Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Dec 2007 06:34 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "Many people are looking to Ubuntu to be something that it is not: A mass market ready operating system designed to work with the same level of compatibility as Microsoft Windows. Where people get confused is in believing that if Ubuntu, king of the Linux distros, is not able to take the marketplace by storm, then something must be broken with desktop Linux. In this article, I'll explain what it will take to dethrone the mighty Ubuntu and gain a market share so large that it will eclipse anything seen by Ubuntu to date." More here.
Order by: Score:
Two major points to consider about it.
by autumnlover on Fri 7th Dec 2007 07:06 UTC
autumnlover
Member since:
2007-04-12

1. Too much expectations from Joe The Average, fueled by Ubuntu zealots ("Everything works for me, I am really impressed and my granny even not noticed when I changed OS in her laptop to Ubuntu")

2. Ubuntu grows bigger each release, release cycle is the same - and we have more and more unfinished parts in the OS - "Screen And Graphics" is proud example of that trend in 7.10

Reply Score: 14

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I think the major thing to consider is administration, and for this Mandriva or PCLinux is far and away better. Never have understood Ubuntu mania. What you want is a simple recipe: if its your personal stuff, go to Gnome Control Center. If its system stuff, go to Mandriva control center. This is very easy to teach, and people can get the distinction at once, its quite intuitive. The problem with Debian or Ubuntu for ordinary users is the lack of a clustered system admin centre.

Yes with Debian you get continuous updates. But for most end users the price is too high.

I don't see any reason in features or functionality why Mandriva or PCL are not as suitable for end users as OSX or Windows. Its just a question of learning. They are not perfect, but they are as good as the alternatives and in some ways a lot more integrated because of the ability to get all the software you need from the repositories.

We keep hearing about integration either in the sense of common look and feel or hardware/software coming from the same source. But in fact, integration between system and applications, as in all software included or available for instant installation in exactly the same fashion, that's probably far more important to the end user.

Its just time. We are in the lower slope area of the S curve. But one day, it will take off, and when it does....

Reply Score: 3

slight Member since:
2006-09-10

If it's personal stuff go to preferences.

If it's system stuff go to administration.

What's so complicated about that?


[edited for typo]

Edited 2007-12-07 12:57

Reply Score: 6

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

It's complicated because he doesn't like the distro ...

Reply Score: 3

NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

"preferences" and "administration" sounds similar. Novice users might not understand the difference. They should be called "System settings" and "Desktop settings" or something. Though it's not a big deal and I personaly thinks it's better to use the gnome tools like ubuntu than som separate control panel application.

Reply Score: 2

cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

Nothing is complicated in that, except things aren't there that should be, and much of what is there does not work. Some works somewhat, but not enough.

Trying to get ctrl-alt-esc to run xkill has been a final straw for me. Why are there four GUI keyboard shortcut apps? Why don't changes in any of them actually work? Why can't the simple GTK-based one actually work like its help claims it does?

XFCE and KDE's are set for xkill, the little GTK-based on won't allow me to remove the ctrl-alt-esc shortcut, even though the help says I can, and the other one that looks more like it's from Gnome proper will let me try, but it doesn't work.

At least with a more basic distro I know exactly what I put in that is controlling that stuff. If Ubuntu wants to make it better, they need to have a single place to do those things, that kicks off an 'apply' script that then does it for every DE...and that works.

Trying to get sound working right also was not fun, nor getting SMP working (I changed hardware), nor dealing with each DE or FM having its own "trash," but also not being able to easily set a single system-wide FM to use, it took a reinstall to get font sizes and AA working right across toolkits...ugh.

The core Linux bits, and the separate application bits, work great, but what's trying to glue it all together is not working well. It's just Ubuntu. Some parts will get better wit each release, some parts worse. It's a great display of the capability of the modern Linux desktop, but not something I'll be running regularly.

Dethroning Ubuntu is easy: use Ubuntu enough that you see it has a chair at the table like every other distro--it just looks fancier. Ubuntu 7.10 was the nail in MS' coffin for me, but I' going to use either Arch or SMGL.

Reply Score: 1

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

"1) Too much expectations from Joe The Average,"

No! To little expectation Linux geeks.

Let's use an analogy.

You want to get from home to work and back every day. In a good world, if you want to take a different route all you do is take the different route.

In the Linux world you have to download and configure the different route even though YOU know how to drive there already.

How would you like that? Well that's how the average person feels about configing stuff in Linux.

Reply Score: 1

zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Hell, I'd be happy if they could just keep major non-upstream regressions from slipping into each release. Decision-making that leads to the disappearance of TTYs is backwards thinking.

Edited 2007-12-07 16:57

Reply Score: 1

vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

I have two points to consider.

1. Is Ubuntu king?

2. Is there a throne?

Reply Score: 5

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

And, if I may:

3. If there's a throne, do Linux distro's want it?

I say this because the article was mixing different concepts. For one, it was mixing community projects like Fedora with commercial projects like Ubuntu.

Where Ubuntu, via Canonical, has clear commercial interests to pursue, Fedora or other community distro does not. There's no point in talking about "marketplace" where they are concerned. There's no advertising, no customers to win over, no marketshare. There are only people who use Fedora and contribute to it because it scratches their itch best.

Some of those people may be concerned about what the average non-geek user wants, but most of them don't care. I'm not saying there's a complete disregard for usability; after all, the geeks are humans too. But I'm saying that there's no drive to actively push one distro in front of another, unless you're a zealot.

Competition between open community distro's is simple and practical: the people use the one they like best. They don't fight with artificial means of promotion because they're not selling anything.

Therefore I submit that the article is null, because it discusses a non-subject. Not to mention it's downright ignorant in places. For example, what do Nautilus supposed shortcomings have to do with Fedora? Gnome is a different project, and Nautilus is a separate team inside it. The fact that the author chastizes Fedora for it just goes to show that he doesn't get it; Fedora is not a commercial company like Microsoft, where a central entity controls features in every component. A free distro is a combination of thousands of ready-made components made by third parties.

Edited 2007-12-08 05:58

Reply Score: 4

rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

...that's the *only* way any distro will "dethrone" Ubuntu. It's disappointing the way Dell offer their Ubuntu machines (different model, well hidden on their Web site, not offering the same discounts as Windows boxes - i.e. the same accidentally-on-purpose "mistakes" they made in their first effort years ago).

The only significant shift in the market will happen when a major OEM both pre-install *and* fully promote a Linux distro on their desktops. It hasn't happened yet and until it does, discussing "dethroning" Ubuntu is pointless when we're talking a few percent of the pre-install OS overall PC market share across ALL Linux distros in total.

Reply Score: 10

Linux on the Desktop
by Clinton on Fri 7th Dec 2007 07:34 UTC
Clinton
Member since:
2005-07-05

We can write shloads of articles about why Ubuntu (or Linux in general) is or isn't ready for the desktop, but it doesn't do any good. Linux won't be "ready for the desktop" until it is a Windows clone, complete with C:, Windows application support, and comes on their Dell Platitude.

Why?

Because Average People don't want to learn how to use a computer. They just want to run programs, and they happen to be familiar with Windows and Windows programs.

I think if Linux were to outshine OS X (which is the most user-friendly OS out there) people would still stick with Windows, because that's what they know.

Linux desktop readiness is highly subjective. I've used Linux as a desktop system since 1994. To me, it has been ready since the first release of Slackware came out.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Linux on the Desktop
by Jack Burton on Fri 7th Dec 2007 07:58 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"Linux desktop readiness is highly subjective"

Indeed. Just like Windows readiness is. In reality, the only reason people seem to think linux isn't ready for the desktop is that it's different from windows. And since many people are just used to windows, they fear what's different.

If you take a person who never used a computer, it doesnt' make any difference if you install Windows XP or Ubuntu on his machine. Except that he won't probably get hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing the internet if you choose the latter option.

Reply Score: 19

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that he won't probably get hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing the internet if you choose the latter option

sorry, he actually WILL still get the hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing...They just will not run.

The difference is that the selfish spyware/malware authors only make their applications compatible with Windows. The rotters, they should Linux versions of their goodies so we can all enjoy them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
The difference is that the selfish spyware/malware authors only make their applications compatible with Windows. The rotters, they should Linux versions of their goodies so we can all enjoy them.
"""

Ah, the old "Operating System Q would be just as dangerous as Windows if it had 90%+ desktop market share!" claim. In the case of Linux, at least, I would contest that. But... just for the sake of argument, let's accept it and see what it would mean if it were the case. The answer is: "Not much". For whatever reason, Windows users are in more danger. If their being more of a target is a factor, well... then that's a factor. Period.

Besides, in the absence of Windows, it is unlikely that such a monoculture could materialize,in the market place, around any other one OS. So the whole line of reasoning is really moot, anyway.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by siride on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Linux security is actually no different from Windows security. The only real difference is that...
"""

Read the post you are replying to. Why are you continuing to beat this dead horse?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Has its security really ever been strongly tested?
Direct link for this comment-


yes, yes it has.

Now either find out about it by using it, or stfu

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

hmmm, my post was meant as a joke. Clearly some people did not see this.

Anyway, I agree with you, it does not matter how many people use Linux, spyware and malware will not run on it, the creators will have to use social management to get users to install and run malware on it.

I too am sick of reading that shit about Windows having 90% of the market share, and if it was Linux there, then there would be way more virus and malware for that.... No, this is just plain wrong, in fact, I would go as far as to say that the people that make this claim have no understanding about operating systems, security or malware itself... They should, instead of trying to put down a system they are too stupid to use, spend some time learning how to secure their own systems, so that I do not get more spam offering to increase my penis size or to sell me 10000000 viagra for 35p.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

sorry, he actually WILL still get the hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing...They just will not run.


You've made not one but two grave errors here.

First, what you said is simply wrong. No, as a Linux user I don't get any kind of malware, from anywhere. My system is clean. It's not like the malware executables get on my HDD but they won't run, I don't get any stuff I don't want period.

Your second error has to do with a very dumb and outdated concept of what security is supposed to be about. Sadly, you are not alone. Most of the companies selling you security for Windows share your point of view. That point is that it's normal for malware to enter the system and that efforts should be made to contain it after that happens. I'm sorry but that's extremely stupid.

I much prefer the Linux or Mac OS X method, which says "malware doesn't enter, period". Isn't that much simpler? Why bother to track thousands of pieces of malware, dozens appearing every day, when you can simply make sure nothing gets in and be done with it?

Why do you think Macs and Linux are so secure? By dumb luck? No. They're secure because they're designed to be secure. They haven't approached security saying "I'll just let everything in my system and see what I can salvage later."

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I see you had your sarcasm detector switched off

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If it was sarcasm then it went right over my head. Please use a smiley or a tag next time. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by unoengborg on Wed 12th Dec 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

If you take a person who never used a computer, it doesnt' make any difference if you install Windows XP or Ubuntu on his machine

Yes, and this is basically the problem. The user who installs Windows will have access to more software in niche areas, e.g. accounting, tax calculation, CAD,...

He will also have a much better chance that that el cheepo piece of hardware he picked up at his gas station will work without any problems.

It may be true that there are more programs available for Linux, and that Linux have a broader hardware support, but that doesn't matter when the user still have to check on the internet if a certain hardware will work or not, or he can't find sofware that covers his special needs it doesn't matter how many mp3 players there are for Linux.

This network effect makes Windows a winner if everthing else is alike. To win Linux must be significantly better or easier to use. When that happens, it will get a large enough network of its own.

Today people are quite satisfied with windows XP, even Microsoft suffers from this by having very slow sales of Vista. So, another way for Linux to win over windows would be to create or solve new needs of the user.

Linux is ready for the consumer Desktop and have been that for a long time, the problem is that the consumer is not ready for Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux on the Desktop
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 7th Dec 2007 08:05 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I think the main problem with Linux is software. It has very few apps to claim exclusive ownership.

Windows has access to nearly all of the software available to the Linux platform in addition to the big name commercial apps.

Can Linux claim the same? Wine works well with some apps but not all. The only sure way is through virtualization, which is the same as just running Windows but as a second class citizen and vnc or terminal server. None of the latter solutions offer anything for 3D apps (as in gaming or 3d modeling)without spending big bucks.

Linux needs more developers and exclusive/killer apps that cannot so easily be ported to Windows. In the mean time it needs flawless interopability with the vast selection of commercial apps on Windows.

Edited 2007-12-07 08:09

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by Clinton on Fri 7th Dec 2007 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Linux has killer apps, but they aren't things most Windows users want to use. For me, BASH is a killer app and Windows lack of it is one of the biggest reasons I don't use Windows (Cygwin tries to compensate, but it really isn't ideal).

Also, Open Source software isn't about locking programs in to one platform like Microsoft does; which is what has made Linux a better platform than Windows is. Open Source is about freedom and giving the user the ability to make a program work how he/she wants it to work and on their preferred platform.

I don't think Windows users appreciate the huge benefit they have reaped from Open Source ideals and efforts.

