows is so prevelant, but as users become more sophisticated and computer savvy one would think many would more quickly switch to something better. Well, it has taken MS 30 years to get where they are with the trash they produce (blatant flaimbait). Will Linux have to crush MS before it can be considered mainstream? I believe that Linux is mainstream, and it is growing. Articles like this one focus on a few (or just one) tools in some users comfort zone and build a false premise.

BTW, games are a niche market.... a large and profitable one, yes, but still a niche market.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux is Mainstream
by HappyGod on Mon 24th Jul 2006 01:16 UTC in reply to "Linux is Mainstream"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

main·stream (n.)

The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity: “You need not accept the nominee's ideology, only be able to locate it in the American mainstream” (Charles Krauthammer).


Linux is not the prevailing current of thought, influence or activity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Linux is Mainstream
by tpaws on Mon 24th Jul 2006 13:52 UTC in reply to "Linux is Mainstream"
tpaws Member since:
2006-06-02

Rather odd, taking a dictionaries definition and applying a quote from a political unilateralist hegemon to recreate a definition.

Krauthammer described "a new type of realism" in 2002: "Unilateralism is the high road to multilateralism [...] No one wants to be left on the dock when the hegemon is sailing."

The definition you quote is not “The prevailing current of thought, influence, AND activity”, it is “…OR…”In computing, to deny the influence of Linux is absurd. Linux is definitely well known in the world of computing. Linux is widely used in servers, embedded devices, PDA’s and cell phones, and its use is growing indicating that there is a lot of activity involving Linux. Denial is common amongst alcoholics, drug addicts, and in cases acute myocardial infarction.

PAX Microsoft

Edited 2006-07-24 13:54

Reply Score: 1

Wah
by Sphinx on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 16:26 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Linux isn't windows, so on and so on. State the obvious, when your company switches you'll switch, like wow.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

No problem. I actually understand what you went through, because I didn't know about Automatix or EasyUbuntu the first time I installed it on my laptop. Also, I tried installing the 64-bit version...it made the whole thing very complicated, not to mention that some of the hardware (the Flashcard reader for example) didn't work at all with Breezy.

When Dapper came out I reinstalled the sysem, this time in 32-bit and using EasyUbuntu. I was floored to see how easy it was. The only things that required some extra operations were the ATI drivers (for which I found a handy howto after about a half-hour of looking - however, that was only for 3D, I still had perfect 2D graphics, even though I had a 1280x768 screen) and the wireless chipset. For the latter I use Linuxant's driverloader, but it looks as if the new Wireless stack that will soon be in the Linux Kernel will make that history...

Happy computing!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why Linux is NOT mainstream?
by roverrobot on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 20:41 UTC
roverrobot
Member since:
2006-07-23


*looks at 2 button mouse*
*thinks "middle click?*


Well, one from a windows backgroup will naturally try right-click/copy/paste. And when one becomes more familar with X, either from reading or talking to a friend, he might discover what "emulate 3-button mouse" mean.


So when I cut a bit of a gif from gimp, X does all the necessary magic to allow me to paste it into a vi buffer properly?


erhh, no. But you don't expect to copy a bit of gif from photoshop and paste correctly to notepad either, do you? And by the way, copy a bit of gif from krita and copy to kword works perfectly here. So no, X does not care where the copied data is from/to, but the receiving program does.

Edited 2006-07-23 20:44

Reply Score: 2

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

So no, X does not care where the copied data is from/to, but the receiving program does.

Yup. that was the point I was trying to make.

So, of course, does the sending program. X cut'n'paste relies on X ICCM and only works between clients that implement ICCM and write/read the clipboard in interchangable formats.

This, of course, is no worse than windows, but a lot of X programs that might be interoperable don't, and a lot of those that are don't use the same conventions for c'n'p, especial for the keystroke equivalents to the mouse operations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmm
by joeprusa on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 23:15 UTC
joeprusa
Member since:
2006-05-25

As far as I can tell it should work. IBM/Lotus are pretty determined to make versions cooperate rather freely. You probably just won't be able to use v8-only features.
But generally it is not recommended (and not supported) to use a newer client with an older server, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmm
by Kokopelli on Mon 24th Jul 2006 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

As far as I can tell it should work. IBM/Lotus are pretty determined to make versions cooperate rather freely. You probably just won't be able to use v8-only features.
But generally it is not recommended (and not supported) to use a newer client with an older server, though.


Notes R5 ( ~7 years old )is supported on the current version of Domino (7.X). You most assuredly lose many things and databases that use the new features will likely not work correctly, but you can that is a matter for DB design not Domino < = > Notes compatibility. As long as you stick to features available on the version of the client you intend to support. 4.6 is supported but there you can start to get into weirdness unless your DBs are specifically 4.6 compatible. JavaScript support, Java, pages, and outlines in particular are problems when talking about 4.6 support.

