OSNews

Two things are holding Linux back: drivers and applications.

Actually I think also quality assurance needs more focus. Ubuntu particularly has been suffering in this department lately, which is a shame.

I guess testing all the work that has been done is rather boring, but a very necessary part of delivering a quality desktop. Feature glitz is the sexy thing which makes a distro popular, but I think you'd see people more likely sticking to Ubuntu if the apps you use aren't full of embarrasing spelling errors, don't crash half the time, ignores configuration changes and strange things like that, that makes it feel very rushed.

As for the desktop experience (ease of use particularly), Linux has a long way to go, but it's steadily improving. That part is an old discussion and is more a design issue. Right now I want quality!

I haven't noticed any of those, I have noticed *stupid* oversites; for example, in the network configuration, how come I can't setup WPA without needing to drop down into shell, editing wpa_supplicant.conf? I shouldn't need to do that as an end user, and yet I am.

Oh, and documentation; good lord, that definately needs fixing; the documentation is worse than MSDN, and that is *really* crap.

Not disagreeing with your principles, but you might be pleased to know that wpa_supplicant now comes with a GTK app -- wpa-gui -- that allows you to create network-blocks for wpa_supplicant.conf. (Maybe Ubuntu don't use this, but have a check on the commandline in case it's in there.)

As for documentation, I think there's no shortage as such (except for certain apps which shall remain nameless) but it is so disparately organised. We have man, doc, info, plus numerous apps implementing their own builtin help systems. For each app you have about 3-4 places you might look to get the right help. A unified, Desktop-agnostic and textmode/GUI-mode transparent help specification would be a big help. Let the UNIX throwback stuff quietly die off, especially 'info' -- I don't bloody want to learn a highly counterintuitive set of key-functions a la Emacs just to scroll through some help-docs!

A unified, Desktop-agnostic and textmode/GUI-mode transparent help specification would be a big help. Let the UNIX throwback stuff quietly die off, especially 'info' -- I don't bloody want to learn a highly counterintuitive set of key-functions a la Emacs just to scroll through some help-docs!

Oh, please! Man pages are a great resource and have been that way for years. People can complain that most man pages are cryptic and hard to read but there are thousands of man pages out there for GUI apps that are easy enough to understand.

KDE already has a KIO-slave that translate man pages into nicely formatted pages on Konqueror. All that you have to to do is type man:/app or simply #app. You can´t tell the difference between a man page and a web page seeing it this way. There you have it: your unified, Desktop-agnostic and textmode/GUI-mode transparent help specification that´s still UNIXy in nature.

I´m getting tired of this Linux/UNIX bashing and really wish that people wanting Windows-like usage pattern go back to using Windows and leave Linux to people that enjoy using it and/or is willing to learn how to use it properly.

I let networkmanager handle my WPA. Haven't touched the terminal yet.

And yeah documentation is really bad, I'm mostly using IBM's aix doc, qt's doc etc

"1/2 of 1%"
In North America. Wake up America, realise there's an entire world out there bigger than you and places where Microsoft don't exist, and don't matter. This constant obssession with the American desktop is what's holding you back.

Well, I'm willing to bet a lot of money that market share in the rest of the world is very close to that too.

I live in Europe and even if twice as many Europeans are Linux users compared to Americans, that's still a too small user base.

In North America. Wake up America, realise there's an entire world out there bigger than you and places where Microsoft don't exist, and don't matter. This constant obssession with the American desktop is what's holding you back.

Linux = .4%

European Stats: http://www.webhits.de/webhits/browser.htm

Win95 has double the market share of Linux.
WinME has quadruple the share of Linux.

Edited 2006-11-18 20:11

and
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
linux 3.5% ...

What's your point besides showing off statistics?

I like the quote at the end of the page:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli

Still to low.

From a business perspective that number is high enough to get a couple programmers rewrite the non-portable code.

I mean as a business you're missing out 3% off your revenue stream. That's A LOT!

But I don't see companies port their applications any time soon simply because they probably never build their application in platform independant manor.(which is simply retarded)

btw there's no extra cost to write an application to still be able to easily port it later, just don't hire retards

From a business perspective that number is high enough to get a couple programmers rewrite the non-portable code.

I mean as a business you're missing out 3% off your revenue stream. That's A LOT!

But I don't see companies port their applications any time soon simply because they probably never build their application in platform independant manor.(which is simply retarded)

btw there's no extra cost to write an application to still be able to easily port it later, just don't hire retards


How high revenue do you expect from a community that don't want to use any software that's not free, end even it's free, if the source is not given, they still don't want to use it, and also if you give the source, but it's not GPL, you will be bashed?

Edited 2006-11-19 10:33

If that was true then why's photoshop the top most wanted app on linux and not gimp?
People will pay if it's worth the money.

Even on the windows market you got freeloaders (see cracks, warez etc) and they aren't the minority :/

I mean as a business you're missing out 3% off your revenue stream. That's A LOT!

Depends on what the cost of the rewrite is and the potential profits. 3% can be anything from 'A LOT' to a lot less than zero when it comes to profits, which is what really matters.


btw there's no extra cost to write an application to still be able to easily port it later, just don't hire retards

Hiring people who can write portable code is an extra cost compared to hiring 'retards'. Also writing portable code greatly limits you in your choice of libraries and increases the amount of necessary testing, both of which can drive up costs.

Depends on what the cost of the rewrite is and the potential profits. 3% can be anything from 'A LOT' to a lot less than zero when it comes to profits, which is what really matters.

True, depends on the balance between your costs and how many people are willing to buy the product. But if your product is desired enough that 3% will be huge.

Hiring people who can write portable code is an extra cost compared to hiring 'retards'. Also writing portable code greatly limits you in your choice of libraries and increases the amount of necessary testing, both of which can drive up costs.

That's only true for small projects, when you're dealing with huge projects then you need to hire people who can do more then just write lines of code.

And it shouldn't limit the use of your choice of libraries , there will always be non-portable code.
You simply don't need to mix non-portable with portable code. To better explain myself a short example:

When writing a statistics application then you can easily seperate the GUI(non-portable) and "the datastructures and algorithm's". This approach also makes it easier to debug, extend the code etc
If your app is a succes in the market place then you can always hire a couple programmers to fill the gaps with equivalent libraries on the other platform.

"Hiring people who can write portable code is an extra cost compared to hiring 'retards'. Also writing portable code greatly limits you in your choice of libraries and increases the amount of necessary testing, both of which can drive up costs."

Writing good, clear portable code actually decreases costs, because maintenance, bug fixes, and upgrades become much easier. Quality doesn't cost, it saves. "Limiting" libraries simply means using standard libraries that won't be changing at the drop of a hat, and that don't require special tricks, again decreasing costs.

Rewriting hacked up, poor code into something that is portable, efficient, and clean is a cost up front, but writing it correctly the first time is a cost saver. I suspect that Adobe has some legacy trash to worry about.

I think exist the truth, the uncomfortable truth and stadistics.

From the same w3schools.com web page you *misrepresented* in your last post....