Finally, I don't hear Linux users talking about whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop. We all know it is because we've used it as a desktop for years. It's the people who are sick of Windows and want a replacement that keep bringing the issue up.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by flanque on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Nobody but techs, boffins and tinkers will care about bash.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by gustl on Fri 7th Dec 2007 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Nobody but techs, boffins and tinkers will care about bash.

Wrong.
My wife asked me lately how to change the permissions of an entire directory branch including subdirectories.
She had seen me doing it using the shell and wanted to do the same.
I told her how, and now she uses the shell. Her statement: "This is just so much more efficient".

My wife is no tech by any means, but she is not stupid either. And to learn a few commands, so you have them handy whenever you need them is no big deal.

If you ask "why would an ordinary user want to change file permissions", the answer is: Keeping myself from accidentally deleting digital photos. But for red-eye removal you need to be able to write to the files.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by rockwell on Fri 7th Dec 2007 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//My wife is no tech by any means, but she is not stupid either. //

If your wife even *knows* what a file permission is, she *IS* a techie, by comparison to most women I work with.

*NOT* that the women are 'stupid' or 'dumb' ... just ignorant.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Linux on the Desktop
by ichi on Fri 7th Dec 2007 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

"*NOT* that the women are 'stupid' or 'dumb' ... just ignorant.

Most women I've worked with would prove you wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If your wife even *knows* what a file permission is, she *IS* a techie, by comparison to most women I work with.


Have you stopped to think that perhaps the definition of the average person shouldn't be "completely tech-dumb"? And that in this day and age the average person is expected to know a bit more tech stuff? I don't think that file permissions is a more difficult concept than traffic rules, and we all know something about those. Why not about file permissions?

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Linux on the Desktop
by stestagg on Sat 8th Dec 2007 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux on the Desktop"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Traffic Rules, what rules? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by merde on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
merde Member since:
2007-04-05

But it's not a problem. If you get used to THE SAME software on both platforms, it would be easier to switch to Linux exclusively. Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp - I use it every day on both platforms and that suits me just fine.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 7th Dec 2007 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

But it's not a problem. If you get used to THE SAME software on both platforms, it would be easier to switch to Linux exclusively. Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp - I use it every day on both platforms and that suits me just fine.


If that were true Linux would be more popular right now. Unfortuantly, marketshare speaks for itself.

What actually happens is some people embrace the open source offerings on their existing platforms and dont bother to try Linux. This is completely appropriate to the ideals of open source but offers no incentive for Linux adoption and therefore no incentive for 3rd party developers.

People are smart enough to relize that it would serve them little purpose to migrate to a different OS and be forced to learn all of it's querks/differences, just to have the same apps they have been using before on Windows, yet no access to those "other" apps--also used.

If Linux is ever going to be anything but an alternative for those who hate Microsoft then a movement needs to form that is soley dedicated to Linux/Unix and develop exclusive apps to showcase.

Edited 2007-12-07 21:50

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 7th Dec 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

If that were true Linux would be more popular right now. Unfortuantly, marketshare speaks for itself.

What actually happens is some people embrace the open source offerings on their existing platforms and dont bother to try Linux. This is completely appropriate to the ideals of open source but offers no incentive for Linux adoption and therefore no incentive for 3rd party developers.

People are smart enough to relize that it would serve them little purpose to migrate to a different OS and be forced to learn all of it's querks/differences, just to have the same apps they have been using before on Windows, yet no access to those "other" apps--also used.

If Linux is ever going to be anything but an alternative for those who hate Microsoft then a movement needs to form that is soley dedicated to Linux/Unix and develop exclusive apps to showcase.


I'd also like to add:

Most people care about applications not operating systems. Linux users like us, care more about the operating system and ideology than the applications because the applications just aren't very interesting nor exclusive to the platform.

This is in complete contrast to the typical, no techy Windows user.

Edited 2007-12-07 22:05

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Where did you ever get the idea that a Linux user clings to Linux out of abstract love for the OS? We all need applications, what do you think we'd do, stare at the blinking cursor of Bash all day long? If there were not enough applications for Linux we wouldn't be using it, it would just be an academical OS. The ideology and the OS are just bonuses.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Dec 2007 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That is actually a major problem is linux advocacy. You have people who assume that if they can sell you on the idea of open software, they can sell you on the idea of linux. This is far from true, there is plenty of open software on windows and mac. Switching to firefox will get someone no closer to switching to linux.

Same thing with open formats. This is why everyone is flipping out about OOXML, because instead of selling governments on the importance of an end to end open platform, all the advocacy has been focused on open formats, assuming that the rest will follow and that MS will sit still and not respond to market pressure.

People need to focus. If you have decided you are going to be a linux evanglist, don't try to sell people on firefox for windows, sell them on linux. If you are trying to push for open software in governaments, push for open software, not just formats. If you are trying to sell the FSF ideology, dont even bring up specific software.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Linux on the Desktop
by Savior on Sat 8th Dec 2007 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02


People need to focus. If you have decided you are going to be a linux evanglist, don't try to sell people on firefox for windows, sell them on linux. If you are trying to push for open software in governaments, push for open software, not just formats. If you are trying to sell the FSF ideology, dont even bring up specific software.


I disagree. Open formats are _everything_. I am using Linux, and I am using it because of the ideology (and because it is much more logical and easy to handle _for me_). However, it is my decision. In a perfect world with open formats, that could really be a personal preference. It wouldn't matter if I used Linux, and my friend/customer/etc. Windows, because we could exchange data easily. There would be no driver problems, if the specifications were open; or at least, much less.

Yes, in case of a governments, trying to sell Linux (or OOo) too is good, because it's cheaper. But I don't mind other people using other systems, as long as I am not locked out because of proprietary tricks.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

The only sure way is through virtualization, which is the same as just running Windows but as a second class citizen and vnc or terminal server. None of the latter solutions offer anything for 3D apps (as in gaming or 3d modeling)without spending big bucks.


"Big bucks"? Where did you get that? You can get VMWare or Cedega for very reasonable prices. They have a lot of 3D features and drivers. And you will get them at some point in Wine and QEMU, for free. But work advances slowly because there's a lot of reverse engineering to do.

And I don't think you're really up to how good virtualization and emulation has become these days. Kernel support has made it so Windows XP running under QEMU on Linux is undetectable from it running natively, in terms of speed and features. I no longer boot Windows unless I want to play a game that won't run otherwise. For everything else I run "qemu -hda /dev/hda7 -kernel-kqemu" and up pops the Windows XP installation in a window on my Linux desktop. Complete with USB devices, sound, file sharing between the virtual machine and the real machine, and of course networking. Yes, the actual Windows installation, on a different partition, not a virtual image.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 8th Dec 2007 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I know how "good" virtualization is but it still wont play my games unless I move to the Mac platform and use Parallels or Fusion. There isn't anything equivalent for Linux yet, nor are there any 3D remote desktop solutions that are reasonable prized--I think Citrix is working on one but just imagine how expensive that will be for a home user.

Edited 2007-12-08 08:12

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

*shrug* PC-based gamers are a small market when compared to consoles and the Linux subgroup is even smaller. So the only help will have to come from those who work at reverse engineering DirectX. It will take another while, but it will come. Still, I expect that playing the latest game on Linux may be a longer way in the future even. That's how it is, no use fussing over what cannot be helped. I prefer to rejoyce at what Wine and QEMU did achieve.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by walterbyrd on Sat 8th Dec 2007 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

Linux needs more developers and exclusive/killer apps that cannot so easily be ported to Windows.

But doesn't that conflict with the open source philosophy? Practically all the popular applications for Linux are F/OSS. And being f/oss means they can be fairly easily ported to Windows.

This situation makes it virtually impossible for Linux to ever catch up to windows in terms of applications.

As far as I can see, the only thing that could change the situation is browser based apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux on the Desktop
by torbenm on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:44 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
torbenm Member since:
2007-04-23

What is it that makes people think Windows is oh-so-easy for Joe Average to use? I find Windows difficult to navigate and it is almost impossible to figure out what to do when something doesn't work.

I'm not saying Linux is any better here. I'm sure most Linux users can figure out how to fix problems, but that is because most Linux users are experienced computer users or even have an IT education.

So I agree with the article that what is needed is something that works out of the box and where installing new hardware (a printer, a camera, etc.) is just a matter of plugging it in and following a few simple instructions -- nothing like editing a config file, just clicking a few choices or making sure the computer is on the Internet, so drivers etc. can be automatically downloaded and installed.

Running new software should, ideally, not even require am installation step: Just download it and it is ready for running -- or if you have it on a CD, you should should be able to run it directly from the CD without copying it to the hard drive. My old 1980's home computer could do it, so why not modern computers?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by Dekkard on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

Nice comment. I would like to add,, I am a somewhat experienced Ubuntu user.. since warty. I have no IT education. I am currently running Gutsy on a hand me down Dhell with an 800 mhz p111. I have done zero configuration from the command line, and have not had to manually edit one config file. My 13 yr old uses this box for her homework, email, and (gag) Myspace. My wife uses it to do all her email, browsing and work correspondence. When we game, we either use an ancient PS2, or a GameCube. As far as I am concerned Ubuntu is utterly desktop ready. (BTW.. because this thing is so old..they use XFCE4, I use Wmaker)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Linux on the Desktop
by Joe User on Fri 7th Dec 2007 11:10 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Amen to that. If it weren't true, everybody would be using OS X. People are like mentally tied to Windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Dec 2007 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

People aren't mentally tied to windows, they just don't want to learn more then they have to. If they have to use windows at work, they want the same thing for home because they already know it.

This is why any difference from windows is considered bad by most people, because being forced to learn something new is not what they want to sign up for. OSX is vastly more appropriate for most home users, but they will never go for it because it involves new ideas.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

People who don't like to learn new things are just sheeps and monkeys. They go through the same routine and if something changes they're completely lost. That's a pathetic trait in any human. That's what you get for dependence on Windows and school training in Windows because "that's what the industry uses": an endless cycle of robots instructing robots to follow the same footsteps.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by anda_skoa on Sat 8th Dec 2007 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

If they have to use windows at work, they want the same thing for home because they already know it.


So, under this theory, every migrated Linux desktop in a corportate or governmental office will almost certainly lead to a respective Linux desktop at home?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Dec 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Thats how windows got to where they are now. Mac dominated the home and education sectors, windows dominated the office. As more and more "average" people started using computers, they chose windows because it was what they knew.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Linux on the Desktop
by anda_skoa on Sat 8th Dec 2007 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Mac dominated the home and education sectors, windows dominated the office.


Probably where you are from.
Here in Austria people went from "home computers" (C64, Amiga, Atari ST) to PC/DOS and then to Windows. Apple never had any significant market share back then.

I am not very convinced about this theory of "office implies home".
Until Windows XP office computers mostly ran Windows NT or 2000, but almost nobody used that at home but Win95 or Win98.

People buy for their own private use whatever the OEMs are selling them, e.g. Vista even when their offices are using XP.

And I also have a hard time believing that all those 20.000 something workers at Peugot who get their desktops migrated will buy a Linux machine the next time they are shopping for the personal use.
Would be nice of course, but not gonna happen.

The influence of office equipment on private purchases is highly overrated. It might be helpful when you need to do "work" at home as well, but more often the "being like what I have to use in the office" is rather a drawback than a bonus.

Apple successfully used this stigma in their "I am a Mac - and I am a PC" comericals.

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux desktop readiness is highly subjective.


Maybe whether something is ready, doesn't actually matter. Instead of a jihad against another group, just use what works for you. You like Linux, then install it. You like Mac OS X then go out and buy a Mac, like Windows then go with the status quo.

I don't why there are certain people who think that they must promote their operating system, and some how, in some way gain something out of promoting it. If people are genuinely interested in Linux, they would investigate it. People are interested in alternatives, look at the growth in Mac sales, for instance.

In the case of Linux, instead of looking for the simplistic reasons for why it hasn't taken off; how about asking the tough questions. Simply whining about OEM vendors not bending over isn't going to change things.

Apple learned the hard way, but once they addressed the deficiencies in their product line up sales started to take off. The same thing will occur once the 'linux vendors' start to address long standing issues rather than spending time looking for others to blame.

Reply Score: 3

aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

"Instead of a jihad against another group, just use what works for you. You like Linux, then install it. You like Mac OS X then go out and buy a Mac, like Windows then go with the status quo. "

Exactly. I've found that for myself Ubuntu and a virtualized XP are the best bang for the buck. Others may find another combo like MacOS and say virtual {insert linux flavor here}.

It's all about choices. Ubuntu has increased the desktop choices by 1/3 (Windows, Mac, Linux) where the other distributions havent. Maybe some day they will, but today not so much.

"n the case of Linux, instead of looking for the simplistic reasons for why it hasn't taken off; how about asking the tough questions."

I disagree that it hasn't taken off. Sure it's only on a handful of vendor machines, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that it's not popular. I know many many people that have chosen it based on word of mouth alone.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly. I've found that for myself Ubuntu and a virtualized XP are the best bang for the buck. Others may find another combo like MacOS and say virtual {insert linux flavor here}.