I am not sure there is official support for versions of Domino older than R5 now but connecting to it from any client from R5 - 7.01 is supported. Heck they even have specific file extensions so that you can keep the on disk structure compatible with older versions for purposes of physical database copying.

Reply Score: 1

Patience and Persistence
by sbergman27 on Mon 24th Jul 2006 02:22 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I didn't read the article.

Why not? Well, because these articles are rarely useful or interesting. Oh, they sometimes outline a current limitation. Sometimes I even recognize the problem as one I am facing at one or more client sites.

But the problems are usually the sort of thing where either OSS will improve over time to overcome the problem due to the persistent efforts of OSS developers, or the problem itself will erode away in time due to the willingness of more customers to make changes to save on costs, and possibly gain flexibility. Note that I don't say "Linux", but "OSS", though Linux does happen to be my OS of choice. Note also that I say "possibly gain flexibility". Sometimes proprietary is where it's at... for the time being.

And that's OK.

I don't pay attention to the "This is the year of the Linux Desktop!" stories either.

There will never be a year of the OSS desktop. Or perhaps every recent year has been a year of the OSS desktop. It depends upon how you look at it.

Persistence and patience will pay off for the OSS community in the end. And in an expanding market, it doesn't even have to really hurt Microsoft^WApple^Wanyone.

Anyway, that's probably about all I should risk saying, having not RTFA'd.

Good day. :-)

Reply Score: 1

My take
by pandronic on Mon 24th Jul 2006 07:58 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

a. No more command line - everything should be possible via the GUI
b. No more weird directoris - system/, software/, users/ (gobolinux hierarchy looks nice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux ) instead of usr,lib,mnt,root,etc,var,proc,tmp,WTF
c. Unify GTK, QT - all interfaces should look and act the same
d. Easy installation of software - click, next, next, finished (PBI looks great)
e. Easy installation of drivers - no more recompilation of kernel. Just use binary drivers!
g. Major distributions should be binary compatible (software and drivers) - so that the major players don't have to jump trought hoops to port their applications
f. Improve boot times - I don't want to wait two minutes and look at a pretty picture or text scrolling
h. Improve mounting - I want to read my fat32, ntfs partitions, I want to use my usb stick or digital camera, I want to read my CDs or use my floppy disks. Sometimes I can do some of these, why not all of them, all the time without editing obscure text files?
i. Improve networking - make it obvious to the user. I barely managed to write to a windows share and I gave up before getting networking to work properly
j. Include MP3 playback and some basic codecs by default
k. Stop bundling tens of useless applications with the default install

Edited 2006-07-24 08:06

Reply Score: 3

RE: My take
by elsewhere on Mon 24th Jul 2006 18:00 UTC in reply to "My take"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

a. No more command line - everything should be possible via the GUI

Try Suse, it has the most comprehensive desktop environment and with Yast there is virtually no need to use a CLI in daily use.

b. No more weird directoris - system/, software/, users/ (gobolinux hierarchy looks nice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux ) instead of usr,lib,mnt,root,etc,var,proc,tmp,WTF

System directories are meaningless to the average user. How many Windows non-power users actually surf through Program Files or System32? The linux hierarchy has deep roots, changing it for the sake of changing it is silly. Besides, what do system/ software/ or users/ mean to non-English speaking users? Better to stick with universally incomprehensible rather than culturally biased. ;)

c. Unify GTK, QT - all interfaces should look and act the same

KDE does this with qtgtk, comes standard in most KDE-based distributions. The Portland project is taking this a step further.

How well do Microsoft and Apple do at keeping a consistent interface for their own applications? My gf runs Office, Notes, Safari, IE and iTunes on her powerbook, none of them look and act the same interface wise. Would be pretty damned boring if they all looked the same anyways.

Design and usability are related concepts, but not synonymous.

d. Easy installation of software - click, next, next, finished (PBI looks great)

This argument gets tired. Download third-party software for linux from companies like Adobe, Google, Mozilla, Opera, Real, Sun, OpenOffice etc. and they all install via installation wrapper scripts. Doesn't matter what distro you're using because they bundle the required libraries. You can install from the command line, or if you insist on clicking you can do so as well, as long as you set the execute flag (sorry, security doesn't take a backseat to convenience).

Want it even easier? Use Klik in KDE. Click a link in Konqueror, install an app. Sandboxed to prevent interference with other applications, dependencies downloaded with them. Run multiple versions or even alpha/beta code for testing, without interfering with core installs. It's even easier and more robust than Windows install method, more along the lines of OS X.