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
Mark Twain

Other sites (with a much, much bigger audience) confirm the .4% for Linux.

Web site access statistics are exactly that: statistics about configurations visiting web sites.

They are in no way reliable instruments to gauge the installed base of any component of those configurations, not even the webbrowser.

To make such statistics even remotely accurate would require to know that all visitors are using their private machine and not some computer at their workplace, internet cafes or public surf stations.

and
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
linux 3.5% ...

w3schools is of interest to geeks, not general public. Just like, for example, OSNews.com. It is expected to see more Linux users there.

If you want to be realistic, then look at some site that gets visited by all types of users. MySpace, Google, CNN, BBC, NBA, Yahoo.. would all be better examples. You will not have more than 1% of Linux users on those sites.

For example, I don't see my father visiting w3schools any time soon, yet I know he uses Google News on a regular basis.

true! it's just a mention how wrong statistics can be, I never mentioned those ones were right!

What's the methodology? If it's gathered from sites that have a more Windows focus or depend heavily on Windows Technologies, of course they'll show Windows is more popular. I'd trust Google's Browser statistics a bit more. I don't have the current stats, but in 2004, it was pegged at 1%, which is pretty respectable considering that most of the *real* desktop work has only happened in the last few years:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/zeitgeist-jun04.html

W3Schools and Mihaiu (don't know anything about them) has Linux pegged at 3.5% and 6.5%. Both are bit high for my expectations, but it does go to show that there are places in the world where Linux is more popular than others.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
http://www.mihaiu.name/operating-system-search-engine-browser-stati...

In my city, I'd peg it at 2%. Linux is pretty popular here, especially at University. We even have a Linux Cafe and all computer and electronics stores seem to at least heard about Linux and have someone on staff that can handle Linux related questions. Most people, however, just use whatever's in front of them, and in most cases, it's Windows.

What's the methodology?

Lets see. Google had Linux at 1% (probably less but they rounded up to take pity on the Linux base) in June 2004.

W3Cschools had Linux at 2.9% in the same month.

Because Google is so ubiquitious, and more likely to favor Linux over people using MSN search, my methodology says W3C schools overrepresents Linux usage by 3x.

On W3C Schools Linux grew from 2.9 to 3.5.

My methodology would conclude Linux usage would be 1.2% max on google today.

Since the deals OSS companies like Firefox make with Google would overrepresent Linux, I conclude .4% is a realistic number.

And places like OneStat and others confirm that .4%.

Ok. .36% on onestat.

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-ma...

any link to google's 1%?

any link to google's 1%?

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/zeitgeist-jun04.html

"Win95 has double the market share of Linux. "
"Win ME has quadruple the share of Linux. "

And you think those are better operating systems than current state of Linux ?

You've just proved to yourself that Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with the quality of their products.

If you hate Linux and open-source so much, why do you even bother leaving comments in these Linux threads?

Oh I know... to irritate people. Correct?

It's obvious, isn't it? You don't read up on a topic unless you have some interest in it, so he's likely interested in Linux and/or Ubuntu (or is so bored with his life that he reads anything and responds to anything to pass the time). Assuming the former, he'd like to switch or wants Linux to be an option for him if Microsoft continues down it's path of treating people like second class citizens, but he doesn't yet feel comfortable with it or has grown so cynical with the Windows culture or seen how Windows beat out superior products time and time again that he doesn't feel things could ever change. So he's resigned himself to justifying the cynicism.

As someone that left Linux in 1996 for Windows and then returned in 2001, I can definitely relate to that point of view. The only thing I can say is that from my experience, the best way to fight cynicism is not to fight it -- just be open to the good and the bad. Linux's openness won me back (and Microsoft's arrogance helped push me the rest of the way). Linux has it's warts. So does Windows -- if you use it at work or work near a help desk, you know at least a half dozen horror stories. Even MacOSX does too (e.g. if your desktop is read only and your app tries to put things on the desktop you'll get a really cryptic error message and have no idea how to fix it unless you've dealt with this issue before). Most of us turn a blind eye to the warts in our OS or gotten used to them or developed hack workarounds since if we don't, we'd be complaining all day. The important thing to point out to anyone investigating Linux is that if you use Linux, do things *the Linux way* and not *the Windows way* or *the Mac way*, since if you try to make Linux something its not you'll get frustrated. The same can be said about Linux or Mac users that try to use Windows or Linux and Windows users who use a Mac.

If you're frustrated with Linux, then either you're using a distro that's too techie for your abilities or tastes or you're unknowingly carrying your old habits (or expectations) into Linux and are fighting the OS when you really don't need to (in nearly all cases). Because these days, unless you have very Windows specific needs, Linux is a fairly comfortable OS to work in.

If you're frustrated with Linux, then either you're using a distro that's too techie for your abilities

Or you're running a PPC distro so you get

1) no Adobe products
2) no Real Player
3) Firefox updates weeks or months later than the x86 crowd.

---

And yes, the sort of websurfing I do at both home and work makes use of a lot of multimedia.

Or you're running a PPC distro

When you are on the PCC platform and you are dependent on top support for Adobe products, Real products and FireFox, you are better off not using GNU/Linux.

For all the niceties PPC may carry, it is more of a niche platform now, than it ever was, now that even Apple has abandoned it.

GNU/Linux started out on commodity x86 hardware and that is where its strenghts still lie.

"Win95 has double the market share of Linux. "
"Win ME has quadruple the share of Linux. "

And you think those are better operating systems than current state of Linux ?

You've just proved to yourself that Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with the quality of their products.

No, what those figures just prove is what really matter to people when it comes to operating systems are two thing: first, they want something they don't have to mess much with in order for it two work, and second, they want to have every application under the sun (including games) available for that system.

Why some people just can't get those two simple facts through their head is beyond me. Windows 9x was a crappy line of OS but it managed to give people that, and they would still be massively used today if XP did not exist because of those two reasons. No Linux distribution can match that yet.

Ever thought those systems exist because of the hardware they run on? I have worked with some of those machines and they don't need an upgrade, they need a drop out of the window.

This statistic cannot be used to accurately measure Linux installations, because:

a) most Linux browsers masquerade the OS as something else, and

b) the percentage of Linux users with broadband is much higher than for Windows, which means a smaller overall number of connecting IP addresses (broadband connections keep the same IP much longer than dial-up).

Not only that, but the actual contents of the website will skew the results. This is the reason Google took out the OS survey from their Zeitgest, because it was simply inaccurate and under-represented Linux/*nix desktops.

This statistic cannot be used to accurately measure Linux installations, because:

a) most Linux browsers masquerade the OS as something else,

Evidence?

and

b) the percentage of Linux users with broadband is much higher than for Windows, which means a smaller overall number of connecting IP addresses (broadband connections keep the same IP much longer than dial-up).

Evidence? (I mean evidence that you understand how page requests are logged?)

Not only that, but the actual contents of the website will skew the results. This is the reason Google took out the OS survey from their Zeitgest, because it was simply inaccurate and under-represented Linux/*nix desktops.

Evidence?

