You must remember the period where various electronic devices, from phones to radios, were available in transparent cases. You may have found them utterly cool. Yet the simple fact that you can't find these things on the shelves anymore (except for do-it-yourself PC cases) means the crowd doesn't find them nearly that cool. While you may not see the link yet, this is exactly why the Linux desktop will never be popular.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-06-19
Great Read! Not sure I entirely agree but great read and may be exactly right on the money.
So our goal now is to turn Joe Clueless into Joe Geek and then he will naturally adopt linux because his brain will be rewired to enjoy the geeky side of life....
Works for me - on to world domination!
Member since:2005-09-03
Member since:2006-06-19
:)
for some things, in some cases, with certain hardware, you are right...
I think somewhat advanced users are the ones with the greatest problems using linux. Those that use the computer and software to do somewhat advanced things yet do not know enough to get their hands dirty to make something work.
Clueless user that just wants to browse would likely be well served with linux. I personally am well served by linux. My sister-in-law who knows how to click the 'auto movie maker' button and has software that pops up and walks here thru getting the pics from her camera and auto adjusting everything and burning to a VCD, yet would freak out at the thought of having to edit a text file, or be lost at a dependency issue, or have no clue what version something is on her computer - well she would probably not be served by linux very well. She likes the all in one, player, ripper, adjuster, burner, fixer, do hicky thingy. She has no undertanding of saving a file in one format, coverting it to another to and opening it in something else and so forth. If she cannot click on it and the correct application pop up for what she wants to do then she is lost.
So who knows....wait and see I guess.
Member since:2006-06-22
Not a great read, a load of bollocks.
We already have DE's like KDE and GNOME working towards makeing things just work, which abstract away from the complexities of the commandline. So is this article omitting reality? Sure there is still some effort to get the opensource equivalents up to the standards of windows and macos, but there is a process in motion and its merely a matter of time, quickened by increasing exposure and popularity?
Member since:2006-09-13
An OK read. Unfortunately, the author makes one critical mistake that is somewhat characteristic of Linux "evangelists". He assumes that technical skill is synonymous with intellectual superiority.
Just because Joe user lacks the time or motivation to explore and learn all the joyous and wonderful technical intracicies of Linux does not necessarily imply a lack of ability. It may simply mean that Joe user has other priorities.
Member since:
2005-07-25
"In order to make the Linux desktop appealing to the average Joe, technology enthusiasts would have to betray their core values to such extends that it would be the operating system's undoing."
You have an OS with geek roots, yes. But this is hidden by increasingly smooth and uninterfering desktop software (e.g. Gnome) that makes using a computer a pleasure for novice users. Geeks can then just sub in their own geek land software (e.g. Fluxbox, Englightenment) and people are happy. We are constantly seeing software components developed for Linux/BSD/*nix that just work (e.g. HAL, GStreamer, XOrg) and are handled by the distribution. Combined with increasingly ergonomic applications (e.g. Totem, Banshee, Tomboy, Evince) and using your computer to do the basics is easy.
All the complicated stuff is handled by the distribution - Grandma doesn't need to know what the software is, just as long as she can see "Media Player", click on it, and play a movie or insert a DVD and watch it all happen for her. And on my machine, she can.
Have you installed Ubuntu or Fedora recently? Or even Linspire or Freespire?
The only failing of Linux so far is marketing. It needs to be preinstalled; it needs to be spoon fed to the public. The only reason it is not taking off like it could is because it requires manual intervention to use it.
This article is 100% flamebait and displays a total ignorance of the open source software movement.
Member since:2006-03-06
I do not think things are that good yet. For example, last distro that I installed (and I forget which one it was, Ubuntu or SUSE 10.1) would not "out-of-the-box" play an mp3. I dont think I got a .wmv to play either.
The reason I don't remember which distro it was is because I didn't really care for that, I was testing other things, I just tried it to see if everything would work.