It's all about choices. Ubuntu has increased the desktop choices by 1/3 (Windows, Mac, Linux) where the other distributions havent. Maybe some day they will, but today not so much.


I've recently had a noisy at OpenSolaris/Indiana, and when that is released people will have even more choice - something you can never have too much of ;)

I disagree that it hasn't taken off. Sure it's only on a handful of vendor machines, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that it's not popular. I know many many people that have chosen it based on word of mouth alone.


In terms of sales there were leaked numbers from Dell, lets say they weren't all that good compared to their Windows sales.

At the end of the day, though, OEM's need to get their act together. I find it a double standard that the bundle applications with their windows machines and yet they do little to improve the standard linux distribution.

Lets imagine fore a moment that Dell's Ubuntu machines are loaded with Ubuntu, and pre-installed there was the Lindvd player (which is only available to OEM's), licence codec's off Fluendo for various media types.

What I see isn't a lack by Linux vendors but a lack of drive by OEM's to actually spend the same amount of time and effort actually creating an integrated bundle as they do with their Windows machine.

I am definately sure that if Dell turned around and provided all of the above - and lets go out on a limb and say they included Notes 8.0 for their Office Suite/Collaboration Suite, and sold it at the same price as their Windows machines, you would have alot of sales inquiries - heck, even I would consider purchasing one!

Edited 2007-12-07 14:02

Reply Score: 1

RIchard James13 Member since:
2007-10-26

I think this is more of a problem with Dell than either Linux or Microsoft. Dell just can't be bothered to do it right but I'm sure there are many companies that are willing to do it right and are envious of Dell's position in the Computer Supply Market. But they won't topple Dell by getting just Linux right. There are probably other flaws in Dell's business model they would be working on.

If you are looking for a good Linux Machine there are much better companies to work with. Of course with Dell being a major supplier this then reflects badly back onto Linux.

So we wait for either Dell to get their act together or for another company to take their place that can do it right.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Linux on the Desktop
by asdx24 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:45 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
RE: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:03 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Because Average People don't want to learn how to use a computer. They just want to run programs, and they happen to be familiar with Windows and Windows programs.


By this logic, we should've never moved out of the caves. They were good enough, we just wanted to keep out of the rain, and we were familiar with them. No need for modern houses, right?

Well I say the hell with those Average People you speak of. They're sheep. I don't see why they should be given any choice in the matter. If they don't care what they're using then they should leave the decision to those who care and actually try to imagine new things, and meekly follow them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by DeadFishMan on Sat 8th Dec 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Well I say the hell with those Average People you speak of. They're sheep. I don't see why they should be given any choice in the matter. If they don't care what they're using then they should leave the decision to those who care and actually try to imagine new things, and meekly follow them.

Hell, yeah! Sometimes I want to scream this out loud to some people in this site. All this excessive focus on the "average user" sometimes feels like we're constantly awarding mediocrity. Well said!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Linux on the Desktop
by Robocoastie on Sat 8th Dec 2007 16:42 UTC in reply to "Linux on the Desktop"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

You're absolutely correct. I say let those who wish to be ignorant continue to pay the piper (msft). But the rest of us have to keep a close eye on the piper that he doesn't get government even more convinced to pass more laws which shores up his monopoly making it more illegal just for us to use our own machines.

Reply Score: 1

What IT Would It?
by dwave on Fri 7th Dec 2007 07:54 UTC
dwave
Member since:
2006-09-19

<rant>
Not much, if you ask me. Only someone who is not just familiar with Linux since yesterday. That is already enough.
Also, the article's assumption "king of the Linux distros" is not quite right. Ubuntu is not a distribution in it's own right - it's a debian remix with some tools and bugs added and polished for a better user experience.
The biggest market share belongs to Red Hat. At least the market where money is being made. Ubuntu is nice for the desktop at home.
</rant>

Reply Score: 2

Not again!
by ralph on Fri 7th Dec 2007 08:01 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

Oh no, not another dumb, useless, uninformed rant of an article that presupposes a point as self evident so that it doesn't have to argue it and tops it all off with sloppy reasoning and uniformed ramblings.

Really, this is getting boring.

Just two examples:
Where Fedora falls short, however, is with their offering of the GNOME desktop. Nautilus (the file manager), when used from the Places menu or with a self created folder, provides zero options for a location bar to browse to different areas of the desktop. Yet if you go to Nautilus from Applications, System Tools, the provided link to Nautilus there does provide the needed location bar – how about some consistency here!
While this may be inconsistent, I'm pretty sure of all the reasons why Fedora isn't going to get 50% market share over night, this is the least one.

Also, Linux products that provide Flash and Java out of the box. Violating the GPL, you say?
No, honey, I don't say and nobody ever did. Shipping Flash and Java does not and will never break the GPL and nobody ever claimed it did. How about getting some basic knowledge the next time around before you write an article?

Reply Score: 22

huh
by hraq on Fri 7th Dec 2007 08:04 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Many people are looking to Ubuntu to be something that it is not: A mass market ready operating system designed to work with the same level of compatibility as Microsoft Windows."

Ubuntu is a mass market ready OS designed to sterilize our computing from viruses, bacteria, bugs, parasites, protozoa, zombies that we got used to with windows; while in the same time maintaining its ability to install on very cheap hardware that won't cost a leg and arm like in Macs; and finally giving us at least 50% of software features that exists combined from all platforms.

I could safely say that if you add all the features of all existing platforms out their and try to see how much of those featyres consumers use, you would definately find it not more than 10%; eg: If you took MS office suite that includes word, excel,outlook, powerpoint and try to conduct a search which app of these most people use in office, then you will end up knowing that its outlook! and of outlook just 10% of features are used (maily mail section; not tasks, not notes, not RSS, not...)

So linux in general and ubuntu in specific is the origin the computing is based on.
I can get windows(XP,Vista) emulated inside of vmware 6 under ubuntu and get compatibilty of all applications like financial application which lacks in linux (Peachtree Accounting, Sage ACT, Quickbooks, and others and others)
So, ubuntu is more than ready and the only thing that makes it less appealing are:
1. big OEMs don't want to integrate for them.
2. big Software Companies don't want to code for them.
3. big hardware companies don't want to code for them.

Reply Score: 7

RE: huh
by Coxy on Fri 7th Dec 2007 08:25 UTC in reply to "huh"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

4. Joe Average has never heard of Ubuntu or Linux and isn't even slightly intersted in switching OSs, mainly because he has no idea what an operating system is.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: huh
by dwave on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE: huh"
dwave Member since:
2006-09-19

I disagree. With Vista being the preinstalled mainstream OS you hear much more discontent from Joe Average together with a rising interest in alternatives.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: huh
by angelochoa on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh"
angelochoa Member since:
2006-11-20

Yes , Windows XP SP3

Reply Score: 1

RE: huh
by Soulbender on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:43 UTC in reply to "huh"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So, ubuntu is more than ready and the only thing that makes it less appealing are:
1. big OEMs don't want to integrate for them.
2. big Software Companies don't want to code for them.
3. big hardware companies don't want to code for them.


You know, those are pretty good arguments *against* Untuntu's maturity.

Reply Score: 4

RE: huh
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Dec 2007 01:33 UTC in reply to "huh"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Due to architecture (or lack thereof), linux is far safer from malware then XP. That changed with Vista and UAC, in fact it is now the other way around (unless your distro has something like SELinux up and running). The difference now is the size of the target.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: huh
by aitvo on Sat 8th Dec 2007 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE: huh"
aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

How naive, there are viruses for vista already. Not many, but they exist.

http://search.mcafee.com/search?q=Vista&site=us_site.Virus&num=10&s...

It's never been about target size, there have been more viruses for Windows since there has been a Windows. Shoot, I remember viruses for DOS! Where were the Amiga viruses or the Mac viruses? They are older than Windows, they were as popular as DOS so where are they? Linux has been available since 1991, with the number of anti-linux zealots out there there if it was possible there would be more viruses. The facts here are that Windows security was practically non-existent until Vista (maybe even XP SP2). It wasn't until Microsoft finally decided to focus on building good code that they managed to get a handle on the whole issue.

To believe otherwise is just wrong, a little bit of homework on the sheer reduction in viruses since XP SP2 would bring you to the same conclusion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: huh
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE: huh"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Due to architecture (or lack thereof), linux is far safer from malware then XP. That changed with Vista and UAC, in fact it is now the other way around (unless your distro has something like SELinux up and running).


Yeah, tell you what, let me know when there's a version of Windows that needs no firewall and antivirus and antispyware, and then I'll agree that things have changed in the Windows world and that it finally compares to Linux and Macs in terms of security.

Edited 2007-12-08 06:45

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: huh
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Dec 2007 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

When mac or linux reaches an 85%+ marketshare, they will need that junk too. You would have to be pretty retarded if your goal is to do maximum damage, and you aim for a 1% marketshare os.

And neither linux nor mac is all that great when it comes to security either. If you want security, you go for something like openbsd

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: huh
by aitvo on Sat 8th Dec 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh"
aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

Purely speculation, your opinion has no basis in fact.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: huh
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Dec 2007 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Its not like there is no 0-day exploits for linux or mac. Its not like linux or mac are especially secure by nature, especially compared to vista. All three are more or less at the same level when it comes to security technology. So what is the difference?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: huh
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 8th Dec 2007 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: huh"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Most distros harp about security just being running as user but we hear about security vulnerabilities that can be exploited even as user.

I use Fedora and I believe it's one of the few distros that offers a complete and comprehensive security platform with SELinux (Mandatory Access Control), Exec-Shield, Buffer overflow protection and other security innovations.

Edited 2007-12-08 17:34

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: huh
by RHCE07 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: huh"
RHCE07 Member since:
2007-12-08

I use Fedora and I believe it's one of the few distros that offers a complete and comprehensive security platform with SELinux (Mandatory Access Control), Exec-Shield, Buffer overflow protection and other security innovations.

I also use Fedora at work/home all the time, however is SELinux installed in Ubuntu by default I really don't know?

I use SELinux and I believe it is an excellent tool and provides an extra layer isolating the system from contexts that are not allowed. Really it is not different than permissions in using it, learning the base concepts and applying them. I have implemented it at work on 2 new RHEL5.1 Servers and they are facing the internet, not saying they are hack proof but this does ensure more security protection than having it just 'turned off' like I read a lot of users doing...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: huh
by aitvo on Sat 8th Dec 2007 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh"
aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

Linux has been around since 1991, of course there are. There aren't many though, I'd say it's doing pretty damned well.

Reply Score: 2

elanthis
Member since:
2007-02-17

In reality, the only reason people seem to think linux isn't ready for the desktop is that it's different from windows.


The only reason people seem to think that Linux is ready for the desktop is because they're too disconnected from what regular people want out of their computer.

Linux is ready for my desktop - has been for 5 years. It might even be ready for grandma's desktop, since all she does is check email and play Yahoo card games.

I've done a number of Linux installs for people, and every single one of them has been "upgraded" to Windows XP (or even Windows 98 just a few days ago - the friend in question didn't own a copy of XP) because Linux failed to do any one of the following:

- Run popular games actual gamers want to play
- Run unpopular games actual gamers want to play
- Run popular games wanna-be gamers want to play
- Actually have acceleration on the popular games Linux has native versions for or which Wine supports at Gold status on hardware than accelerates the games just fine on XP/98
- Install Linux-native games like NWN without requiring to open a command shell, copy a shell script off the install CD, open the script in an editor to update it for various differences in system configurations distros ship these since NWN was released, and manually execute the fixed script
- Watch any of the hundreds of thousands of WMV9 pr0n^Wmovies people put online without weird skipping, audio codec issues, color space corruption, etc.
- Have a system that crashes less often (I kid you not, my roommate's XP machine has not crashed once in the last year, while my Linux box manages to hit driver bugs, X.org bugs, GNOME bugs, or various other bugs that force me to reboot or at least restart X, which on a desktop is really no different than rebooting; and no, none of these are hardware issues, it's just the "new features are more fun than bug fixes" development cycles)
- Run cool games
- Run goofy little freeware download games that casual gamers want to play
- Actually be able to install the OS (I can't get the stupid-ass Ubuntu LiveCD to work on a number of machines for which the ancient XP pre-SP1 CD works just fine for)
- Boot up in under 10 seconds (it takes longer for GNOME to start after enterting my password in GDM than it takes for XP to get to a usable desktop from the moment I power on the VirtualBox VM it runs in)
- Run popular games that real gamers want to play
- Run games

To sum up... no games. Also, more bugs.

The idea that Linux protects you from viruses is also laughable at best. Linux is safe from viruses because we users know not to do anything stupid. Windows users who don't do anything stupid also have absolutely nothing to worry about from viruses. I know people (roommate included) who have run XP since it came out without virus protection and have never once gotten a virus. Don't download stuff you don't trust, keep a firewall in place, and install updates and an XP machine will stay malware-free. It'll also crash less and run faster than a Linux desktop running tons of bloated half-finished always-in-development desktop apps that add almost as many new features as they do bugs with each release.