Come on. The sooner you accept Linux "installed base" is trivial, the sooner you can leave the cult and get a real life.

I know this is hard to understand for someone like you who has an irrational anti-Linux bias, but it's really a matter of common sense.

If you've ever used a Linux desktop, you know that browsers can be set to identify your PC as using Windows. This setting is used more often than not, because many websites are "optimized" for IE and Windows, and may refuse access (of offer less functionality) for non-supported browser/OS combinations. A good example is using Konqueror to access Google Mail: if you don't masquerade the browser, you only get basic functionality. In order to get the full experience, you need to pass off as a IE/Windows combination.

As for the second point, again it's a matter of simple logic: the proportion of broadband usage among Linux users is greater than for Windows, for the simple reason that Winmodem support has always sucked on Linux. Also, Linux users tend to be more computer-savvy and spend more time online, which means they are more likely to have broadband than Windows users, and therefore less likely to have a new IP address when visiting the same site twice. Since most counters on websites use the visitor's IP address to compute their statistics, Linux users tend to be under-represented.

All of this is of course irrelevant to the innate qualities of Linux, and its many advantages over Windows. But I don't want to expose you to too much logic, as your head may asplode...

I wanted some evidence that a significant number of Linux users alter the OS identification.

You bring up Konqueror. Here is a list of user agent strings in use by Konqueror:

http://www.pgts.com.au/pgtsj/pgtsj0208j.html

Almost all of them clearly identify the OS sucha s Linux or FreeBSD even though they also say they are Mozilla/5.0 compatible.

So ... maybe you could read up on user agent strings and then come back to me with some evidence most Linux users alter those strings.

the proportion of broadband usage among Linux users is greater than for Windows ...

Actually, by your logic Linux is overrepresented on weblogs.

Since most counters on websites use the visitor's IP address to compute their statistics

No, they don't.

They count the number of requests by the user agent string. Then they have to parse out the user agent string for OS names and browser types.

Maybe you could Google "user agent string" and improve your education.

You bring up Konqueror. Here is a list of user agent strings in use by Konqueror:

http://www.pgts.com.au/pgtsj/pgtsj0208j.html

You completely misunderstood the contents of that page. Those are default Konqueror strings, not ones that have been changed to accomodate a site that requires Windows.

My default string with Konqueror doesn't indicate the OS at all, and this seems to be the default on Ubuntu (the most popular Linux distro right now):
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5) KHTML/3.5.5 (like Gecko)

Looking at my list of User Agents String in use, I have many that do not mention Linux at all. The one for my bank is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; Mac OS X; fr, en_GB, en_US)

You should have been less quick in your Google search and actually tried to understand what you were looking at, you'd look less of a fool right now.

They count the number of requests by the user agent string. Then they have to parse out the user agent string for OS names and browser types.

If that was the case, it means that every request would register as a hit. That's clearly not the case, and even if it was it would mean that your usage of the statistic to indicate market share would be completely erroneous. Also, since UAS are not unique, it would defeat the purpose. The statistic you end up with is the number of hits per user agent string type, and that is completely useless from a statistics point of view (and easily abusable: I could write a script that sends automatic requests continuously and therefore skew the results).

Maybe you could Google "user agent string" and improve your education.

That's rather ironic considering that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and only did a quick Google search to try to camouflage your ignorance. Too bad I called your bluff. Now go spread your FUD elsewhere.

Disclaimer: contrary to you, I've studied website access logs many, many times and I have a pretty good idea of how they work.

//most Linux browsers masquerade the OS as something else,

Evidence? //

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent#User_agent_spoofing

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/59/

At the same time, this is also evidence that Windows browsers masquerade the OS as Linux.

Please give a smart and convincing evidence.

Edited 2006-11-19 10:39

Well, there is:

- South America
- Africa
- Middle East
- China
- Russia
- Japan

Linux is gaining market share especially in South America, Africa, and in China.

So, no, I don't think Mark Shuttleworth is overoptimistic in any way. I like the way Linus Torvalds described it: Linux may not not conquer the desktop today, maybe not even tomorrow, but it is going to hapen.

Edited 2006-11-19 10:02

Msft, with their enormous influence, will make sure Linux catches up.


I hope they're more succesful than they've been for now. They've been trying to stop linux for a long time and haven't succeed

That's part of the reason. The other part is Linux itself. It'll never replace Windows because, well, it simply wasn't meant to. Underneath the hood, Linux is vastly more complicated than Windows as far as the user needs to be concerned. Windows is complicated too, but most of that is hidden from the user.

Windows was made from the ground up to be reliable and simple, once again, as far as the user is concerned. It runs applications easily, it works, and everything meant for Windows installs okay.

Linux is a Unix clone and from its initial design, was never meant for end users as a desktop. So unless you want to change Linux to something it is not, it will *always* be too complicated for the average user. Having multiple distributions and package managers doesn't help either. The thing that makes Linux so great will be it's Achilles heel. Most don't want that many choices. Linux gurus do.

Here is another analogy:
Windows is a Toyota. It just works. There aren't too many options, and the few are available for anyone to use.

Linux is a hotrod. It can be made to do anything you want, provided you know what you want, and know how to do it. If you gave a hotrod to a grandma, she wouldn't know how to use it, customize it, or even keep it running for long. Sure, as her hotrod mechanic you could always build one for her, but the power behind it she will never understand. They are also far more complicated than a Toyota.

-Robert

This is flawed logic, and ubuntu proves that. You need to realize that linux can hide stuff exactly like windows. The main problems are actualy hiding it good enough with so many choices.

Right now the only department where linux lacks is ABI.

and why can't linux hide these nerdy components?

look at mac os X , it's unix but still more user friendly then windows

Initial design has nothing to do with 'human computer interaction'; it just must stay hidden, easy accesible, ...

The nerdy components *are* hidden in some Linux distros, such as Ubuntu. They are still available, though, just like they are on OSX.

I've put total newbies in front of a Linux computer many, many times, and they managed fine. "Linux is hard" is just more FUD from MS fanboys and astroturfers.

The Mac OSX is a good counter-example that Unix has to be hard. Ubuntu is a close second, although there are a few issues to be resolved:

* We need a good open source NVidia driver (Apparently, X.org is working on one now and it should be ready in about 8 months. Yah!), since relying on closed source is problematic.

* X.org needs to fallback to "safe mode" if there are configuration issues and not just crash. The next version of Ubuntu is working on a stopgap for this issue but the X.org people are working to implement this directly within 8 months or so (Yah! again X.org)

* We need open source alternatives to Flash and Java since these are used everywhere. It's easy to install both, but it leaves users confused and you have to wait for Macromedia to put in the effort (this may take a long time, witness the lack of Flash 8 on Linux). Fortunately Java will be free software soon (Yah Sub!) so this is one hurdle out of the way. Gnash will take time, but hopefully it'll get there.

* More open source audio and video codecs need to be supported universally. It's easy to use "common customizations" like Automatix and EasyUbuntu make upgrade or do it yourself, but it weakens the user experience again and in some cases, it can cause problems with upgrades since additional repositories may override the officially supported ones. The next version of Ubuntu will try to make it easier for the user by detecting not yet installed codecs and either provide the user instructions on how to install them or install the codecs (after the user agrees that it's okay and reads the licensing issues).