Member since:2005-06-29
I don't want to flame, but COME ON!! This has been discussed hundreds of time, distros choose not to include mp3 and wmv and other multimedia support because it may be illegal (because of licensing and/or software patents in some countries).
But is that all you have to say? Because if it is, congrats to all opensource developers, they seem to have it all together, if all you can find to complain is that.
Member since:2005-11-23
Member since:2006-09-10
I have to agree with him I'm afraid. Once a modern Linux like Ubuntu is installed and configured (that includes setting up MP3, WMV and Flash) grandma can use it, and it's actually simpler than Windows.
I installed Ubuntu for my girlfriend. The only thing she ever asks for support on is OpenOffice because she's used to Office. She's perfectly happy with Gnome, Firefox, Gaim and Thunderbird, and she is *not* a power user.
Sorry but the article is just plain wrong, most of the development going into the UI of the major 'commercial' or 'desktop' distros (Gnome) is being done by major companies to human interface guidelines, not by random geeks.
Member since:2005-07-12
Not quite rubbish.
There are different levels of technical capability. I have two elderly acquaintances, one that had never used a computer in his life. He is currently using Fedora (I forget which "core"), and has been for over three years now (he moved to Fedora from Red Hat). He has never used Windows, and doesn't miss it.
My second friend has worked around computers for a long time (longer than perhaps anyone on this site), all the way back to punch cards. I got her first personal computer for her, an HP Pavilion running Windows 98, back in 2002. I recently upgraded that computer to a bottom of the line Dell running Windows XP. While she has learned quite a bit in the four or so years she has used personal computers, I still get called over to help with (what I would consider) simple things. There is absolutely no way this lady could run Linux without being on the phone with me on an almost daily basis, no matter which distro she used.
Moral of my little story is some people are very capable of using Linux today. Some are not. The best thing would be to help those that can, and let the rest stay with what they are used to. I'd rather pass-up someone that shouldn't be running Linux, than to have the entire Linux community suffere a black eye because of me pushing them to use it.
Member since:2006-04-19
Member since:2005-12-23
I think there is a difference between a geek and a nerd. A nerd just does his job and builds a product. A geek is more of a hobbiest. So sometimes Linux can become unweildly becase of all the versions and the main repositories trying to handle everyhthing.
I like how, in Windows, my config files are in the actual folders of the program. Also I have to re-download sourceccode in Linux as it's already installed in the repository most likely and I dont want to work in Super User mode. When I do that it's hard to reinstall it. Granted with Windows you have to install sourcecode dependencies manually but that's not a big deal to me.
Edited 2006-09-13 18:15
Member since:
2006-01-17
Yet another articles on OSNews without any real value.
Sure some points in there are valid, but have little to do with "Desktop" Linux.
Sure tech users are different from your avreage Joe, but claming that is why they use windows is outright dumb.
One thing I would like to know is when, if ever, did the author use linux on the desktop? After reading the article I doubt he ever did.
Please, please, please, don't post news articles just for the sake of posting news articles, it brings the value of the whole site down.
Edited 2006-09-12 14:23
Member since:
2006-01-07
While I see the author's point, I think his theory is baloney. The reason why most people use Windows is because it comes pre-installed on their computer. If desktop Linux was pre-installed, most people would use it. Back in the old days, our computers came with MS-DOS pre-installed, and everyone (except Mac users, that is) used it despite the arcane interface. Be-OS had a nice easy-to-understand interface that was better than what Windows offered at the time, but hardly anyone used it because it didn't come pre-installed. Similarly, OS2 failed because it wasn't pre-installed.
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
- Linus Torvalds.
Edited 2006-09-12 14:25
Member since:2005-08-09
Member since:2005-07-22
"I have to disagree. I think most users would avoid the Linux computer and find a computer with Windows pre-installed and buy that. Pre-installing with Linux will NOT bring the masses over to Linux."
Most people think Windows is the PC, so if you bring in an almost like Windows desktop they will use it, and if the can use it without trouble then why should they change it?