It's almost embarassing to show people my Linux desktop. I constantly have to make excuses like, "well, that's still in development," or "it's bleeding edge cool stuff, so still a little buggy," or "that might just be a config problem on my end, just ignore the crashing window manager," and so on. Sure, Linux the kernel is usually rock solid, but everything else we call "Linux" running on top of the kernel is total crap.

I used to be as much of a "you should be using Linux!" fanboy as the next geek years ago, but these days reality has sunk in: Linux is NOT ready for the average person's desktop. It doesn't do what they need and it isn't nearly as stable as we like to pretend it is. Your friends and loved ones would be better served by just shelling out $100 for XP than they would be by wasting countless hours of their life with an OS they're just going to replace to XP in the long run anyway.

Reply Score: 33

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Many PC users don't care about games apart from Minesweeper and Solitaire. Many serious gamers now get their fix from Next-Gen consoles. Many of the hit PC games can be played on Linux with Wine (albeit with a few months' delay).

Those who *require* Windows for gaming are a dwindling minority.

WMV9 movies? No problem - and I can play all video files from a *single* app, and not have to switch between WMP, Quicktime player and Realplayer.

XP more stable? Sorry dude, but it *is* hardware related. I've got 3 Linux PCs at home (two desktop and one laptop), each with different hardware, and they are *all* rock-solid. One acted funky for a while, turned out to be a problem with one of the memory chips.

Linux *is* ready for the average user's desktop, if that user doesn't require some specific software that only runs on Windows.

I have to say I am highly dubious that you have in fact done many Linux installs for people, or that you use Linux as a desktop, especially considering your comment about how the "idea that Linux protects you from viruses is also laughable at best". I'm rather of the opinion that you've falsely made these claims in order to bolster your FUD's credibility. Either that or you don't know what you're doing.

Personally, for having installed Linux on two friends' computers, and seeing them use their computes without any problems since (and not having to worry about spyware and viruses *at all*), I can tell you that Linux is ready for *a lot* of desktops, much more than you give it credit for.

Reply Score: 15

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Enough with your bullsh*t line about consoles, you are so far off from reality I have to question whether you even know what the hell is going on in the world of gaming.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if anything consoles have now separated the casual from the hardcore. But please do just ingore the whole reality that most of the games for consoles are targeted to kids. Please do ignore the simple fact that the people most serious who get involved in the different communities would laugh their collective @sses off with your statement. And while you are at it I suppose you can also just ignore the fact that some of the biggest games today are PC only, and will remain that way for years. And let us not forget that almost every true strategy game is for PC only. Let's chose to also ignore that any game for console will always be far limited compared to it's PC version. Oh wait, I guess I can play Forgotten Hope on console right? Or maybe some of the excellent work done by After-Hourz, those are all....no wait they are for PC as well.

But wait, I can just get Call of Duty 4 for console and play the AWE mod right...nope sorry, out of luck. So who do you think is buying the console versions? If you still think the PC is a dead platform, you are sadly mistaken. Casual Joe who buys a console to play the latest hyped games like Madden are not serious, they are just fools who need to follow trends (hence why it seems every year a good number of people are f**king dumb enough to actually camp out waiting in line to get the latest console). These people are not "serious", they are just idiots. I really do invite you to go out and visit some gaming sites with this argument, it will be good for a laugh..at your expense.

And one last thing, don't spread such bullsh*t that many of today's hit games can just be easily run through Wine. That is the worst kind of representation. You wish to imply that people can just drop Windows and move to Linux and run all their games and such is just pure bullsh*t. You either know this and knowingly lie, or have truly never used Wine.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Enough with your bullsh*t line about consoles, you are so far off from reality I have to question whether you even know what the hell is going on in the world of gaming.


Well, I obviously know more than someone who claims that console games are marketed mostly for kids. Have you even looked at the Xbox360 catalog?

And while you are at it I suppose you can also just ignore the fact that some of the biggest games today are PC only, and will remain that way for years.


A few exceptions, such as WoW, don't change the fact that the PC games industry is dwindling.

If you still think the PC is a dead platform, you are sadly mistaken.


Strawman argument. I'm not saying the PC is dead (in fact, the last game I worked on got a PC port), just that it's becoming increasingly marginalized when compared to the console market, by a factor of at least 6:1, last time I checked.

Don't take my word for it. Check the overall sales figures for console games vs. PC games. Oh, and chill out, will you? There's no need to be so aggressive, just because you're out of touch with the current state of the game industry.

And one last thing, don't spread such bullsh*t that many of today's hit games can just be easily run through Wine.


WoW and HL2 run. For many gamers that is plenty. Again, don't project your own tastes onto everyone else. I do acknowledge that it takes longer for games to be playable on Wine, but as soon as one becomes popular, developers work hard to make it available.

Anway, the fact of the matter remains: one can be a gamer and not use Windows at all. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 6

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I heard blizzard bans your account if you run it through wine, because they think you are trying to hack it.

Not only that, but wine is far from a push-button solution, even now. And even when you manage to get your game of choice running, chances are it will be buggier and look alot worse then running natively.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I heard blizzard bans your account if you run it through wine, because they think you are trying to hack it.
"""

The more I hear about Blizzard the more I find myself wondering why anyone would want to associate themselves with them. I guess it's kind of like smoking. Unless you're hooked yourself, other people's obsession with it seems pretty bizarre.

Reply Score: 2

sergiusens Member since:
2007-09-01

My brother plays WoW on Linux, and he's no techie, he just liked it at first (Linux) because of fluxbox and xmms... although he has recently switched to e17.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1852

"Maybe some of you have already heard the rumor about Blizzard banning innocent people. Well that is really true. On november 14/15 about 50% of all Cedega World of Warcraft players got banned with the false accusation of having used "third party software designed to automate many aspects of the World of Warcraft game play experience". Since then banned players are trying to get their accounts unbanned with the help of Transgaming staff, but no real progress was reached. For the public Blizzard states that Warden - the anticheat tool of World of Warcraft - would never give a false positive just because of using Cedega.

All the banned users who tried to apply to Blizzard to unban their accounts just got an autoresponse corfirming their ban. In the background Transgaming staff seems to work with Blizzard to reveal the true reason behind the mass ban and get the accounts of their subscribers unbanned again.


Caused a big stink awhile back

Reply Score: 2

Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Blizzard clearly states it is legal to run their games with Wine. It turned out users ban has to do with programmable keyboard that alter the game which has nothing to do with Linux/Wine. The guy was caught in action and used Slashdot as an excuse.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=381514&P...

http://www.blizzplanet.com/?action=news&id=616

Reply Score: 2

asdx24 Member since:
2007-05-17

Call of Duty 4 and all the Call of Duty titles works just fine in Wine.

Next time check http://appdb.winehq.org for application compatibility and if something doesn't work as you expect go to http://bugs.winehq.org and see if someone didn't report a bug yet, and if someone didn't report the bug yourself.

Call of Duty 4 in Wine: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=59...

Edited 2007-12-08 03:55

Reply Score: 4

asdx24 Member since:
2007-05-17

take a look for COD4 screenshots under Linux/Wine here:

http://78.108.96.64/wine/Call%20of%20Duty%204/

Edited 2007-12-08 05:49

Reply Score: 3

Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

"Personally, for having installed Linux on two friends' computers, and seeing them use their computes without any problems since (and not having to worry about spyware and viruses *at all*), I can tell you that Linux is ready for *a lot* of desktops, much more than you give it credit for."

I'd add to that even more so now that game consoles have become powerful computers. No longer is a windows computer needed to game. But there are still too many proprietary apps that only work in windows or run poorly in wine. Some killer apps for me for example is Dundjinni, and Fantasy Grounds 2 and Windows Media Center because MythTV is still a pain in the rear to use. All these "specialized" software adds up and made me abandon my Ubuntu 7.10 x64 partition because I was either dual booting into Windows too much still or having to fire up the virtualization software too often.

This isn't Linux's fault at all though; rather it shows just how good MSFT has been at promoting their SDK's for programs (including those that use java) to run in Windows instead of being programmed more generically and thus could run in other systems easier.

Reply Score: 1

Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I understand your comment and agree with a lot of what you said. I do have a couple of contrary comments though (towards Windows, not you)...

"Actually be able to install the OS (I can't get the stupid-ass Ubuntu LiveCD to work on a number of machines for which the ancient XP pre-SP1 CD works just fine for)"

I have a lot of new machines that the XP CD won't work on because of SATA drives and floppy drives having become extinct from my life about 8 years ago. I mean how stupid does a developer have to be to require a floppy drive to load add-on drivers, especially when floppy drives were already disappearing from systems when XP first came out?

"...WMV Porn..."

WMV files are the crappiest excuse for a video codec around. If it isn't good quality and cross platform, it just doesn't belong. WMV just sucks in both the audio and video department as well as the cross-platform one.

"...rant on boot times..."

Windows users have to boot their machines more than once? ;)

Anyway, when it comes right down to it. Who cares? Use what you like.

Reply Score: 2

JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

WMV just sucks

Which is why it's used for porn, dųh!

:-)

Reply Score: 6

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I have a lot of new machines that the XP CD won't work on because of SATA drives and floppy drives having become extinct from my life about 8 years ago. I mean how stupid does a developer have to be to require a floppy drive to load add-on drivers, especially when floppy drives were already disappearing from systems when XP first came out?


First off, try a USB floppy drive.

Secondly, there is no telling how old the install code is, and I'd guess it probably hadn't been updated since Win2000 if not since NT.

Just to spell out what I'm saying, it doesn't have SATA drivers because SATA wasn't a standard when the Windows Installer was written, and MS doesn't update all of their code when they release an OS.

Finally, you can roll you're own WinXP install disks with the drivers you need and current patches. Offically, it is called slipstreaming, and there are tools out there to do it.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/How-To--Slipstream-your-XP-install...

Reply Score: 1

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Okay you can roll your own. So I guess joe average has to actually learn something and eventhough rolling your own xp cd isn't hard by any means neither is downloading and installing an iso from any of the major distro sites.

Your argument failed from the beginning. Basically you are confirming what has already been said about the ease of use of distros like Ubuntu. The fact that your have to take these steps in-order to even install the OS clearly shows that Windows isn't as easy to use, install, deal with as people say or want it to be. Most Linux distros have made installation of everything as painless as possible, including basic software.

Now Joe average will most likely not have to deal with installing windows at all since they will primarily deal with OEM computer and that is really where MS's power lies. The OS as a whole is a mess, its unsecure, its unstable (usually from 3rd party source but that is something control MS should have coed from the start), its not particularly fast (especially after SP2) but its pre-installed and configured on almost everything. So if you have no choice as to what you use, you will use whatever they give you.

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Your argument failed from the beginning. Basically you are confirming what has already been said about the ease of use of distros like Ubuntu. The fact that your have to take these steps in-order to even install the OS clearly shows that Windows isn't as easy to use, install, deal with as people say or want it to be. Most Linux distros have made installation of everything as painless as possible, including basic software.


What are you talking about? There was no argument. It was an informative post. I was trying to pass on some knowledge I have, so no argument is there.

Linux distros don't have that problem because they are updated more often. If MS rolled out new releases every six months I doubt they would have the driver problem either.

I've never said that Windows is easy to use. In fact, it's incredibly hard to run correctly. My personal opinion is that Windows should only be run in a enterprise environment with a dedicated IT staff. This is the exact reason I don't do external tech support.

Vista's install is basically on par with Ubuntu's. It doesn't give you a live environment, but it's just as easy. XP needs a little more work. It's in between installing FreeBSD or Fedora.

As for the last part, meh. I really don't care that much. All of the major operating systems are poorly designed. Windows sucks, Mac sucks, and Linux sucks.

There I said it. They all make the assumption that the user is competent when most of the time they are not. The perfect consumer operating system would annoy the hell out of you or me since it would be so patronizing and locked down.

Bottom line. Computers are hard and should only be run by professionals; most people are idiots who don't want to learn anything. They should be given a sealed box with four applications, locked flash, and some room for storage.

Reply Score: 1

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

your average Joe will buy a computer with a bios that supports emulation to allow windows XP to install, it's only in rare cases that Windows XP won't read a SATA drive.

Reply Score: 2

Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

A regular floppy drive is cheaper. The point is I have absolutely no use for a floppy drive and it is stupid that XP can't load 3rd party drivers off of other devices; say a CD ROM drive.

Reply Score: 3

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

So carry a regular floppy drive around with a cable. I really don't care if you need one or not, I was just trying to help by offering solutions to the problem.

What can I say. It's old code, and I don't work at Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Also, why are all of these costly and painful workarounds for Windows XP acceptable, but setting a kernel flag or two while booting Ubuntu is beyond all reason (which is basically the point the post I was responding to was making)?

Reply Score: 6

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

First off, try a USB floppy drive.


What would I do with it the rest of the time? I should buy an USB floppy drive and only use it for the select task of installing Windows? Then tell you what, how about Microsoft throws one in with the Windows CD? That would be only fair.