* Upgrades need to take into account that "common customizations" happen and either try to work around them (e.g. undo them if unsafe for the upgrade) or let the user know that he/she is rolling the dice if the upgrade proceeds. Apparently the next version of Ubuntu will handle this too.

* Compiz or Beryl eye candy needs to be preinstalled (I don't care for it, but joe/jane users do). The next version of Ubuntu will address this and some other distros already address this.

So overall, Linux (or Ubuntu at least) isn't too far from overcoming its last remaining issues for Joe/Jane Users. Give it a year. These things take time. Remember, Windows didn't *really* start to get popular until 15 years after DOS was introduced, and Microsoft was *trying* to make a desktop environment from those early days. Linux is a bit more than a decade younger than DOS and has only turned its attention to usability (for Joe/Jane user) in the last few years. Before that, it was more focused on the Unix user or Windows Power User that likes to play with new stuff. You can't expect miracles, but it is amazing how far it's come in such a short time.

Indeed, it has come a long way. But my original statement holds true. An end user has to marry himself to a particular distribution, and those applications written for either Gnome or KDE to get seamless functionality. This doesn't even address all the other Window managers. Like I said, what makes Linux unique will never go away. Everything that runs on Windows works on Windows. The same cannot be true of Linux. And because of so many different formats, package managers and binaries, it's impossible for any given user to download ANY program he feels like and know that it will work. I don't see that going away anytime soon.

(Yet another example)

The day the new DOSBox 0.65 came out, I had no problems installing it on Windows. It worked great, including sound support. Ubuntu was months behind. And even now if I want the latest (non-CVS) version, I'll need to run Edgy, not Dapper. Sound still doesn't work right. 'Too many cooks in the kitchen writing their own audio standards... So basically I have to install a whole new version of the OS just to run the latest application? Tell me how a regular user will deal with that?

Two choices. Install from source, or upgrade their OS to the latest Ubuntu. Pretend I'm computer illiterate before you respond.

Linux needs to come a long way - that's true. But if the course it's headed in doesn't change, it won't matter if its 5 or 50 years from now.

Robert

Edited 2006-11-18 22:19

only one tiny problem in your doomsday "same cant be said for linux" theory... you act as though applications using gtk+ cant be run from within kde, and reversed, which clearly isnt true.

They are not seamless. Try cut/paste.

I modded you up, but I also want to point out that Linux is heading in new directions on exactly this front (software installation). Most visible and likely to succeed projects: Autopackage and klik. Autopackage promises to make all new software releases easily packagable for all Linux systems simultaneously while providing end-users with the easy, wizard-style install they're used to from Windows. If it becomes widely adopted enough, it will mean that even newbies will be able to install all manner of new versions of software just as easily as on Windows without waiting for the official packages. Meanwhile, klik makes it even easier: just click on a package name online and it installs and runs itself, not even admin rights are necessary. Klik, however, will likely never get rid of the package availability delay problem, since its packages AFAIK are based off of Debian's. Nevertheless, with these two options (not to mention other solutions like the Smart package manager and GoboLinux's App-Directory approach) still fresh on the scene, the future of Linux software installation looks _very_ promising.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that many software vendors tend to favor binary, package-manager-independent installers anyway (witness Java & Firefox, for instance), so that's another solution to the problem. And finally.... Who are we talking about here? If it's really the know-nothing users, how likely are they really to download the latest version of their software as soon as it comes out? If they care that much about the latest and greatest, I'd guess they're more likely to be power users.

Edited 2006-11-19 00:11

Please desist with 100% incorrect FUD.

I think you are the one who should stop shouting FUD when you disagree with ideas from others. What he is saying is totally correct, no matter how you twist it to make it look false. By the way, I guess Mr. Shuttleworth was spreading FUD too when he called for package standardization?

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/66

You're twisting his words again, he's not saying that certain apps only work in a given distro. What he is saying is that if you want to download a new software from the internet, you've got to make sure you download the right package for your specific distribution, and the specific version you are using.

Since developers usually have no resources or knowledge to create every package possible for every combination that exists, some users are always left in the cold at least until the distributions packages the software. If it's not a popular software, it might never be packaged at all.

Now, to make my point, take a look at the download page for basket (impressive application, by the way, I encourage everyone to try it), and tell me that what's there is sane:

http://basket.kde.org/download.php

It is not FUD. You are acting like a typical Linux bigot. My examples were exactly indicating software NOT in the package manager.

This is what you said: "it's impossible for any given user to download ANY program he feels like and know that it will work."

That is clearly FUD, and modding yourself up with sockpuppet accounts won't change that fact.

We need open source alternatives to Flash and Java since these are used everywhere. It's easy to install both, but it leaves users confused and you have to wait for Macromedia to put in the effort (this may take a long time, witness the lack of Flash 8 on Linux). Fortunately Java will be free software soon (Yah Sub!) so this is one hurdle out of the way. Gnash will take time, but hopefully it'll get there.

Java is GPL now. And Macromedia (or more exactly: Adobe, because Macromedia was bought by Adobe) released Flash 9 beta for Linux (i'm using it currently and i don't have any problems with it). Yes, it will take some time before they are easly installable (for Joe/Jane Users), but i don't think it will be a long time.

Underneath the hood, Linux is vastly more complicated than Windows as far as the user needs to be concerned. Windows is complicated too, but most of that is hidden from the user

I certainly agree that internals are well hidden on Windows, sometimes they are hidden too well

However I strongly disagree with the idea that internals cannot be hidden as good on Linux.
Numerous use cases like network appliances, set-top boxes or digital video recorders show that it is possible and doable.

Since operating a desktop system requires more features than operating a set-top box, it is just more work to hide the internals properly.

"It'll never replace Windows because, well, it simply wasn't meant to. Underneath the hood, Linux is vastly more complicated than Windows as far as the user needs to be concerned. Windows is complicated too, but most of that is hidden from the user."

If this argument was valid, then Mac OSX would be the dominant OS on the market. It isn't, therefore your argument is baloney. Sorry.

The reason Linux is not more prevalent is that it doesn't come pre-installed, and that MS Office is not natively available for it - in other words, two reasons due to Microsoft dual monopolies of operating systems and office document formats.

Oh, and games, too, but with the game consoles we have today, this is becoming less and less relevant.

"Linux is a Unix clone and from its initial design, was never meant for end users as a desktop"

Sure, but so is OSX, and no one seems to deny that that makes a good Desktop. There is a problme that Linux can do too much, and as such confuses users that are used to the Windows way of doing things. Macs do things differently, but look how many of their users rant about how they wouldn't go back once they switched.