Member since:2005-06-29
Most people think Windows is the PC, so if you bring in an almost like Windows desktop they will use it, and if the can use it without trouble then why should they change it?
Until they see that they can't videochat woth other MSN users, until the see that the app that got sent to them by cousin Vinnie don't work, until they see the documents they get from other students and teachers render incorrectly, etc. etc.
Getting Linux on the desktop isn't as easy as it seems. It's a great system, and definitely 'ready' for normal people, but as long as there's a Windows monoculture, and everyone else is using Windows and Windows-based files, giving Linux to normal people is impossible. No matter how good the system is.
Member since:2005-07-25
Member since:2005-07-26
Until they see that they can't videochat woth other MSN users, until the see that the app that got sent to them by cousin Vinnie don't work, until they see the documents they get from other students and teachers render incorrectly, etc. etc.
Video chat? I didn't use that much as a Windows user, so no loss there for me. I have heard that Mercury and/or aMSN work for MSN video chat, but I have no experience with that.
Running apps emailed to you? I don't know if it is a good idea to run email attachments, but unless you are a software developer, this likely isn't a big item. Wine has worked for me for what little I need from "Windows only" apps. Most of these are likely basic little apps and utilities, not Photoshop or MS Office apps Vinnie is sending? Right?
Document incompatbility? I haven't had that in the nearly 4 years of 100% Linux. People send me Word and Excel files. I open them. Life is good.
You are making it sound like Linux is unusable as a desktop system. It is not. It is OK to have needs that are not met by a Linux system (for example, perhaps you and your cousin Vinnie are developers for a Windows app, so you require a Windows system to develop and test).
But it is not "impossible" for a normal person to use.
Member since:2006-01-25
But don't you and at least other people say that Apple is growing, since its so much better then Windows? It has the same exact problems as Linux. If I send a Windows program to run on a Mac, it won't work. You can't even connect to MSN on iChat, the default app on macs, whereas on Linux the default app (gaim or kopete) CAN connect to MSN in addition to AIM and Jabber. I stand to say that if giving Linux to people is impossible no matter how good the system is, then giving Macs to the people is also impossible, and therefore Apple is bound to fail (as they don't even have the server market). If Linux has no chance of succeeding for this reason, Apple is dead meat.
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-08-09
Regardless of how easy it may be to use, they will not even buy the Linux computer if they can't install ALL of the off-the-shelf software they see in the store. When most users hear that even one piece of mainstream software will not work, they will not even bother with the Linux computer and will just buy the computer with Windows instead.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-07-06
Most people think Windows is the PC, so if you bring in an almost like Windows desktop they will use it, and if the can use it without trouble then why should they change it?
I have to agree here, I tutor and teach intro to Computers and one question I ask is "what kind of Computer do you have?" the answer most of the time is Windows XP.
It does amaze me, people will get some knowledge to learn about their car, house, etc but when it comes to computers they become petrified with stupidity.
But I will say give people a preinstalled Linux and they'll use it.
As far as the article popycock I say. Apprently the poster never has seen the new distros that are user friendly like PCLinuxOS
Edited 2006-09-12 15:01
Member since:2005-07-18
It does amaze me, people will get some knowledge to learn about their car, house, etc but when it comes to computers they become petrified with stupidity.
This is very true and thoroughly frustrating on a wide range of technical topics. It's most frustrating to me when I talk to someone who can competently talk using 5-syllable names for drugs, body parts and diseases, but refuses to try understand the difference between voltage and current.
Member since:2006-06-19
I dunno. I am hoping that the PS3 will change that. It is supposed to have some version of Linux preinstalled is it not. I suppose it will come down to how much they cripple it with proprieatry nonsese.
If on the other hand they put something equivalent to Ubuntu / Suse / Mandriva on it with a host of useful apps (and enable repositories for easy software installation), a whole load of people who wouldn't normally see Linux may realise that it is more than ready for the Desktop.
Anyway, it will be an interesting one to watch.