Finally, you can roll you're own WinXP install disks with the drivers you need and current patches.


Oh goodie. Windows user friendliness at its best.

Reply Score: 4

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

What would I do with it the rest of the time?


Keep it in drawer in your desk maybe?

I actually keep one around just in case. It's just a tool of the trade. You'll never know when you'll need it, but when you need it you'll be glad you have it.

Now that I think about it, it's great for flashing BIOSes and working with network appliances.

Oh goodie. Windows user friendliness at its best.


I never said the solution was pretty. nLite is pretty easy though.

Reply Score: 1

J.R. Member since:
2007-07-25

"Actually be able to install the OS (I can't get the stupid-ass Ubuntu LiveCD to work on a number of machines for which the ancient XP pre-SP1 CD works just fine for)"

I have a lot of new machines that the XP CD won't work on because of SATA drives and floppy drives having become extinct from my life about 8 years ago. I mean how stupid does a developer have to be to require a floppy drive to load add-on drivers, especially when floppy drives were already disappearing from systems when XP first came out?


Well...I have given up installing ubuntu because of a bug in my desktop mainboard bios. Luckily for me this bug doesnt affect windows. Furthermore, I have given up running ubuntu on my laptop because it dies when I close the lid. Luckily for me this bug doesnt affect windows. See a pattern here? I love ubuntu and have used it for years, but the last couple of releases have made it impossible for me to use on any of my machines so I have been forced to go back to windows where at least it works. Unfortunately, these problems are not unique. I also used to be all "linux for the win!!" but then I just at some point stopped enjoying fixing problems and started to find that rather annoying since I didnt get any actual work done. Especially since all my friends and family which I managed to get to try linux distros instead of windows also had shitloads of similar problems which I had to fix.

Use another distro you say? Same or other problems.

Reply Score: 1

Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

There is usually a kernel flag you can add to the end of the boot string in Ubuntu.

I still fail to understand how a bug in your BIOS and a lack of desire to type in a kernel flag work around is Ubuntu's fault. If you want to run Ubuntu and can't, post your error and people will help you out. If you are just using it as an excuse to use Windows, why come up with an excuse at all? Just use what you like and be proud of it.

Reply Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well...I have given up installing ubuntu because of a bug in my desktop mainboard bios. Luckily for me this bug doesnt affect windows. Furthermore, I have given up running ubuntu on my laptop because it dies when I close the lid.


Have you tried Gutsy? Suspend used to be an issue on my laptop, it works wonderfully with the latest version of Ubuntu. In fact, the entire hardware on my Compaq Presario laptop (a very common model) works perfectly.*

As far as desktop goes, all the one's I've installed have worked like a charm, except when I had some flaky memory. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I think you're too quick in dismissing how much the hardware situation has improved with Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular, just because you happen to have problems with your two machines (as always, it pays to make sure your hardware is compatible before install).

What desktop/laptop models are you using? Are the bugs documented? Sometimes it's just a matter of checking the Ubuntu boards before upgrading, and waiting a bit if people who have the same hardware as yours are having issues.

*Note that there is still issues with suspend along with proprietary drivers on systems with ATI chipsets. There is a bug when you used those proprietary drivers with kernel 2.6.22. The cool thing, however, is that you can use previous kernels and *still* upgrade the rest of your system to gutsy (as you surely know, you can have more than one kernel installed at the same time - try that with Windows!). This is solved in kernel 2.6.24, I believe; the next version of the ATI driver is also supposed to address suspend issues.

Reply Score: 3

Vlad Member since:
2006-03-23

As far as desktop goes, all the one's I've installed have worked like a charm, except when I had some flaky memory. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I think you're too quick in dismissing how much the hardware situation has improved with Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular, just because you happen to have problems with your two machines (as always, it pays to make sure your hardware is compatible before install).


(should I be worried that the quote tags aren't working in the preview box? Guess I'll find out...and lesson learned.)

I lol'ed when I read that, as I spent a significant part of today trying to install Ubuntu on a Dell Precision 670 with an ATI FireGL V7100. First the boot splash crashed the system (no kernel panic, just a reboot) then after installing the proprietary drivers X refused to function properly. I finally switched to an nVidia card which worked flawlessly. But really, I've had relatively few problems installing Ubuntu (mostly on Dells and VMWare instances) until I try to do something fancy like dm-raid or software raid (the latter may be better in 7.10, haven't tried it). Note that doing these things in RHEL5 (and even 4) is cake.

I'm not unfamiliar with the HW support aspect of Linux (I've spent years configuring kernels by hand...) but it's nothing compared to Windows. It's not just supporting various chipsets; it's all the little things that *have* to work as well (many of which RELY on vendor supported software that's win32 only). In any event, it might be acceptable to say "Did you even READ the HCL?" to someone else running Linux, but you can't do that to "average" desktop users.

Edited 2007-12-08 11:08

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

In any event, it might be acceptable to say "Did you even READ the HCL?" to someone else running Linux, but you can't do that to "average" desktop users.


"Average" desktop users don't install Linux themselves, they'll have Linux installed by someone who knows enough to check the HCL. At best, they'll try the Ubuntu LiveCD, and won't install it if something doesn't work - or they'll buy a PC with Linux pre-installed.

Remember that people don't usually install Windows - it's already on the PC they buy. So in order to be fair in comparing the desktop readiness of the two OSes, one has to compare them according to the same yardstick...

I'm sorry to hear about your ATI troubles...now that it's part of AMD, they really seem to want to improve the driver situation. I'm curious, though, what method did you use to install the proprietary drivers? Do you remember what the error was? I've had some experience with ATI cards and chipsets, I might have been able to give you a hand - though in the end, you did the right thing and went for nVidia.

Is hardware support in Linux perfect? Of course not, though it does support much more hardware than, say, OS X. What can't be argued, however, is that hardware support has greatly improved over the last couple of years - but it seems the more it improves, the more people get picky...

Reply Score: 4

NathanHill Member since:
2006-10-06

I think the hardware support has been better, but it still is bad enough to turn me off of Ubuntu... even though I really wish it would work.

Of course, I think the next Linux distro that dethrones everybody will be the one that really narrows its focus hardware-wise. This is happening with Zonbu, EeePC, Walmart Linux PC and all - a special distro that matches directly with the hardware, so there won't be any real configuration that needs to take place. It just works.

I could imagine that would sort of be the Apple-like approach. The Linux distro might support 3 motherboards, 3 video cards, one common wireless chipset, one sata chipset, etc, etc.. That way, they can seriously narrow down bugs and focus on delivering an integrated, smooth user experience. I would buy a machine like that.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, you can just get a Dellbuntu, you're guaranteed that it'll work with the hardware.

How exactly has hardware support turned you off Ubuntu? I'm curious.

Reply Score: 3

MaxKlokan Member since:
2007-12-04

Anyway, when it comes right down to it. Who cares? Use what you like.

Amen!

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Anyway, when it comes right down to it. Who cares? Use what you like.

-
Amen!
"""

Could someone please forward that message to Redmond? ;-)

Edited 2007-12-07 16:39

Reply Score: 1

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Well said

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

To sum up... no games. Also, more bugs.


Most computer users aren't gamers.

Reply Score: 7

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Most computer users aren't gamers.


Furthermore, according to US gaming industry sales figures, most gamers are not PC gamers.

Reply Score: 5

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Don't say this out loud, or you'll get people here lashing out at you... :-)

Reply Score: 2

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If they are unwilling to listen to reason there's not much anyone can do. I would think it obvious that the PC is a general purpose machine and cannot compete with specialized hardware at its own game. Gaming consoles, multimedia equipment, multifunctional officeware, networking devices etc. will always vastly outsell PC's or PC software employed for the same purpose. The PC can be a nice cheap substitute for all of them, yes, but if you want maximum performance and quality and the full shebang you'll eventually go for the specialized stuff.

Reply Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well said!

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Oh come on, we all know PC gamers are much more "sophisticated" than the simpleton console gamers and that PC games are much deeper and richer. You know, like DOOM and Daikatana.
Am I right people?

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The only reason people seem to think that Linux is ready for the desktop is because they're too disconnected from what regular people want out of their computer.


Good thing we have use experts like you that can enlighten us. Funny how you make the same mistake as your alleged opponents: you generalize from your own limited experience to the whole computing population.

Reply Score: 10

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

The only reason people seem to think that Linux is ready for the desktop is because they're too disconnected from what regular people want out of their computer.


Thing is, your "regular" isn't everybody's "regular". My regular needs aren't your regular needs. My needs are almost fullfilled, and what isn't is work-related necessity (which also could be achieved under Linux btw).

The important bit is, what every "average" joe fails to see, that there should _not_ be an expectation that an OS is/should be good for everyone. Why should it ? Does anyone know how many different users are there ? Different goals, different skillsets, different expectations. You can't make a one size fits all OS. You can make one though which is good at many things, but there always be parts that someone will think sucks. You just can't avoid that. And remember, Linux comes from a coder's point of view (thankfully).

Linux is NOT ready for the average person's desktop.


One thing is for certain: the notion of "Linux" is what it is, and its definition won't quickly change, but what "average" means can change so quickly and frequently that keeping track of it will make you cry.

On a sidenote: on many levels Linux is "NOT ready for the average person's desktop" not because provides less, but because it provides more.

Don't download stuff you don't trust, keep a firewall in place, and install updates and an XP machine will stay malware-free.


You so easily contradict yourself. You expect that from those you call "average" ? Nice. And still you should add "hopefully" to the end of it.

everything else we call "Linux" running on top of the kernel is total crap


I'm sure many developers appreciate your opinion. I'm just using it, I still don't agree.

I've done a number of Linux installs for people, and every single one of them has been "upgraded" to Windows XP


Linux isn't for everyone, as like as Windows isn't for everyone either. If I'd had to count I probably recommended Windows more than Linux. Why ? Because if you want success, you should recommend them what they can use, not what you can.

Reply Score: 8

Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I find it strange that you insist on using Linux when you're so negative towards it.

I agree with you in the sense that Linux is sometimes unstable but these issues get ironed out as a distro matures during the lifecycle. From my observation, keeping up with the system updates dramatically improves stability.

But I definitely agree with your assessment about games and 3D applications. A combination of Wine and virtualization or a headless terminal server/thin client is nearly flawless at running non-graphical Windows apps. However, for 3D and games your stuck with Wine-type solutions and if they fail you are screwed.

OK... I take that back. You can use VNC to view 3D graphics because it just takes snapshots of the remote desktop and draws it on the client, without using any fancy lower-level drawing functions. So you could play 3D games at 1 FPS or so from VNC.

Maybe this would be a good time for someone to develop a cheap product that offers hardware accelerated OpenGL and DirectX access from Linux virtualization products and terminal server clients. Hint... hint.

Reply Score: 2

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

No need to take this into hardware, at least not the way you mean. Virtualization efforts are directed at tying the API's directly into the kernel and achieving as near-native speed as possible. Already the VM products, both commercial and free, deliver such solutions. And as for hardware support, it comes with modern processors, but in a generic form, able to be used for emulation in general, not just specific software or OS's.

The only hurdle left is reverse-engineering API's that Microsoft keeps a tight lid on, most importantly DirectX, and tying them to native Linux graphic drivers. Work on both is already well in progress. Of course, Microsoft's weariness at this is understandable. The moment Linux becomes capable of duplicating DirectX capability well enough it will be a staggering blow to Windows. And since it's open software, the capability will most likely make its way to Mac OS X as well.

Edited 2007-12-08 07:08

Reply Score: 2

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Not anything usefull?

Let me see:

I do:
- Email
- Web browsing
- Watching DVDs
- Transcoding music CDs to mp3 for my car player.
- Accounting household money transactions
- Word processing
- Spreadsheet calculations
- Presentations
- Photo editing (mostly red-eye removal)
- Stitching photos to form a panorama photo
- Sound editing (I sing in a choir)
- Musical score (notes) creation
- CAD drawing (2D) of furniture I build
- Backing up data on DVDs
- Play a round based tactical game
- Programming sometimes as a hobbie

I probably forgot something, but that is what I do with my computer.
Having to purchase commercial programs for all of this would cost me somewhere from 3000€ on upwards - and I only have budget for 1000€ every 5 years for my computing needs. Therefore open source software is my only legal way to get what I want. And using 98% open source software on Windows would feel awkward to me, so Linux is it in my case.

And when comparing Windows with Linux as a home-sysadmin, Linux fares far better.
Windows is like: OK all drivers are there, everything is installed, but for some reason something does not really work that well. Let's reinstall this, reinstall that.
Linux is like: OK, installed basic system + applications needed, but scanner/printer/whatever does not work. Browse the internet, learn something about the issue, change one or two lines in a file and everything works from then on. The machine is stable and I learned something.
Windows lets you try things, Linux educates you. Therefore Windows is easy for beginners who always stay beginners, Linux easily converts beginners to experts (which initially of course means some work).