There are a couple of problems with that argument. First, noting that Linux has been around for 10 years (actually, its about 15 years) is fairly irrelevant. A product doesn't build market share without actually competing in a market in a focused way, and its only relatively recently that Linux companies have focused on the end-user desktop. What are the major players in the desktop Linux world? RedHat, SuSE/Novell, and Canonical. Of those, SuSE never saw the desktop market as a primary focus, RedHat still doesn't, and Novell and Canonical have had Linux desktop products for barely two years now. Meanwhile, both MacOS and Windows were conceived from the very beginning as end-user desktop products, and have been marketed that way for more than 20 years. Moreover, they've been competing in that market while being backed by multi-billion dollar companies for what whole time.

Second, the actual Linux desktop share is 2-4 higher than your estimate, or well over 2%. You vastly underestimate the impact Linux is having in Latin America and Asia, which together account for a huge and under-developed market. There is a huge potential in those parts of the world for increasing Linux's market share.

That said, I don't think Linux will become the number one platform in desktop space. Note, however, that it needn't be in order to be the dominant platform. There are a lot more cell phones than there are personal computers, and regular people interact with server or embedded computers more often than they interact with desktop machines. With Linux running on everything from cell phones to servers to supercomputers, it is already a dominant (if not THE dominant) platform even without a large desktop market share.

"I'm not a basher, I'm just realistic."

Then you should know that Linux has about 5x the market share you claim it has.

OK. These are valid valid points. But, I think a bigger problem for Linux is that each application is an island. Where as in Microsoft, each application is aware of each other. In fact, the integration is too tight for my tastes. But, it's that tight integration that keeps corporations dependant upon Microsoft.

This is a tough nut to crack for Linux.

In windows 95 (the first real popular windows), every program was a seperate island, and it was that that created the succes of windows: third party apps, by big companies, that's what linux lags at the moment, game companies are just a fraction of the other companies that create decent windows software. If you go completely KDE you'll find better integration than on windows vista. There still lies truth in what you said but it's not the main problem, and it's been adressed to by the opensource community of i.e. KDE a lot better than by microsofot

Drivers and applications? Which ones? A real modem is cheap these days, and that's the only major area where drivers truly lack. Applications working together is a little pain, but constantly getting better, and is now at least as good as Windows (mainly due to the clipboard generally working as I think it should between apps of different GUI toolkits).

Applications in general, though, are great. What is lacking?

I've not had any major driver problems recently that I can blame on anyone but Logitech, and honestly, that doesn't, and didn't, surprise me. However, even that is being worked on (using evdev), and appears to be more of a pain due to X and Linux interaction than either one on their own.

Now, I use Windows for my PC, and don't see anything wrong with it. However, I don't lack anything when using a Linux box now, I just everything tweaked like I want in Windows, and haven't gotten disgusted enough at MS to truly switch.

Hardware support is generally superb in Linux, but getting the software configured to use is not. X is a royal bitch sometimes (MS and Apple both have setting the display up done far superior to anything else I've found), wireless equally so (but at least it is getting better), and sound can be, too. All of this even with perfect or near perfect hardware support.

Interestingly, a lot of work on the recent speed improvements was done by the Novell OO team.

"The apps for most people or a great deal of the computer-using population are there."

Personally I feel if open source had its killer app to woo over a significant segment of the computer industry, then Linux would begin to enter more significantly into the mainstream commercial world (and I don't mean as servers). For example there aren't any decent open source replacements for Adobe products. If there was an open source project that was superior to Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign, there would be a lot more interest in Linux amongst graphic designers and desktop publishers. A single license of Adobe's Creative suite goes for something like $1000USD. If there was an open source alternative, think of all the organizations switching over to save those kinds of software costs.

I think you'd be surprised how many people only need #1 and to some extent #4 (which means reading .doc and .pdf).

Hmm.... I think it would actually be a LOT easier to make universal Linux apps than you think. Firefox can do it. I recently heard that Adobe is planning on using Eclipse as a development environment, maybe that says something about their plans....

Oh bullchunder; Adobe simply can say, "GNOME, either on Ubuntu or Fedora Core" and with that you would hit the majority of users without any problems.

Adobe doesn't want to do it because they're Microsoft's bitch, just like HP is Microsoft bitch; they sit around claiming to be a victim but they do everything possible to prop up Microsoft monopoly through their inaction.

Adobe could make a tonne of cash selling their wares on Linux or some other operating system, but the problem is, its not that they can't, its because they don't want to.

What is the alternative? pray that maybe a group of coders will pull their finger out of their ass and create a clone of Adobe products; setup two computers and re-create the whole software stack, icon for icon, menu layout for menu layout, feature for feature.

//I could go on and on but the fact of the matter is that Linux ain't even close at becoming a desktop standard. //

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

http://labix.org/smart

With these two tools, your entire argument is moot.

Recently, OpenOffice released version 2.04 as a set of RPM packages only. Poeple said "what about Debian"?

Debian is compliant with the LSB and using the Smart package manager (works on every distro), one can install from the following types of repository:
* APT-DEB Repository
* APT-RPM Repository
* DPKG Installed Packages
* Mirror Information
* Red Carpet Channel
* RPM Directory
* RPM Header List
* RPM MetaData (YUM)
* RPM Installed Packages
* Slackware Repository
* Slackware Installed Packages
* URPMI Repository

Since Smart works on all distros, and Smart supports an "RPM Directory", that means that OpenOffice 2.04 can be installed on any distribution from the set of RPM files that were provided on the OpenOffice.org website.

//All Linux really is is the kernel. Everything else is distro-specific. //

Not correct. Your comment is out-of-date. 2004 called and it wants its FUD back.

Since Smart works on all distros, and Smart supports an "RPM Directory", that means that OpenOffice 2.04 can be installed on any distribution from the set of RPM files that were provided on the OpenOffice.org website.

Really? Then the FAQ is wrong:


Does Smart's wide support for packaging systems mean I can install .rpm packages on my Debian system? Or .deb packages on my RPM-based system?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, unless you have the non-native package system installed in the same machine. Even then, that doesn't mean it would be a good idea.

Smart is not meant as an universal wrapper around different package formats. It does support RPM, DEB and Slackware packages on a single system, but won't permit relationships among different package managers. While cross-packaging system dependencies could be enabled easily, the packaging policies simply do not exist today.

This is not at all different from what you can already do. In fact, Debian has been shipping the RPM package manager for a few years now. "Possible" does not equal "good idea", and everybody should stick to their native package format.

http://labix.org/smart/faq#head-15e431ff69330db0ad3f078e2139c58ba7b...

Blogger please, those people in the poverty range do what we do, PIRATE. And that speaks volumes, use a very capable, highly reliable free os or put up with hacks and cracks and use a somewhat reliable, kinda insecure os.

View this whichever way you want, windows has the pc by the proverbial shirt and curlies. If people are willing to use windows in all it's flavors despite it's flaws, then i guess the customers have spoken.

Yeah yeah, people don't know about linux, blah blah. Tired of hearing that. If you want a product to be seen, you develop an identity and sell that baby for all it's worth. Ubuntu is trying to do just that, and i guess it's kinda working.

>Even MS has said that the future of computing will be online services. That includes the OS.