Member since:2005-12-23
That's not entirely true. The poprietory market favors closed source software and Windows is closed. When there are comprerable tools for deigning games that are open source then people will start using Linux. Just having a raw engine or a half baked Blender doesnt cut it. Blender has recently caught up although you do need more generic NON-GEEK-FANBOY things like keymapping, not just strict ergonomics. Bey0ond just the idealistic way to do things into the generic.
Also preinstalling and marketing are part of it as well to get mnore people involved to do these things
It's basically Linux people getting off their asses and creating these tools, not a fear of technology.
You have to replace the market manually.
Edited 2006-09-12 15:34
Member since:2006-04-28
Ah, that's the problem, every potential Linux user out there really needed to design games using some simplistic drag and drop idiot oriented interface, this is what we've been missing all this time!
Oh, btw, WTF?!!!?!
What the hell have blender and the availability of mythical game design tools got to do with Businesses using Linux desktop to run their Office and productivity suites? Even if games were the most important consideration, you DO NOT need to design a game entirely on a Linux machine for it to possible to port that game to the platform, if it were so all of the Nintendo DS titles would have been designed and coded on said platform!
Member since:2006-01-02
While I agree with the statement regarding OEM pre-installed OS's,lack of apps and codecs was/is a crippling factor in BeOS as well,Joe Blow can't go on Java and Flash gaming sites and casinos,play the latest game CD's chat on Yahoo with web cams and all the bells and whistles you get in Windoze,watch a lot of proprietary windoze and Real media types.... on and on.
I still use BeOS on a daily basis(I'm in BeOS right now) because it gets the job done WAY faster and easier(I also run Linux for the better USB support for my periphreals,and the afore mentioned Flash/Java support),but I fall into the category mentioned in the article,a person that see his computer as a tool.Although I do use it as an entertainment device,my idea of entertainment may differ somewhat from the mainstream,for instance I'm vastly entertained by trying out new OS's
IMO other than the lack of spyware and viruses(which is my main reason)I see little or no advantage performance-wise in running Linux(with a full blown desktop environment like KDE or Gnome)over WinXP.Lately there have been several OEM Linux boxes offered by Walmart,TigerDirect and other vendors but none seem to catch on for the reasons I mentioned,Joe Blow doesn't want something that runs just as slow as his WinBox,that does half as much with an unfamiliar and confusing interface.
Actually,in my mind I think Open Source developers should be leaving Linux like rats from a burning ship and Joining up with BeOS-like open source projects like Syllable and Haiku,these OS's with thier snappy performance and consistant streamlined UI's wouild be much better alternatives to Windoze on the desktop with proper hardware/software/media support!!
Member since:
2005-07-09
Member since:
2005-10-12
It would be nice to see instead an account of what exactly is wrong with (say) PCBSD, Desktop BSD, Suse SLED, Ubuntu, PCLinux.
Any one of which, not to mention Mandriva, seems to be usable by ordinary people without looking under the hood...
Or no more than you have to under Windows or OSX.
Edited 2006-09-12 14:25
Member since:2005-07-06
It would be nice to see instead an account of what exactly is wrong with (say) PCBSD, Desktop BSD, Suse SLED, Ubuntu, PCLinux.
Well I can fill in some of those, if I may.
-PCBSD/Desktop BSD: don't boot on 2 of my systems. Weird error-messages, not sure what is wrong. Will try a later version.
-Ubuntu: there have been *TWO* instances of system-breaking bugs when upgrading. The Xorg one recently, and dist-upgradeing older Ubuntu versions does the same thing. The Xorg one is fixed, the latter isn't, neither one gave a warning to users, nor an easy way to fix for the non-hardcore geeks.
-Xubuntu: It installs from a live-cd, which is nice, but the installer is dog-slow and unresponsive since it's continually loading from CD. It for some reason also didn't bother asking me what to do with bootloaders, or I missed something. Either way, it was apparently not that Linux-noob-friendly (aka me), since I couldn't get it to boot. I gave up since I didn't want to wait to install it a third time to see if I forgot some option somewhere.