Reply Score: 12

Odisej Member since:
2006-05-11

Like others have stated, your post sums up a lot of stuff that linux (Ubuntu) is lacking. I would just like to add my own thoughts on this. I am running Ubuntu and Fedora on my two computers while I had to (re)install XP/Vista on my wife's and my mother's computer. Here is why:

1. Crappy support for a webcam which my wife uses quite often,

2. Couldn't get voice over yahoo network to, well, work at all,

3. Cannot guarantee that the games mother likes to play (and downloads from the net) will work. Even under the latest version of wine.

Ok, these are only three problems which will eventually be solved. But for now... sorry. Linux is not a good alternative for my mother or wife. And they are NOT gamers.

I wouldn't trade my Ubuntu for anything. It is a wonderful system. The same with fedora. But both still have rough edges which need to be taken care of before any kind of linux distro is a viable alternative for an average Jane or Joe.

Edited 2007-12-07 14:20

Reply Score: 2

RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

Couldn't have put it better myself.
I've been running Ubuntu since Warty all those years ago and it just gets buggier and buggier with each release.

When I first started my path down the Linux track, it was on Redhat 6, I stayed with Redhat till version 9; then Fedora 1 was released, what a let down! Back in those days, once you got X and sound running on your flavour of video and sound cards, the rest was pretty stable.
These days the Linux desktop is a joke, Gnome and mono is a big joke and installing a buggy unpredictable Compiz by default is both irresponsible and stupid. How to drive away potential users in one fowl swoop.

The other thing that's become a huge pain in the rear end and something that was touted as one of Linux's best features, is upgrading. I think it went something like this. " Mate - Just install Linux, upgrading is a breeze, just apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade and you've got a whole new os and apps with no hassles". Well what a lie that's become! Not to say windows is any better in this department but the Linux fan boys will always bring up the argument of shared libraries and how upgrading and updating is made more efficient because of them. Well who gives a hoot if every time you do an upgrade your system breaks?

But in all honesty, I personally think one of the biggest hurdles for Linux in the desktop market is how to make money off of it? I know quite a few people that steer clear of it because they can't see how to make money if they write or port their software to it. Linux users are not renowned for paying for their software and expect everything for free - as in beer!

The free software community might work out ok for those devs working on big projects sponsored by the big corps, but it doesn't work for a small player, unless they're missing something?

Anyway, I'm still on Gutsy Gibbon even with all of its flaws because of moral reasons, but they're not enough to convince more people to use Linux on the desktop!

Reply Score: 1

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

"Linux users are not renowned for paying for their software and expect everything for free - as in beer!"

Not unlike Windows users.

Reply Score: 4

trooper9 Member since:
2007-04-27

One of the most thought out posts I've seen here in a while. Good read and thanks. You've just pretty much summed up my frustrations with the current popular linux offerings.

Reply Score: 1

valnar Member since:
2006-01-17

I agree, sort of.

I hardly play any games, but I use a plethora of Windows applications twice as long as any list under this topic to which there is *no* suitable alternative in Linux.

GNU/Linux has the potential to be the better operating system, but the very nature of it is too distributed and disorganized to ever manage a real battle against Windows. If Microsoft falls and Linux takes over, it won't be because Linux is superior. Mark my words.... it will be because Microsoft screwed up. That may be Vista, or maybe something later. But it will *not* be because of any superiority of Linux.

Reply Score: 2

LAGNAF Member since:
2007-11-09

I agree fully with most of your comments. I like using Linux; I also like using Windows (in varying flavors).

I still use a Win98/Me system for music work; converting and burning music in different formats. I also use it for converting all my old LPs to CD. It works without any problem, and has for seven years.

I use Win2K for business and document/production work for a home-based business (two, actually). The OS and apps have worked well for almost eight years.

I use WinXP on two laptops (they both came with XP pre-installed or I would have stayed with Win2K). There is nothing on XP that I really like enough to have actually spent cash on.

I have used WinVista at college; same impression as WinXP. No big.

I have used several different Linus distros and they have all been fun, and productive. My only complaint with most is entirely personal to the old HP computer I have. For seven years I could not find a Linux distro that would recognize my odd-ball sound card.

Kubunto (latest release) did that perfectly, as well as all other hardware on my computer. Ubunto, however, gave me EXACTLY the same problem you mentioned. It would not successfully install on five different machines on which attempted.

Things happen. My feelings on the matter; there is no one OS or desktop which does everything I want or need; those wants and needs are too varied.

I use one for music. one for office work, one for drafting and house design, one for development work, and so forth. To me, the OS is merely a part of the tool-set I use.

Reply Score: 1

Games?!
by judgen on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:02 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

I assure you that Cedega or latest Wine would run any windows game better than Windows 98 so that is just complete bull. Windows 98 does not even support SMP and also "more bugs" WFT are you smoking? There is no way in hell that Win98 has less fatal/critical bugs than Ubuntu. Also, Win98 cant use most new-style hardware even with all funky non-microsoft drivers and hacks, as it was never designed for the new technology. And with statements liks this "I used to be as much of a "you should be using Linux!" fanboy as the next geek years ago, but these days reality has sunk in: Linux is NOT ready for the average person's desktop." you proove that you still are the fanboy you claim not to be. Pff win9x could not hold a candle to any decent linux distro. Peace out.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Games?!
by PJBonoVox on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:13 UTC in reply to "Games?!"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

"I assure you that Cedega or latest Wine would run any windows game better than Windows 98 so that is just complete bull."

Even the ones that don't work on Cedega or Wine?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Games?!
by Coxy on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:29 UTC in reply to "Games?!"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Try getting the average user to use wine.

Also if I'm going to use special programmes to keep on using the same apps I used on Windows, why not just stick with Windows?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Games?!
by Jack Burton on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Games?!"
Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"Also if I'm going to use special programmes to keep on using the same apps I used on Windows, why not just stick with Windows?"

Because sticking with Windows means you have to reformat every two months ? (and this, of course, is an exaggeration, but you get the point).

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Games?!
by rockwell on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Games?!"
RE[3]: Games?!
by xxxspuddy on Fri 7th Dec 2007 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Games?!"
xxxspuddy Member since:
2007-05-12

Because sticking with Windows means you have to reformat every two months


Nah, this is just something that low quality techs will have us believe because they can't be bothered/don't know how to fix the actual problems.

Then if you re-install too many times, you are forced to call MS and explain to them what you are doing before they'll let you activate the install!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Games?!
by Jack Burton on Sat 8th Dec 2007 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Games?!"
Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"Nah, this is just something that low quality techs will have us believe because they can't be bothered/don't know how to fix the actual problems."

Indeed. In fact, I CAN fix the problem (I do that (but not only that) for work, but since the average user isn't a techie, he'll be forced to reformat.

"Then if you re-install too many times, you are forced to call MS and explain to them what you are doing before they'll let you activate the install!"

And this, again, speaks against windows.
I am forced to "please, let me reactivate" a software I have bought. Great.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Games?!
by Soulbender on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:38 UTC in reply to "Games?!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Unless you have a nvidia card Cedega sucks balls. For a fun time, try using Cedega with any 3D game on a laptop with an intel or ati chipset. Good luck with that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Games?!
by Googol on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:09 UTC in reply to "Games?!"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

I had a Cedega subscription for many years and your comment only goes to show that you didn't have one even for a day. I never had a game run properly, although that is not to say that Cedega is useless. It cannot run any game better on Linux because it only runs games very selectively to start with. Then you need to have nVidia not Ati; need to stick to their supported video driver revision, and generally to a certain distro release version, are screwed when the game receives and update, and are screwed in case one of a million other changes occur, yadda-yadda-yadda... I can go on for the rest of the day, but then I would need your bank details. I would have to invoice you on going all the way proving the obvious. Games is why I keep a Windows installation.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Games?!
by camo on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:45 UTC in reply to "Games?!"
camo Member since:
2007-10-08

I assure you that Cedega or latest Wine would run any windows game better than Windows 98


OMG! Are you for real? The latest wine? Do you actually play games or are you just making this stuff up. Windows 98 was never slow with games, it just crashed a lot.

Reply Score: 1

dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

you know that gamers still are a small group of users.
Linux is not ready for the gaming desktop.
Sad that you have Xorg bugs and that you haveto make excuses. Personaly i only buy hw that works well so i havent had those problem in years. The desktops i have installed linux at for others have never been upgraded to
XP, well some have been upgraded from XP to linux but then i have actuly considerd the users hardware and expectation before attempting such a install.

Reply Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

i have actuly considerd the users hardware and expectation before attempting such a install


...which is what you should always do in the first place - although I have to say that, apart with some issues that remain with ATI chipsets - the hardware situation on Linux has *dramatically* improved in the last three years. The printer auto-detection and setup on Ubuntu Gutsy is quite impressive: plug a printer, and you can automatically print with it. No need for driver installs for 99% of printers, and no need to "add" the printer. It just works. Installation of Broadcoam wireless drivers, modem drivers and proprietary graphics chipsets is also a breeze.

Reply Score: 4

RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

Oh dear. My HP 5l laser that's worked with every version of ubuntu, now doesn't work with this new system ;)
This printer is well supported in linux for years, these are the stupid bugs that people complain about.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, regressions *can* happen (and will likely be fixed soon); that doesn't mean hardware support as a whole isn't improving.

Reply Score: 2

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

'you know that gamers still are a small group of users. '

You do know that, in Europe, the games industry makes more money then music, books and dvd industries combined, don't you?

Have you seen what's happening in Asia to games players, there more popular then film stars, watching games being played has now become a spectator sport - really. It's going to happen hear soon, it's already starting in places.

Whether this is good or not doesn't matter, personally I think any parent that lets there children play computer games non-stop needs to be visited by a social worker. I've even seen people giving one or two year olds a computer, or sitting them in front of televisions instead of doing things with them.

Edited 2007-12-07 09:35

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Have you seen what's happening in Asia to games players, there more popular then film stars, watching games being played has now become a spectator sport - really.


South Korea != Asia. There are more countries here, you know, and for most of them what you say isn't true.

Reply Score: 4

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Other countries like Japan also have huge hard core gamer communities, hell some guy died a few years a go in an internet cafe while playing an online game non-stop without breaks for several days. They even kill each other over weapons stolen in-game and then sold on ebay.

If that isn't gaming taken to new levels, then what is?

Edited 2007-12-07 10:23

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You do know that, in Europe, the games industry makes more money then music, books and dvd industries combined, don't you?


Sure, it's a big industry but it also includes the consoles. The gaming industry isn't exclusive to Windows.

Edited 2007-12-07 12:06

Reply Score: 7

Ubuntu
by agrouf on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:47 UTC
agrouf
Member since:
2006-11-17

Ubuntu is the dominant linux distro thanks to its ship it program.
PCLinuxOS is a small distro.
Mandriva has the same control center and many more packages.
I don't care about joe user, but if someone ask me how to start with linux, I direct him to Mandriva because it works out of the box and look cool. If he is serious about linux, he'll then find a more useful distro.
If Joe user is happy with Windows, fine. Let him use Windows.
I want more, and I use Slackware, Gentoo or LFS. You can't begin to think about doing even half of what you can do with GNU/linux with Windows.
Joe user has very few needs, do Windows is fine for HIM. Just install an Anti-virus and a firewall. If Joe wants more, he'll ask. He can order Ubuntu through ship it or download Mandriva.

Edited 2007-12-07 09:50

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ubuntu
by OStourist on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:40 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

Mandriva is good but PClinux builds on Mandriva
and is actually #1 on distrowatch.
It has also doubled its userbase in the last 6 months.

Far less hype than Ubuntu but in many peoples opinions
far better(less configuration and works better overall)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
PClinux builds on Mandriva
and is actually #1 on distrowatch.
It has also doubled its userbase in the last 6 months.
"""

Could you please substantiate the doubled user-base claim with some hard evidence? What is your source?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ubuntu
by OStourist on Sat 8th Dec 2007 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu"
OStourist Member since:
2007-06-19

http://www.pclinuxos.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=58&topic=3...

There is a graph and a comment on it 6 or so posts down.

Edited 2007-12-08 01:30

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu
by camo on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:51 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
camo Member since:
2007-10-08

Ubuntu is the dominant linux distro thanks to its ship it program


YES YES YES! I've said this before without anyone commenting on it .

Try no shipit and see how they go. Me thinks not as good. Wish a few of the other distro's would have free cd's.

Reply Score: 1

The article made a lot of sence to me.
by Bully on Fri 7th Dec 2007 10:12 UTC
Bully
Member since:
2006-04-07

I dont like windows at all, but i still rather use it then linux because everything is so damn hard. And when it finaly works, and you mess with one little thing.. it's broke again and have to search like crazy about how to fix it.

And i'm a fairly exerienced computer user. If i am having trouble with it, then you can be sure that 'the avarage computer user' would as well.

An os should just work without noticing or having to configure it to much.

Edited 2007-12-07 10:13

Reply Score: 5

Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"I dont like windows at all, but i still rather use it then linux because everything is so damn hard. And when it finaly works, and you mess with one little thing.. it's broke again and have to search like crazy about how to fix it."