Eh, actually I think this is where MS misses the point and the argument for Linux becomes even stronger. If MS actually does transition all of its software to a services-only, pay-until-you-die model, Linux will win by virtue of its being free, not because it somehow provides a better service-computing model.

>The future of the home computer will be things like the PS3 or the Wii. How often do those devices get viruses or malware?

Um, "these devices" just came to market, so it's hard to say, isn't it. We certainly can't base expectations on previous models, though, since previous models didn't support online connections and installable software to nearly the extent of the current generation. Aside from that, what makes you think that current consoles are the future of the home PC? If that were true, then no one would bother buying PCs anymore. The truth is, people like a certain amount of control and customization over the software on their computers. The form factor and price point of the home PC hardware may change, but the vulnerability factor that comes from having an open software platform (in contrast to the limited platforms the consoles provide) will not change.

All of the features that make Linux great at what it is make it a bad choice for a desktop OS - a desktop OS needs to be idiot proof, have limited customisability, come with few preinstalled applications, and have no hang ups about closed or open source (among other things).

When I see all the mess that many different users do to their Windows (spywares, malwares, ...), I wouldn't say that Windows is idiot proof either. They can say that Windows is easier than Linux, but actually this is false. Many users *think* they understand Windows, but many times they need their tech-savy friend to solve all the problems they caused.

It's worth noting that Windows has a bare minimum of codecs installed by default, as well. This won't change in Vista either. Truth is, installing all the codecs needed is actually a bit easier on Ubuntu, since you can just run a script to do it for you, whereas on Windows you have to deal with finding and manually installing codecs and complete software packages (like Quicktime) from a variety of different websites. I should know--I *just* did this on a new Windows PC, and it wasn't too fun. Sure, there are sites with codec packages pre-made, and stuff like Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative if you don't want to clog your system up with giant junk-heaps of background tasks, but good luck figuring out which packages you need to download, whether they overlap with each other, and whether you can get them all to run in your media player of choice!

Edited 2006-11-19 00:42

Oh no a free market ! the horror !

oh yeah.

how free. he can choose one distro to use at home, then would not know how to use everything else elsewhere...

nice freedom :-)

There's no need to for invent the wheel, X.Org has AIGLX, Composite, Damage, Fixes, NVIDIA has GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, there is also Qt 4 which is a excellent widget library and can be accelerated with OpenGL for compositing, GTK+ uses Cairo and can be also accelerated with Glitz, the framework is there, and has been for some time already, haven't you seen Beryl? that window manager uses Composite and GLX for all the Compositing operations, KDE 4 will also implement some compositing effects in Kwin, I don't understand your point there. Stop trolling.

Edited 2006-11-19 22:37

I believe his point wasn't about the looks, but rather the functionalities. Apart for the development model, the leading DEs are not fundementally different from the leading desktop OSes. Even though they share different features, they are mostly offering a similar experience because they are using the same paradigms. Adding layers of bling-bling won't change this, no matter the amount.

I don't see this as a troll, but rather as a call for being more daring by stepping out from the main path. Stuff like Mezzo (coming with Symphony OS) is a good start, but it could go further. The average person might not be interested in learning a new system that does his tasks the same way, but they might be interested in something that tries to solve his problems differently. That's how the free software desktop could stand out, IMO.

I believe his point wasn't about the looks, but rather the functionalities. Apart for the development model, the leading DEs are not fundementally different from the leading desktop OSes. Even though they share different features, they are mostly offering a similar experience because they are using the same paradigms. Adding layers of bling-bling won't change this, no matter the amount.


Exactly. Over the years, I've been constantly surprised at the conservative, conformist attitude of open source desktop developers. There was the ill-fated BlueEyedOS project, which was to put BeOS on top of the linux kernel. But besides that, I haven't seen much in doing something different.

You mentioned Mezzo (Symphony OS). That's a fresh approach, but I'm talking about starting from the botton-up and not the top-down. I would look at the kernel as a POSIX subsystem, and Xorg as my graphic subsystem and go from there. Basically, everything on the desktop would be live objects. There really wouldn't be the need for preferences because ever desktop object could be inspected and changed. Desktop objects could be combined, embedded, ripped apart, etc.. All desktop objects would be scriptable at runtime. I'll probably write up a real submission for OSNews so I can flesh out some of these ideas in more detail.

On the other side of the spectrum are the KDE and Gnome desktops. I've talked to some prominent desktop developers over the years in private candor discussions, and most have agreed that from a marketing and penetration standpoint, if things could be done over, it would have been wise to have collaborated on "the" desktop, "the" toolkit, "the" interop system from the beginning. Everything else would be pretty much on the margins like Enlightenment. But that didn't happen, and is problematic from an ISV perspective.

Now as long as OSX and Windows remain closed-source, there will always be a market for a free, open source desktop, so it's not like linux desktop will go into irrelvance. It's just that it might be another decade or so, and given that, if there were resources to be had, it couldn't hurt to do something different. But unlike 10 years ago, there's a herculean amount of work to be done for something totally different, and unless you have philanthropist deep pockets backing you, or have a sound plan for a ROI, it's a tough uphill battle - but not undoable.

I think you might be right that there's a great deal of conservatism in software development, and you're talking specifically of the DE's GUI. The thing is just, humans are generally conservative, and GUI software is very complicated, and increasingly so. On top of that, you have users that want things to work in a way they can understand with a minimum of effort. If *n*x DEs/GUIs were too much unlike anything else, *n*x would get comments like, "sure you ain't got no market share, you gotta make it like those other DEs."

Maybe this will always be much more about evolution than about revolution. The first thing brought us from the apes to where we are now (well... I'll not be glorifying our present state of affairs), whereas most we know of revolutions is they "eat their own children."

I also disagree with you that the existence of both Gnome and KDE side by side is somehow a "problem". It's more a blessing. Imagine one monster project that decides how the major *n*x DE works, looks and feels, how many criticism that would arouse, how many forks and competing projects would come out. You'd have a worse situation than now. Say, I don't like Gnome, there's no one that's gonna listen to my whining over it. Just use KDE and shut up, they'd say.

As for Linux desktop world domination, well, what goes up must come down. But the impatient will always be disappointed. I personally don't understand all the fixation on market share. Rolls Royce never cared for that. Just focus on quality and the rest will follow.

I think you might be right that there's a great deal of conservatism in software development, and you're talking specifically of the DE's GUI. The thing is just, humans are generally conservative, and GUI software is very complicated, and increasingly so. On top of that, you have users that want things to work in a way they can understand with a minimum of effort. If *n*x DEs/GUIs were too much unlike anything else, *n*x would get comments like, "sure you ain't got no market share, you gotta make it like those other DEs."

The novice users *would* work in the same way. There would really be no paradigm shift for them. This is really about power users and those between power users and the novice. Think about html and how it brought the ability the average guy to create content. But I really need to write up a real story for OSNews.

Maybe this will always be much more about evolution than about revolution. The first thing brought us from the apes to where we are now (well... I'll not be glorifying our present state of affairs), whereas most we know of revolutions is they "eat their own children."