-Suse SLED: it's not mature. The installer is atrocious (constantly recalculating everything) and could definitely be done better. The Gnome desktop SLED comes with is unresponsive on my P3-500 with 512MB and supposedly supported Nvidia card, occasionally even locking up for minutes if I want to use too many apps at once.
It's also the first Linux that auto-detected my wireless card correctly(!!!, Xubuntu failed as well). However, I couldn't manage to configure my atmel-based card. Possibly because the instructions the card came with are focused on Windows/Mac and the SLED configuration utility used different names and had more options for some elements. Possibly because I need to recompile the kernel with the wireless module; I was unable to ascertain this however, being internetless and unable to google for instructions, and not being able to find an obvious way to inspect the used kernel from within the GUI.
Now PCLinux/Mandriva I haven't tested.
Now if you ask me, the problem is that Linux on the desktop isn't mature yet. Every app in Linux seems to originate as a commandline application, and not all of them have GUI-equivalents in almost all of the distros. Sometimes the GUI equivalent is a neutered version missing options. A lot of distro's require users to drop to the commandline at some point, for example SLED when it didn't provide me an option in the menu to check kernel modules.
Another example of immaturity: all those installers that aren't finished, have lingering bugs, and then get rewritten from the ground up instead of fixed or re-used (I'm looking at SLED again).
Then you have the problem the Linux kernel isn't optimised for the desktop but for the server, and on older machines with KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment that IS noticeable.
And finally, the complete lack of standards. A company won't give instructions for installing a device/driver/software. Because: how? For which distro? Each one has different methods. And the way to install drivers in Linux is completely user unfriendly for apparently ideological reasons either way.
For the moment I've given up on Linux on the desktop. Perhaps I'll try again in 3 years. My hope is on PCBSD to provide what Linux promised 3 years ago.
Member since:
2005-04-01
While I happen to like articles like this that present a theorem which challenges me to decide what I believe, I happen to disagree with this article, for many of the reasons already stated in the comments.
The fact is, Linux is already extremely usable and there are many people counting on it succeeding on the desktop, namely Novell. As as Windows unveils a very expensive and resource hungry Vista system, Linux WILL gain steam. I suspect it will take between 10 and 20 years before the empire is truly toppled, but it will happen.
The only things truly keeping people on Windows are its pervasiveness and its familiarity.
Edit: grammar fix... whoops.
Edited 2006-09-12 14:27
Member since:
2005-07-10
All software is at its core implemented and designed by geeks. This is a non-argument.
Despite this, it might have some merit if indeed the overwhelming majority of desktop linux projects would not care about "normal users".
However, looking at distributions like for example Ubuntu or something like Linspire, looking at the Gnome project, the KDE project, openusability, better desktop, etc., the very assertion the author tries to base his argument on is simply a lie.
Likewise his sorry excuse of an argument about games is incredibly moronic. That there aren't as many games for Linux as there are for Windows has got nothing, not even the slightest thing to do with geeks, but simply with market share. Games are developed to reach the widest audience possible and this of course means developing for Windows, not for a niche player like Linux.
Really, a truely moronic and childish article. It's a shame that a diatribe like this gets posted on OSNews.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The author starts to talk about Linux, then changes into "Open Source" about half way through the article. Which is it? The last paragraph:
"Get real: the Linux desktop has been designed and implemented by technology enthusiasts, for technology enthusiasts. If they were to seriously try to make it appealing to the masses, the effort would collapse halfway because they would be dismayed by the result. My take is that things are just fine the way they are, and the Linux desktop for Dummies an utopia."
How do you explain projects such as Syllable, Haiku or (to a lesser extent, as it is not Open Source) SkyOS? Geeks are not incapable of understanding and appreciating some of the issues you point out.
Member since:
2006-09-08
"If they were to seriously try to make it appealing to the masses, the effort would collapse halfway because they would be dismayed by the result."