The problem with these methods is that they invariably nullify one of the biggest advantages of linux, centralized package management and shared libraries. Package management ensures package consistency and simplifies updates/patching. A security flaw detected in a png library? Click, install updated library, all of your applications depending on that library are secured.

Under the old-school method for Windows or self-installing linux packages, you need to ensure that the various software vendors are providing updates and patches to the libraries they use, even if they're using identical libraries.

Are package managers perfect? Of course not. But the advantages of a properly managed package system are significant. Depends on your priorities.

e. Easy installation of drivers - no more recompilation of kernel. Just use binary drivers!

Well that's a loaded statement. Anyways, the kernel doesn't need to be re-compiled for driver updates, generally just the driver or driver-wrapper does. Most of the mainstream distros take care of that anyways when you download an updated kernel patch, you'll get the appropriate driver modules as well. This is another linux argument that's getting long in the tooth. Certainly there are still issues with driver support in linux, but it's ridiculous to make it seem like an agonizing ordeal for the millions of users that seem to get by just fine.

g. Major distributions should be binary compatible (software and drivers) - so that the major players don't have to jump trought hoops to port their applications

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. The LSB desktop standard exists to define minimum software versions and packages distros require to maintain baseline compatibility. Once again the too many distros! argument is getting a bit stale, it's no complex matter for application vendors to provide applications for linux.

Once they can be motivated to actually produce them, anyways.

f. Improve boot times - I don't want to wait two minutes and look at a pretty picture or text scrolling

Wow, you are getting very nitpicky now. People don't complain about having to stare at a non-responsive Windows desktop after logging in and waiting for the services to finish loading, which is the primary reason Windows appears to load that much faster.

Can boot speed be improved? Absolutely, there are some projects under way to address that. But it's hardly an obstacle to desktop adoption.

h. Improve mounting - I want to read my fat32, ntfs partitions, I want to use my usb stick or digital camera, I want to read my CDs or use my floppy disks. Sometimes I can do some of these, why not all of them, all the time without editing obscure text files?

This is up to the distros. Some of them do it well, some of them don't.

Some of them are concerned with security or user error issues with automatically mounting non-linux partitions. Again, few linux distros will use wide open default settings for the sake of covenience, sometimes the user does have to do a little work here. It's a balance each distro packager determines for themselves, but at the end of the day, it might be frustrating initially but it's hardly an epic dealbreaker. One change to your obscure text file and the problem goes away forever.

Most desktops will autodetect pluggable media though, that's kind of stale argument once again.

i. Improve networking - make it obvious to the user. I barely managed to write to a windows share and I gave up before getting networking to work properly

Are you intentionally looking for problems now? Modern desktops, particularly KDE, make it very easy to mount remote shares. They even use a similar interface to Windows.

j. Include MP3 playback and some basic codecs by default

That will require people to start paying for their distributions rather than downloading them for free, there are license fees involved.

MS and Apple can afford to pay those fees, they're generating a little more profit on OS sales than your average distro is.

k. Stop bundling tens of useless applications with the default install

Start doing minimal installs and select what you want. Default installs by nature have to appeal to the widest array of users, so often err on the side of caution.

Besides, unwanted applications are easily removed. Can you say the same thing about the incumbent?

Linux isn't Windows, it's not supposed to be Windows. Certain things simply have to be done differently. It's no different with OS X. People don't buy a Mac and then return it the other day because it doesn't work like Windows. They take the time to figure out how to do things differently so that they can use it effectively.

If people are expecting to be able to install a linux CD and have an instant Windows replacement, anyone would be disappointed. If they're looking for an alternative and are willing to learn how to use it effectively, they won't be. And if they're not willing to learn, well, why switch in the first place? Sometimes Windows is simply a better choice for people depending on their requirements, nothing wrong with that.

Reply Score: 1

Why Linux isnt Mainstream
by Protoflux on Mon 24th Jul 2006 10:19 UTC
Protoflux
Member since:
2006-03-21

My personal feeling is that the only reason that Linux is not adopted in the enterprise is lethargy and inertia of management pure and simple.

If anyone has read the case of Ernie Ball, you would know that as the owner of the company he basically ordered his IT department to do a rip-and-replace of all Microsoft software from his company with Linux.

However note that before that he did not have any motivation to do so. Once he did it however he realized his savings to the tune of thousands of dollars a year.

Basically the management must be motivated..rest of the issues are _easy_ compared to that.

Reply Score: 1

yea
by deanlinkous on Mon 24th Jul 2006 14:10 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

use what linux offers...simple as that

Reply Score: 1