The problem with going the evolutionary route in the open source desktop space is that Microsoft and Apple don't sit on their hands and wait for desktop Linux to catch-up. So I believe that will always put desktop Linux in a bad position in comparison to them.

I also disagree with you that the existence of both Gnome and KDE side by side is somehow a "problem". It's more a blessing. Imagine one monster project that decides how the major *n*x DE works, looks and feels, how many criticism that would arouse, how many forks and competing projects would come out. You'd have a worse situation than now. Say, I don't like Gnome, there's no one that's gonna listen to my whining over it. Just use KDE and shut up, they'd say.

This is a misunderstanding that is repeated over and over, under the guise of "choice". There would always be alternatives. It's just that if you go the conservative route, then it makes sense to collaborate in order to present a unified front to ISVs. ISVs have a hard time targetting desktop linux because essentially they have to stick with a subset of what is going to be on the average desktop. For example, Kparts is a powerful KDE component, but an ISV can't use that unless they want to restrict their market.

As for Linux desktop world domination, well, what goes up must come down. But the impatient will always be disappointed. I personally don't understand all the fixation on market share. Rolls Royce never cared for that. Just focus on quality and the rest will follow.

Microsoft potentially "coming down" decades from now doesn't mean that KDE or Gnome is going to "go up". I don't care about market share. I use Linux as an engineering workstation. I don't hate Microsoft. I tend to run both windows and linux at the same time. It's the Microsoft haters that have the fixation with Microsoft.

My point wasn't even really about market share, but doing something creative and different, instead of just following the lead of Microsoft and Apple.

//For example, Kparts is a powerful KDE component, but an ISV can't use that unless they want to restrict their market. //

I don't see why (although I don't use GNOME so I could be wrong here). AFAIK, if a GNOME of Xfce user wants to install an application with a dependency on Kparts, then the package manager will download the relevant kdelibs and whatever other packages are required in order to get that application installed.

This is a misunderstanding that is repeated over and over, under the guise of "choice". There would always be alternatives. It's just that if you go the conservative route, then it makes sense to collaborate in order to present a unified front to ISVs. ISVs have a hard time targetting desktop linux because essentially they have to stick with a subset of what is going to be on the average desktop. For example, Kparts is a powerful KDE component, but an ISV can't use that unless they want to restrict their market.

It's not that there's to much to choose from,choice is good.The ISV's just don't smell the money yet.Which DE is being used is irrelevant if there was a more unified front of portable code.

Edited 2006-11-21 09:12

It's not that there's to much to choose from,choice is good.The ISV's just don't smell the money yet.Which DE is being used is irrelevant if there was a more unified front of portable code.

I think you just re-iterated what I said, except you added the part about "show me the money". But you have to lower the barriers to entry when the market is small.

You make a valid point, however you have to understand that radical new ideas, even if they are real improvements, would not necessarily mean a larger share fo the desktop.

There's a reason why it's so hard to break away from the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) paradigm. The reason is that it works. Why do you think books, hammers, televisions have changes so little over the years? That's because they have reached their functional limits, and there's nothing wrong with that.

So before wanting to reinvent the wheel and claim it is necessary to ensure success in the marketplace, it's a good thing to question whether that is the real issue at hand.

You make a valid point, however you have to understand that radical new ideas, even if they are real improvements, would not necessarily mean a larger share fo the desktop.

The thing that you have to understand, is that it's almost 2007 and really nothing has changed. But most of the problems with desktop linux are social issues of collaboration, and not necessarily technical problems. There was never a unified front to market. The cost and problems of Windows hasn't turned out to be enough to garner a significant shift.

Personally, I don't really care about market share. I'd just like other ideas to be explored and new operating systems to be developed for Linux, or at the very least, new desktop paradigms.

There's a reason why it's so hard to break away from the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) paradigm. The reason is that it works. Why do you think books, hammers, televisions have changes so little over the years? That's because they have reached their functional limits, and there's nothing wrong with that.


Nothing that I would propose would change the 2d WIMP paradigm. You really can't with our 2d screens. This is more of an under-the-hood change; a way for medium-skilled and advanced desktop users to make the most effective use of the components of their system.

So before wanting to reinvent the wheel and claim it is necessary to ensure success in the marketplace, it's a good thing to question whether that is the real issue at hand.

The question I would be asking is why nothing really changing? Why are people still sticking with Windows. Firefox was/is a better browser. actually, the firefox extension paradigm is a great metaphor for what I'm talking about. IE has gotten better with regards to spyware and such, but its the plugins in Firefox that keep them coming back. The desktop I envision would basically be a big introspective, plugin system. But it's hard to explain it all in a thread post. I hope to submit a story to OSNews soon.

The thing that you have to understand, is that it's almost 2007 and really nothing has changed. But most of the problems with desktop linux are social issues of collaboration, and not necessarily technical problems.

There aren't necessary more problems than with any major OS system.Personally i'm quite happy with running linux wherever i can.As are a lot of other people.

Why are people still sticking with Windows.

Because that's what they know.

Let's start with this gem

Stop trolling

Oh please, saying "trolling" has been reduced to "I don't agree with what you say". You people need to grow up.

There's no need to for invent the wheel, X.Org has AIGLX, Composite, Damage, Fixes, NVIDIA has GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, there is also Qt 4 which is a excellent widget library and can be accelerated with OpenGL for compositing, GTK+ uses Cairo and can be also accelerated with Glitz, the framework is there, and has been for some time already, haven't you seen Beryl? that window manager uses Composite and GLX for all the Compositing operations, KDE 4 will also implement some compositing effects in Kwin, I don't understand your point there

No, when your happy with the status quo then you wouldn't understand.

I wasn't suggesting to reinvent Xorg or any low-level driver code, the point was to start off with a toolkit that is not stuck in the static world of C/C++, which is what you have with gtk+, Qt.

For a more concrete example, think of Squeak http://www.squeak.org, but something more aesthetically pleasing, and probably not written in Smalltalk. But I'll explain more to the guy that responded to you, so look below.

The problem with that is that ReactOS is way too Windows-like and it may inherit some of its flaws. Please note that I said "may" as it seems that its developers want to put as much compatibility as possible in place whilst doing something different with the desktop (virtual desktops, for starters).

This is nice if Windows is what you want, but then I´d have to give up some stuff that I´ve grown used to in Linux such as Konqueror, Amarok, bash, REAL scriptability with DCOP (and later with D-Bus). It´s awesome to be capable of access my home machine through SSH in order to avoid a corporate firewall, start GNU Screen and access my favorite IRC channels through BitchX, use giFTcurs to download some stuff and stuff like that like I´m doing as I write this.

Windows cannot offer me such flexibility currently and it remains to be seen whether ReactOS will or not. My point is, if a Windows experience is what you´re looking for, then more power to the ReactOS project. However, it will be always playing catchup to the real thing so one would be better using Windows that he/she probably already paid for.

I don´t use Linux because I hate Windows (though Explorer surely could learn a thing or two with KDE); I use Linux because I love UNIX and I managed to adapt comfortably to the new environment. I´d hate to let it go.