Maybe this is where Novell will be useful. They pay people to do the boring bits, and when you are getting paid it doesn't matter so much if you think the work sucks. I would also like to think that the system will always be tweakable anyway.
Member since:
2006-08-09
My own dad, who dislikes having to do complicating stuff on his PC, actually thinks Xandros is easier to use than Windows. I think the author has never heard of the phenomenon "Linux Distribution" or something.
What we have is merely an article trying to drag people in one of those Linux desktop discussions again. The vague, pseudo-philosophical nonsense the author bases his statements on (comparing Linux to a transparent body designer's phone), utterly denies the fact that any distro can choose to eliminate choice, confusion, and any need whatsoever for the user to ever have to see a terminal window in his/her life .
So Xandros, Linspire, Kubuntu, all of that can never "take off" simply because Slackware, Gentoo, or Linux From Scratch still exist ?
That makes no sense at all.
Member since:2005-12-23
"My own dad, who dislikes having to do complicating stuff on his PC, actually thinks Xandros is easier to use than Windows. I think the author has never heard of the phenomenon "Linux Distribution" or something. "
Also what about ReactOS? Basically it's FREEDOS wrapped with a neat UI. If people prefer Windows it doesnt mean it can't open up under Shared Source. What about MS' codeplex site too?
Also I think putting code under more restrictive open source licenses like Mozilla does help with consistency sometimes.
Member since:2006-04-28
Ok, the simple response to your comment would be a rather large chunk of WTF?!
ReactOS has absolutely no relation to FreeDOS, none at all, it's an attempt to clone the NT4 kernel, it ain't DOS based.
Shared source is not the same as Open Source, it's what MS want people to believe so that they can shrug off the whole FOSS arguement with a quick "Oh, well we do that too"
Microsoft's codeplex is just their version of SF, using only microsoft technologies and somehow failing to provide a fraction of the services Sf.net manages to.
Talking about Mozilla using more restrictive licenses seems a little confused, you do know that Mozilla is tri-licensed under the GPL and two less restrictive licenses, the MPL and LGPL? More restrictive than what exactly?
Member since:
2005-07-06
Linux will become mainstream, because it is rapidly becomming a business buzzword for the anti-windows campaign that seems to be garnering some momentum for some reason.
However, while Linux can easily be dumbed down and implemented as a replacement for XP/Vista or OS X, I'd ask everyone why exactly they'd want Linux to become a dominant desktop OS. If it actually did start canibolizing market share, all you'd really have to look forward to is a rash of Virus writers, con artist, and technological uninformed crybabies telling you what needs to change about it. Sure you'd get more windows only apps ported, but i think we all underestimated how hard some people work to give Windows a bad name. Do you really want to see all that dedication focused on Linux. Trust me when I say that no OS can stand up to all that didicated effort.
Member since:2006-01-25
If it actually did start canibolizing market share, all you'd really have to look forward to is a rash of Virus writers, con artist, and technological uninformed crybabies telling you what needs to change about it
Well for the first item (virus writers), I don't think that would be a real issue. Remember, Linux patches security issues usually within a day or two, there are no monthly patch policies or anything, so when there is an issue, you'll see a patch VERY fast. Also, remember that Linux can also have people working on the other side (and in fact, does) to perform security audits. There also are proactive security features being implemented in Linux, like Mandatory Access Control that RHEL3 has and AppArmor that Novell has. I believe stuff like that will prevent viruses. And as long as programs are distributed in packages, spyware can easily be completely removed by removing the package that installed it, and that will remove it entirely. There is no way for the package to install hidden files that run on startup. The OS definitely can and WILL stand up to that effort and do a whole lot more. There is a lot of incentives for people to patch security holes fast as they usually cause millions in damage. Viruses will be dead.