But at least, you can find how to fix it. On windows this isnt' always the case.


"And i'm a fairly exerienced computer user. If i am having trouble with it, then you can be sure that 'the avarage computer user' would as well."

No. Since you are a fairly experienced computer user, you are the kind of person who messes more with the computer, so you have more chances to break stuff. I could bring examples of people happy with Ubuntu (grandmas and grandpas), but I'm sure no one will be convinced anyway.

"An os should just work without noticing or having to configure it to much. "

I agree, but that, then, excludes windows from the list.

Reply Score: 3

People expect extreme userfriendliness.
by Kishe on Fri 7th Dec 2007 11:06 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

With linux I cant say "It just works" like I can say even with OSX.

Thats mostly fault of the Linux kernel...even a total dummy knows how to install drivers in windows, and you can do that without endangering your whole system going in to kernel panic state.

You still have to know how to manually edit system files, Joe Average doesnt want to spend hours twiddling with finding proper vertical sync line in xorg.conf to be able to get decent resolutions.

Just about every house has wireless these days...linux wireless usage is a nightmare.

If Linux ever wants to conquer home desktop, most difficult thing the Average Joe should have to do is press next, next, next, accept.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

even a total dummy knows how to install drivers in windows, and you can do that without endangering your whole system going in to kernel panic state.


If you've never had a vendor driver crash your system you havent used Windows for long or you've been very, very lucky. Interestingly enough I have never had to install or build a driver in Linux (or OpenBSD), the hardware has just worked, but I've had to manually install drivers with Windows. Where's my troublefree Windows experience?

You still have to know how to manually edit system files, Joe Average doesnt want to spend hours twiddling with finding proper vertical sync line in xorg.conf to be able to get decent resolutions.


Wow, this stupid stuff never dies, does it? It's been a long time since I had to twiddle with modelines and back then it was only because I was using a Sun (sync-on-green) monitor with a PC.
Unless you run some very obscure hardware you dont EVER have to twiddle with modelines or even touch xorg.conf.
Please, there are things wrong with the Linux desktop experience but this isn't one of them, something you would know if you had, you know, actually used Linux in the last decade.

Just about every house has wireless these days...linux wireless usage is a nightmare.


And the baseless accusations just keeps coming! The wireless experience is pretty much the same in Windows and Linux these days. Even my Ralink USB device works fine now and I dont have any problems at all using wireless. Heck, even WPA Enterprise with certificates, TKIP and mschap2 authentication works fine.
Again, you would have known this if you hadn't pulled your accusations out of your ass.

If Linux ever wants to conquer home desktop, most difficult thing the Average Joe should have to do is press next, next, next, accept.


I can see you have never installed Windows since it's a hell lot more complicated than that.

Reply Score: 4

trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

You are right. The problem with UNIX based desktops is that person that needs computer gets Windows PC in the nearest computer shop. The person probably doesn't care what is installed, as long as she/he can get the job done. They are not computer professional or enthusiasts, they are lawyers, brokers, designers....

It is a marketing failure. If one wants UNIX based desktop she/he needs to buy Windows PC, format hard disc and install something else.

Just like Windows, UNIX based desktops need proper marketing, and I don't mean advertising only. Without marketing only rare ones would have ever heard of something called "MS Windows".

If someone intends to reply with "marketing is evil" or something, please don't bother, I am not interested in that kind of conversation. I am UNIX and Linux user, I am interested in more UNIX based desktops, and I am interested in practical aspects of the problem, only.

Reply Score: 2

trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I am, but I havent tried it yet. Almost bought Masc this autumn. However, I am interested in traditional, X based UNIX desktops, in the first place. My first serious job got me involved with Solaris and SCO (before Caldera). When I think about computers, I got UNIX on my mind.

Reply Score: 2

More fantasy fiction
by moleskine on Fri 7th Dec 2007 12:15 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Ubuntu's been around long enough for the scales to have fallen from some eyes. It's a very good distro for sure, but it's not radically different from any other, and like any other distro it also has to battle with constrained manpower, resources, heaps of bugs and all the rest. There are plenty of alternative around, and they are not inferior to Ubuntu in any way.

These articles always come back to missing the same point: people don't run desktop Linux or BSD because they have or need to but because they want to. That's always likely to make them a minority. So what. They've no more right to impose their views on the majority than vice versa. These days it's also possible for a lot of folks to run a kind of halfway house, if they want: Windows as the OS but a great deal of open source software on top of it - open office, firefox and thunderbird, gimp, gtk apps, what have you.

So many people seem to think there's some kind of magic formula involved: if only X happened, then everyone would start using Linux, etc. No such thing. You can't make someone do what they don't want to do. But if you are up for it, then count your blessings: desktop Linux has reached a high standard these days and there is more good software to choose from than you could shake a stick at.

Reply Score: 4

......
by islander on Fri 7th Dec 2007 12:25 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

One day a co-worker,a Windows geek who knows nothing else besides that I am an ardent Linux user stopped me and asked,

"Is Linux better?"

I simply replied,

"Its different."

There was some silence then he walked away.

Windows users compare what Windows has achieved as opposed to what Linux can do.Linux users compare what Linux can do as opposed to what Windows has achieved.Better for Windows users mean can it take over the world better ? Better for Linux users mean can I be in more control of my world better?

If we cant see the difference between the two philosophies where Windows is an economic paradigm and Linux a technical philosophy then these woe be unto all of us.This applies to distro-whoring,distro-comparisons better etc etc whatever...

Point? Horses for courses.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ......
by camo on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:58 UTC in reply to "......"
camo Member since:
2007-10-08

"Its different."


Well done. This is good. It is different.

Reply Score: 1

Junk article
by aitvo on Fri 7th Dec 2007 12:43 UTC
aitvo
Member since:
2006-09-03

It makes bold statements, yet provides nothing to support them.

"Many people are looking to Ubuntu to be something that it is not: A mass market ready operating system designed to work with the same level of compatibility as Microsoft Windows."

Unsubstantiated opinion.

"I remain firm in my belief that Ubuntu is the top dog with regard to user numbers for two simple reasons."

Two more opinions.

Automatix does make Ubuntu easier to use, however that isn't what makes it popular. Recent converts that I know use the OS for days, loving the interface before I tell them about Automatix. They like it more afterwards, sure but they already loved it.

"Ubuntu has a long way to go before catching up to other closed source operating systems with regard to GUI usability."

Oh? How? The author doesn't elaborate.

"And no, Dell does not count. They have done nothing to promote Ubuntu whatsoever."

Opinions++ If you think it didn't help you are extremely naive. Dell releasing Ubuntu computers caused a stir all over the interweb.

"Ubuntu has other problems as well. For example, I grow tired of having to act as an apologist for totally avoidable bugs."

How, who the hell are you to grow tired of acting line an apologist for bugs?

Oh look, I click page 2 and there's the push for PCLinuxOS.

Just another zealot.

'nuff said

Reply Score: 3

dethroning ubuntu
by spikeb on Fri 7th Dec 2007 12:54 UTC
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

would take a two prong approach: build an excellent and polite community, and building another distro that's desktop-centered and packed with the little tweaks and whatnot that really make things click (three that come to mind are integrating browser add-ons into the package manager, using only user's password, and restricted manager.)

Reply Score: 2

OpenSUSE's fine too...
by madcrow on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:05 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

Stuff tends to "just work" and it's just as nicely polished. Since I prefer green to brown, I'll stick with OpenSUSE.

Reply Score: 1

Dethroning....
by mlauzon on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:23 UTC
mlauzon
Member since:
2005-07-25

It surprises me that everyone seems to forget Gentoo, it was dethroned by Ubuntu...so I do see Ubuntu getting dethroned; when I do not know but it'll happen.

Reply Score: 1

Ubuntu is not windows
by agrouf on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:38 UTC
agrouf
Member since:
2006-11-17

It's not the same trade of functionality vs simplicity.
Windows does less and hence is simpler.
Of course compiling the kernel is more intimidating than installing a pre-packaged driver on Windows, but you can use synaptic to install drivers as well.
The thing is that you can't compile a kernel on Windows.
Ubuntu looks more complicated because you can do more. You don't HAVE to do more, but the fact that you can do complicated stuff makes it look more complex.
Actually, it's the exposure of that that makes Ubuntu look complex. On windows, you can compile stuff and playing with the API can actually become very complex, but it is hidden. In Ubuntu, the development is open and happens in public. Everybody can see everything that is happening and it looks complicated. Windows engeneers do it in secret so people don't see the complexity, but you can be damn sure it's not simple.

Reply Score: 2

Ubuntu
by jimmystewpot on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:49 UTC
jimmystewpot
Member since:
2006-01-19

Really I think that Ubuntu is only really strong on the Desktop, the problems reported in the article and by some of the readers of this site are also issues I have experienced. The single biggest Issue with Ubuntu or any other distribution taking off on the desktop in a corporate environment is
a) wireless support.
b) video codecs legally
c) Evolution is a pile of ... . I honestly did not realise that it was possible to write such buggy code. I have tried it on all sorts of different flavors of linux only to find a huge variety of bugs. The latest in Ubuntu is not being able to create message filters on exchange accounts. Its resolved upstream now, however there is no bugfix being backported despite having thousands of people complaining about it. In Redhat Enterprise on the workstation those fixes would be in the next update release (or if its serious they will do a quick update release).

These problems are not specific to ubuntu but rather Desktop linux as a whole. From a user perspective I hav e been busy migrating all my families over to desktop linux, for the vast majority its a perfect solution as they only do email, photo's and web browsing. The gui and tools for these are excellent.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu
by superstoned on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:17 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

instead of evolution, you should try KDE-PIM. There is a company behind kontact which has been fixing bugs like crazy lately, being paid for doing that... So it's getting rather stable. They are also working on KDEPIM for KDE 4, which will surface in KDE 4.1 - expect much coolness and stability ;-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by jimmystewpot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
jimmystewpot Member since:
2006-01-19

I am really looking forward to it, However It seems there is no exchange connectivity for email (rpc over https)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ubuntu
by superstoned on Sat 8th Dec 2007 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Hmmm, googling 'kmail exchange' brought up quite a few links saying it works fine, like this one:
http://www.news.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=11991&messa...

And I do know its planned for KDE 4 of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ubuntu
by anda_skoa on Sat 8th Dec 2007 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

And I do know its planned for KDE 4 of course.


The OpenChange based Akonadi resource is currently on hold though, due to the FSF's extreme cleverness (hint: sarcasm) of making the LGPL3 incompatible with GPL2

Edited 2007-12-08 15:46

Reply Score: 3

re
by netpython on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:18 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Isn't Ubuntu already dethroned? :

http://distrowatch.com/

Reply Score: 2

RE: re
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:30 UTC in reply to "re"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

No. It's easier to spoof Distrowatch than Google.

http://tinyurl.com/2j7oej

Edit: Pay close attention to PCLinuxOS's showing compared to Fedora and Suse, as well. Ladislav has been unable to detect any wrongdoing. But something smells *very* fishy about the Distrowatch numbers, which changed to favor PCLinuxOS, literally overnight.

Edited 2007-12-07 14:36

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: re
by netpython on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE: re"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

In addition tinyurl doesn't restrict the URL length:-) What would my dear browser would do if it got feeded a 1 MB URL :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
What would my dear browser would do if it got feeded a 1 MB URL :-)
"""

Probably a lot better than it would have done previous to Michael Zalewski's wake up call regarding such things.

(Yes, that was an embarrassing incident!) ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: re
by GeneralZod on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:33 UTC in reply to "re"
GeneralZod Member since:
2007-08-03
Didn't we tried this before?
by quad3datwork on Fri 7th Dec 2007 15:13 UTC
quad3datwork
Member since:
2007-11-23

'Dethroning Windows with Linux?'

It's all trivial. I always tell people... if you willing to take the time to learn something new, it might works better for you. Otherwise stick with something that always worked for you.

Think I only agree to the first sentence of the article the most, rest of the articles already been said and tried before.

Many people are looking to Ubuntu to be something that it is not: A mass market ready operating system designed to work with the same level of compatibility as Microsoft Windows.

Reply Score: 2

Dumb Article
by antwarrior on Fri 7th Dec 2007 15:18 UTC
antwarrior
Member since:
2006-02-11

Sorry Matt, but I am just not convinced. Why are we EVEN thinking of dethroning Ubuntu. You just have to read only a handful of some of the comments and see that it has nothing to do with the quality of Ubuntu or Linux distros today and it never will and for those that love that mystical character call Joe Blogg/Bloe or his ageless grandmother, his interests seem to be this unattainable moving target that noone seems to be able to hit, except for MS.

Using Ubuntu as desktop or any other distro doesn't qualify this position at all. It's all about market forces, oppurtunity and exposure. All the industry leaders know this, Mark Shuttleworth, Redhats management etc .... sorry, i didnt meean to be so harsh but i was quite annoyed.... :->

Reply Score: 2

Polishing better than adding features
by drfelip on Fri 7th Dec 2007 16:25 UTC
drfelip
Member since:
2005-07-06

I realize a lot of features added to GNU/Linux distros lately are great, but I think adding polish to the whole distro, removing bugs and annoyances is more important. Maybe SOME linux distro should go that way. Linux is about choice, isn't it? So I would choose the most polished DESKTOP distro, not the most cutting-edge. I would even pay for it.