The problem with that is that ReactOS is way too Windows-like and it may inherit some of its flaws [...]
That's a assumption, ReactOS won't suffer from GUI flaws as the latest incarnations of Win32 do. And the WinNT kernel is in comparision to all other modern mainstream operating systems (for workstation & server) a very good one. Some deprecated WinAPI functions may sound out-dated but they are still there (mainly in Win16) for compatibility and that's especially where free open source Unix derivates suffer.

[...] accessing through ssh, bash, scriptibility [...]
... everything is possible with open source applications and tools for ReactOS & Win32.

However, it will be always playing catchup to the real thing [...]
It will take another 2-3 year until ReactOS hit version 1.0. The native NT API hasn't changed a lot for years nor does the WinAPI. The only changes are GUI related, and additional services, tools and of course drivers. And that's where ReactOS advantage come in, no other operationg system beside WinNT serie has access to such a mass of driver collection. Every piece of hardware comes with NT driver, and other operating system have to reverse engineere NT compatible driver to add such functionally to their OS. That task is not only questionable but also leave a wide range of unsupported hardware.

I use Linux because I love UNIX [...]
Why would you use Linux when you love UNIX? Linux and Unix are not compatible in general. Both are follow the old posix standard, as do WinNT serie.


Trying to convert a broader mass of people to use Linux is IMHO a no brainer based on a hype promoted by big Linux distro vendors and some media companies.
Linux is great for web-server and embedded devices, but designed for desktop nor for super-computer.
Application and driver(-modul) compatibility is broken, x11 is by design badly outdated, etc. ... the list is long.
You cannot assume that average joe compile his own binaries from source code nor use a complicated package manager software.
Staying with age-old x11 is silly, just silly. They add only another hack to add new features or fix something.
To be fair, when I use the term "linux", i just use it as it is the most hyped unix alike OS and "DeadFishMan" use it too. Although some of the above mentioned flaws are guilty for *BSD and other Unix forks too.
Unix has been designed for single user single account (root). Everything else has been added as "hacks" (as it would be named everywhere else, except unix world).
Multics (yes, some used it until 2000) has been a lot more advanced back then, but even back then the "hype" and money phenomenon was already popular.

//You cannot assume that average joe compile his own binaries from source code nor use a complicated package manager software. //

You have GOT to be kidding.

From nothing at all, a package manager can download and install a new application in just a few clicks.

On Kubuntu, as an example to install a complete office suite:

Menu->System->Manage Packages
(enter your login password)
Click on the "search" button on the toolbar
Type "office" and then enter
Select your choice of OpenOffice or Koffice
Click the "Apply" button on the toolbar, and ...

wait for the application to download & automatically install.

You are done.

That is several times easier for even a newbie to do than on Windows. On Windows, first you have to get an Office suite from somewhere, which involves either a search on the web or a trip to the local computer store to buy disks. Remember ... those above are the steps for installing via a typical Linux Package Manager starting with nothing.

You don't have to compile binaries for Linux. You are either FUDding like mad or you are hopelessly behind the times.

BTW, on Windows, even if you do manage to get through all the hurdles including CD keys & whatnot to install an office suite, apparently after a little while it will start nagging you to make phone calls & jump through yet more hoops and then stop working if there is a hitch with that.

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16533

Edited 2006-11-21 08:58

From nothing at all, a package manager can download and install a new application in just a few clicks.
ReactOS offer a package manager too. It is simply to use, it will get more features but will keep it's simple interface. Usability is a key factor. Most GUI application designed and developer don't realize that :S

I have written about linux package manager because they tend to be extra overloaded (e.g. Yast in SuSE til v. 9/10). Newer package manager tend to be a bit more simple to use but are less feature-rich.

[...] example to install a complete office suite [...]
You are not limited on ReactOS & Win32 to MS published software. OpenOffice, AbiWord (afaik soon KOffice) from the open source fraction and a dozen of closed source ones are available.
Hundreds of thousands Win32/WinNT applications and drivers are available and everyone will find suitable solutions without compromisses.
That was my point with the comment before.

You are speaking of DRM (and similar technology), which is a bad movement and should not be extra supported. But it's not part of a Win32 application in general. You can have the same kind of shit in unix world too. Look at most dvd players' driver modules, for example.

Unix has been designed for single user single account (root).

Unix has been designed from day one to be a multi-user environment.Much unlike windows 95/98.windows 2000,xp home..

Everything else has been added as "hacks" (as it would be named everywhere else, except unix world).

I would call the professional version of the above a hack.

Linux is great for web-server and embedded devices, but designed for desktop nor for super-computer.

Do some googling and you will be suprized how many super computers in fact run on linux/unix.There isn't a single one that runs on any windows says enough.

So another sign of you spreading FUD because the super computers cycles are quite expensive to be run by one single user only don't you think?

Unix has been designed from day one to be a multi-user environment. Much unlike windows 95/98. windows 2000,xp home..
My comment is based on real facts, it was about Unix which originally developed in the 1960s.
Win1-3x & 4x (aka Win9x) are based on DOS, to sum-up it in a simply to understand way. It's a single user OS for personal computer.
Although, I have never written about Win 1-4, I have written about the WinNT series and ReactOS. That are very different OS in comparision to Win 1-4.
Unix is the small brother of Multics, and has been by design more lightweight but also less secure, less feature, and single user, especially for cheap computers.
WinNT architecture is based on VMS (no OpenVMS) and some ideas came from OS/2. To sum-up WinNT could be called a VMS clone.
Most banks (and other companies which transfer or handle a lot of money) use and trust OpenVMS and not Unix alike operating systems for several reasons.

I would call the professional version of the above a hack.
you can call it how you want, that doesn't matter.

Do some googling and you will be suprized how many super computers in fact run on linux/unix.There isn't a single one that runs on any windows says enough.
The fact is no super-computer have been developed and built for years! Most famous "super computer" are the Cray-series (1970s to mid 90s). If you use the term "super computers" nowadays, you may mean "clusters" which are cheap standard computer (or in blades, what ever) connected to each other with a high-speed network.
Google & co. use such sub-optimal solutions, because they are cheap, but very electricity power intensive. That's why e.g. Google even built there new server halls next to rivers power-plants to save money.

So another sign of you spreading FUD because the super computers cycles are quite expensive to be run by one single user only don't you think?
You seem to be a kind of troll or a weird fanboy which cannot add 1+1 together or wear blinders., or someone that got his first computer in post millennium era.

And the WinNT kernel is in comparision to all other modern mainstream operating systems (for workstation & server) a very good one.

Yes it's so good that when a badly written driver is loaded it takes the whole system with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer#Operating_systems

windows isn't mentioned.
If it is so good and multi-user than why not?

It doesn't make sence to call a multi-user OS a hack.Especially when 7/10 next generation super computers use linux.

or someone that got his first computer in post millennium era.

I'm glad you asked.It was a c64 with a cassette player as HD.And yours?

"I'm glad you asked.It was a c64 with a cassette player as HD.And yours?"

I had the exact same thing. In fact, I still have it, and hooked it up a couple months ago, and it still works fine.