Member since:
2006-06-27
Member since:
2006-02-15
Interesting article. I prefer BSD/UNIX systems to Linux because of the following reasons:
- excellent documention
- UNIX is elegant and simple
- consistency
- predictability
I agree with the author that Linux doesn't share these goals.
Therefore, as a side effect, this article also shows some differences between the GNU/Linux and BSD/UNIX philosophies.
But I still would not go as far to think a typical Windows user would automatically like UNIX, because (similar to Linux) Windows also doesn't share most of the above goals.
Hmm... looks like I'm becoming a zealot myself... 
Member since:2006-04-28
So you're lumping all of the BSD variants together with all of the commercial Unix solutuions??! I have a feeling that there would be more variation between Irix, HPUX, AIX, OpenBSD, PCBSD and Solaris than you generally find between most modern linux distributions.
And yes, you most certainly do sounds like a Zealot. Is it simply that you prefer BSD/Unix because its a less popular platform and therefore you sound more l33t?
Member since:2006-06-02
I personally have only used DesktopBSD (briefly) and PCBSD. From my own experience, I would say that compared to Linux these *BSDs are more predictable and have better documentation (in relation to what actually happens when you follow it). I am a simple hobbyist so I won't pretend to know what l33t means. I to date have preferred my my *BSD experiences compared to my (multifarious) Linux ones simply because they have been more pleasurable and rewarding, very probably for the above reasons.
Member since:
2005-07-29
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2006-09-12
I have to wonder if the author ever used or saw MacOS. MacOS is built upon BSD which is even geekier than Linux. If you look under the hood of Windows there is lot going on there as well but most of this is shielded from the user; there is no technical reason why the same couldn't be done with Linux.
No doubt the beginner Linux distros could use a bit of polish but the main thing keeping Linux from making a larger impact on the desktop is lack of marketing.
Member since:2005-07-06
MacOS is built upon BSD which is even geekier than Linux.<snip> ..there is no technical reason why the same couldn't be done with Linux.
Mac OS X is built by marketing-oriented people who have extensive usability labs, and their whole existence rests on the premise of making computers everyone could use.
Linux is built by the technical and the geeks.
In theory there's no reason Linux couldn't be turned into a sleek desktop, practically speaking however, the author has a point, at least thusfar. I admit SLED is getting closer however.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
I almost stopped reading after the author started comparing Linux to transparent cases, because it is an utterly rediculous comparison. I did stop reading after the next paragraph though. I guess the author doesn't know that Redhat and Novell are selling Linux commercially and that they pay people to improve Linux. All technology starts with "geeks" and the market turns "geeky" technology into products. With Linux I think we can have the best of both worlds. Its open source nature allows us to not only have a prodcut based on it but also a compatible "hobby" OS for us "geeks" to play around with and improve. The best thing about that is that improvements on the "hobby" side of things and improvements on the commercial side of things can be shared. I guess I don't see the problem with the way Linux is developed, I just see an impressive solution.
Member since:
2006-09-12
Applicatons are the only thing that prevent Linux from becoming more mainstream on the desktop. I've been playing around with Linux since Corel Linux 1.0.. It's come a long way since then and it improves almost daily. I'm no geek by any means and if I spend the time searching the web and configuring my system I can get linux to do anything windows can do and more. But how many other people are going to do that? how many others are going to confgure there media player so they can play WMV files or ACC files. Nobody really wants to play Half-Life under WINE. Yes it needs to be pre-installed, but don't put the cart before the horse.. Wait to pre-install it until theres a distro that can work seamlessly with all the windows users out there right off the first boot.. Without having to spend hours or research and system configuring to get things to play nice with each other..
Member since:2005-07-06
Applications are a problem.
There is just to many programs people have been using for years that do not run on Linux.
They usually dont care if there is a open source program that is similar.
They want "that" program because they are used to it and it works fine for them. It may even help them make a living.
Many people have said they will not switch to any other OS because of this.
I use Linux daily but I think they need to get more apps ported, either closed or open to get more people on Linux.
Member since:
2006-09-12
OK, can anyone tell me why every pointless article on the topic of desktop linux qualfies as news. No one cares, it doesn't provide us with any useful info. Both /. and osnews post these articles over and over and over and over again for years. And they're all the same.
Now, if an article said something like, "Desktop Linux takes 25% market share from WinXP", that's news worthy. Other than that, please stop. The people using this site are most likely running desktop linux, and know what it's status is. We don't need or want to see these articles.
Member since:
2006-06-21
Everybody's giving themselves and their Grandma as an example, but we're geeks and we set up Grandma's computer ourselves. How relevant are we? Aren't most of our non-geek friends still using Windows? Why is that? Some of them don't get Windows preinstalled, they actively pursue it and install it regardless. Short of demonstrating that Microsoft has somehow brainwashed them, there's something else to it as well. Hype, ok. Marketing, ok. But there's gotta be some elements of dislike towards Linux. And some of them are real, no matter how much us geeks don't like it: poor hardware support due to companies not disclosing drivers, poor gaming support due to Windows being pushed as the main gaming OS, big software vendors who still refuse to support Linux. It's a complex issue, this article may be part of it, doesn't mean it should be dismissed as outright wrong.
Member since:2005-07-06
Another big thing is lack of marketing. I know and read and interact with Linux on the net and in my tech job, however I can scarely find any person that's not in some tech related field who knows about Linux.
Linux adoption will come in time, slowly but one day will be on OSNews singing the praises of someother OS because Linux is domient.
Member since:2006-07-01
Well said, if OS news is to be believed there's a whole army of grannies around the world deploying linux and using the command line to build programmes from source.
The only Grandmothers I've ever known have trouble reading TeleText on an 28" television screen... I don't think they could ever use a computer.
Member since:
2006-01-16
"My point is that the brain of these people is wired very differently from the brain of the average Joe."
I wonder, what is your major malfunction Martin?
1. There's NO "average joe". Everyone has an expertese more or less, be it stuff like children care or high level IT, it doesn't matter. There's no "joe average".
2. If you wanted to say "not exactly experts in the IT industry" yes, these people don't know what the difference between Linux and Windows is, and they honestly don't give a damn. My mom uses Linux, and if I didn't explain it to her she'd think she's in Windows because it's so similar lately.
3. Ubuntu, Mandriva, Suse and others are hell not "transparent". They are open but even I, and I'm a programmer, don't see shit in it. Because I'm not a kernel dev and I'm not interrested in the boring and tedious work of working directly with hardware...
The fact that a system is open doesn't say shit about what the users see. There's no "fancy parts". Normal distroes have "normal covers" and "fancy addons" as optional stuff. Btw, I also have my desktop extremely tidy, my menus as empty as can be. I dislike choice when I already made one...
4. That brings us to "choice is bad". Well we had many philosophers like you saying this crap so let's keep it short. If you provide the standard user with sane default app for one use, they will be happy. See why ubuntu is so popular yet? The only problem here which is true is that if user A has program X for writing stuff, and user B has program Y for writing stuff they won't be able to help themselves with it.. which is a problem.
5. Games. You're right here, but this is an issue of game makers and MOST IMPORTANTLY the FRIGGIN DISTRIBUTORS who steal money from everyone and do shit. Except for marketing ofcourse.. But it has nothing to do with Linux itself or the fact that it's an open system. Oh and I play alot of games myself too. I play as much as I can in linux (UT, ET, Tremulous, NWN) and via Cedega but if I can't I boot to windows and use that.
So .. perhaps I'm Joe Average? Funny because I sit infront of this LCD many hours debugging code and writing opensource stuff. But I also play games, keep my stuff simple, hate it when I have to edit xorg.conf to get the friggin mouse working and dislike it if some media player can't play specific WMV while other can and I don't have the other right now as default..
But tell you what. None of what you wrote makes sense.
I'd actualy bet you went angry because you're frustrated something didn't work exactly right for you in linux... perhaps try using something else than C++..