Maybe SUSE or other commercial distros are more polished than Ubuntu/Fedora? Debian and Slackware are off course more stable, but maybe not more polished.

Reply Score: 2

Average User Expectations
by xsf0 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:27 UTC
xsf0
Member since:
2007-12-07

Most "average" users treat the little world inside of the magic box like an extension of the physical world. As they use the magic box they come to expect certain items to be in certain places. Win,Mac,etc. doesn't matter.

If they sit down at a computer and widget X is in a different place then that system is: hard, stupid, crappy, bad, etc.

Also, if functionality Y is not kicked off by widget X and widget X isn't EXACTLY where it is supposed to be (and looks exactly the same) as the computer they are familiar with--then that system "DOESN'T DO THAT" and, therefore, is a piece of crap.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Average User Expectations
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:31 UTC in reply to "Average User Expectations"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I think you are on to something, there. But the difference between a geek and a regular user, in that scenario, is that it is the geek who will tend to take that attitude and blame the OS. Whereas "regular users" tend to blame their computer illiteracy. I've noticed that "regular users" sometimes take a sort of perverted pride in the fact of their illiteracy for some unfathomable reason.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Average User Expectations
by xsf0 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Average User Expectations"
xsf0 Member since:
2007-12-07

I've seen what you're describing as well.

But I've worked in a mixed (OS X,Win) place and many, many times I encountered the "average" or even "power" user sit down at one or the other OS, look for the thing to click and declare:

"I don't know how people use this! It won't even Y!"

Not to mention if a menu item moved on their platform of choice. . .painful, painful.

Not to mention they are *constantly* having arguments over which system is more powerful and life-changing ;)

Reading this, I seem (even to myself) a little snarky--but I'm really just describing what I've seen.

Heck, I ride a motorbike everyday and when I must replace my gloves or boots, it is *painful* to readjust. So, I'm not throwing stones.

Reply Score: 1

......
by islander on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:22 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

This whole dethroning talk is rubbish.

1. The average Linux geek isn't interested.

2. The average Linux geek uses more than one distro so more likely they are not seeking that one ultimate distro like new converts who believe because they use Linux they are gods of computing shat out of Zeus' rear end on Mount Olympus.

3.Linux users like compare because they have..ahem..choice..unlike our friends using Windows.

Sounds like propaganda to make it seem to outsiders that Linux aint ready for the desktop and its a highly fragmented demented cemented in their ego competitive bunch.Wow and they want XP on OLPC.Pot calling the kettle black.

Reply Score: 7

Junk
by segedunum on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:37 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

This article is unadulterated junk. The joke here is that he talks about dethroning Ubuntu, when there is nothing to dethrone. Ubuntu is crap as a general purpose desktop, just like every other Linux distro today. Third party software installation is a pain, as is dynamic stuff that people expect today such as wireless networking. Wireless is a huge issue for many trying to use Linux, and frankly, NetworkManager has actually got worse if that's possible. I thought it would be the KNetworkManager front-end, but it isn't. This happens in Gnome as well, and in Ubuntu:

http://ponsaelius.blogspot.com/2007/01/wireless-with-networkmanager...

If I manually enter the SSID and key via iwconfig on the command line, voila. It works. There is major problems with hidden SSIDs and static network settings. No self-respecting desktop can paint over those things.

He then goes on a big whine about other distributions and some meaningless stuff about codecs for some reason, rather than looking at Ubuntu's extreme shortcomings.

The exceptionally insane foaming over Ubuntu is holding things back. It is not an answer as a Linux desktop at all, and isn't doing anything that any other distribution isn't.

Reply Score: 2

To gain a big market share.......
by norradj on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:59 UTC
norradj
Member since:
2007-12-07

Think about Mozilla and later on Firefox some years ago..
I remember I tried to switch to Mozilla from Netscape as I didn't like MS Explorer. It was a big hazle but i kept on until Firefox (or Firebird) came on board as 0.3 version. Still little buggy but noncompliant, with many websites, it was a brand new experience.
And now Firefox has a significant marketshare.
My experience with Ubuntu is something in between Mozilla and Firefox. So, will we have the same story with Ubuntu as Firefox? I hope, but probably not in the same way.
The Firefox story tell us that its not impossible to gain a market share from MS Explorer or even MS OSs, but its far from easy.
In the consumer market its a battle of perception, not easy of use, "Joe six pack" or whatever. Certainly, it must be a good product, but thats not the real problem.

Reply Score: 1

Rethink The argument..
by Norsk on Fri 7th Dec 2007 21:53 UTC
Norsk
Member since:
2007-12-07

I've been in the IT industry for 10 years now.
Its fine and dandy to conduct these comparisons of different operating systems.. but really what comes out of them ?. Well, nothing worth losing sleep over.
I feel the best way to look at issues\comparison's involving OS quality is to take what you have, and then compare it to what you don't have, and compare that with what you 'can' have at the current level of technology. I think that all current operating systems fall short of being (next to)perfectly usable, stable, configuarable, beautiful..etc. Once these basics are met to an exceptional level - then users from complete beginners to experts alike will be pleased with a distribution. And this goes for all the OS's out there.

Why not create a linux distribution that forks out into Gaming\Business\Beginner\General\Power User versions ?. Get the underlying common basics right, however tailor the distro further to suit its specific purpose and to maintain stability in the distro itself ?. Leave out what you don't need, and include what you do, depending on its end purpose.

Grandma is looking to download Linux for the first time and stumbles across the website of a OS or distro. (don't start me on the general lack of Linux marketing..). She clearly see's the differnet versions on offer and after reading the descriptions, go's with the beginners version. It is configured\designed for a beginner in every way.

I think half the battle in getting users to stick withbegin using an operating system is:

1: Get the basic's very right.
2: Marketing, Marketing, Marketing.
3. Get the right version into the correct users hands as easily, and cheaply as possible.
4. Get Networking and Communication with other common OS\Network types very very right (should be included in the basics..)
5. If all these are met, any visual bonuses will always be welcomed.

Any OS that can acheive the above, will be the dominant leader, 'without' people having to make much of a concious choice. It will just be plain obvious when it happends. It's not rocket science.

Just remember all you budding and currently popular OS creators... correct marketing is a greatly overlooked part of a distrobution. The perfect OS doesn't mean a thing unless it has made it's way into the hands of a user it perfectly suits.

Edited 2007-12-07 22:01

Reply Score: 2

v FUD
by asdx24 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 02:44 UTC
RE: FUD
by archiesteel on Sat 8th Dec 2007 18:30 UTC in reply to "FUD"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I smell bannination...

Reply Score: 2

you know what...
by Downix on Sat 8th Dec 2007 04:10 UTC
Downix
Member since:
2007-08-21

this guy is right, and you all here are right, Windows, Linux, OS X, they all suck compared to the uberness that is Amiga OS 4.0....

You can all stop laughing now.

Reply Score: 1

Day of Linux desktop comes...
by Kishe on Sat 8th Dec 2007 09:33 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

When Linux finds its own niche in the market.

Linux is still trailing windows in everything it does and the whole development policy seems to be "We can do it too!!!"

When Linux can do something great what windows cant, then it will be day of linux desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Day of Linux desktop comes...
by islander on Sat 8th Dec 2007 13:12 UTC in reply to "Day of Linux desktop comes..."
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

"When Linux finds its own niche in the market."

Already has.Beating the pants off Windows in the server arena.Forced Microsoft to get into clustering.A Leading Os in the supercomputer field.Hmmm desktop you ask?Talk to alot of people in the Windows "emerging markets" what they are using.eg. Brazil.Even in the developed world such as Poland and Germany.Niche enough for you?

"Linux is still trailing windows in everything it does and the whole development policy seems to be "We can do it too!!!""

Trails because Windows is seen as a desktop industry standard.Like any other consumer item when someone is out front in order to pass them you must follow them and catch them.Say,how many times you seen a toyota looking like a Mercdedes benz,co-incidence?

"When Linux can do something great what windows cant, then it will be day of linux desktop."

Already does neat stuff that Windows cannot.It does not get infected by spyware.Does not get infected by malware.Does not get infected by viruses.Aww shucks dont seem like a big deal eh?Tell me something, remember when Sasser virus on Windows wreaked havoc worldwide?

As far as I am concerned the day of the Linux desktop has come and gone.When it became a fully functional Os.Like the birth of baby,its here and its growing up, how tall it will be , thats another question but I know its sprouting rather well thank you.SCO suits, Get the Facts Campaign , IP suits , Novell Deals , geez somebody seems rather worried if Linux is a non-factor dont you think ?

Reply Score: 4

KDE 4
by da_Chicken on Sat 8th Dec 2007 14:40 UTC
da_Chicken
Member since:
2006-01-01

KDE 4 will "dethrone" Ubuntu, because Ubuntu is stuck with GNOME.

KDE 4 will be the next Big Step in the evolution of GNU/Linux desktops. KDE 4 is going to be the desktop environment that will finally rival Windows Vista and Mac OS X in eye-candy and integration of applications while, at the same time, being less resource hungry. But people will probably have to wait until KDE 4.1 is out until the next generation of KDE applications is ready to rock'n'roll. When that happens, the distros that have integrated KDE 4 well will become very popular.

Mark Shuttleworth made a smart choice when he seized the opportunity and built Ubuntu around GNOME at the exact time when the GNOME 2.x series started to show its true potential. Ubuntu always offers the latest GNOME, and the GNOME polish soon became associated as Ubuntu polish. But the evolution of GNU/Linux desktops advances on its own pace and Shuttleworth and Ubuntu would do wisely to update their desktop strategy now, when it has already become clear that KDE 4 will be a big hit. Unfortunately, there are clear signs that Ubuntu is going to miss the next train.
http://jucato.org/blog/quo-vadis-kubuntu/

Reply Score: 1

RE: KDE 4
by RIchard James13 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "KDE 4"
RIchard James13 Member since:
2007-10-26

KDE 4 will "dethrone" Ubuntu, because Ubuntu is stuck with GNOME.


This could be true if KDE 4 delivers on the promise that it is revolutionary as compared to evolutionary.

Another thing about this is Gnome is designed for people who don't want to fiddle with the system but KDE is the inverse. I think most Ubuntu users don't want to tweak the system. So in some ways KDE needs to be less cluttered for those users and KDE 4 seems to promise that too.

Reply Score: 1

A lot of misinformation
by abraxas on Sat 8th Dec 2007 14:44 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

Where Fedora falls short, however, is with their offering of the GNOME desktop. Nautilus (the file manager), when used from the Places menu or with a self created folder, provides zero options for a location bar to browse to different areas of the desktop. Yet if you go to Nautilus from Applications, System Tools, the provided link to Nautilus there does provide the needed location bar – how about some consistency here!

I'm not using Fedora but I doubt Nautilus is very different on different distros. The location bar is always available. Ctl-L will get you the location bar in Nautilus no matter how you launch it.

At the end of the day, Zonbu wins over gOS, as their products provide restricted codecs out of the box and it requires ZERO tweaking to get anything working. In short, I believe it will be Zonbu-like products that will overthrow Ubuntu as we know it today.

I hate when people say that a big problem for Linux is the availability or restricted codecs out of the box. Windows doesn't even provide codecs other than their own.

Also, Linux products that provide Flash and Java out of the box. Violating the GPL, you say? Maybe, but I have seen a few companies doing this successfully and ensuring some level of compliance by making their own source code available. They key to success is actually simple. A low price point, plenty of recognizable software, and the ability to use their PCs as users see fit.

Again, Windows does not provide Flash or Java out of the box. That is up to the computer hardware OEMs.

Reply Score: 5

same level of compatibility?
by jstead1 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 15:12 UTC
jstead1
Member since:
2006-10-26

"...designed to work with the same level of compatibility as Microsoft Windows"

I sure hope not. I switched from windows because it is incompatible with itself, self degrading into a molasses slow kludge in about 18 months of use by "Joe Average".

My family likes windows (it runs the games they like) but for anything else, they go to linux because it works, and they can't break it (nearly as easily)

Reply Score: 2

I never knew Ubuntu ruled the desktop
by RHCE07 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 15:40 UTC
RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

Who is to say Ubuntu is superior to every Linux distro available today, I find it amazing how one can say this is the ultimate when it does not have any role in certification and a career?

Also, I can do everything in Fedora 8 for example (what I run in the Office/home) with no problems. Maybe for some Ubuntu is walking on water but I find from my personal end user account Fedora/RHEL is easier for me to manage and deploy. Plus, I know Red Hat will be around for a long time and they are growing with several new products and offerings.

I have no interest in Ubuntu and I will never run it (tried it and did not like it) so Fedora is my home. It is frustrating to hear all of the Fedora bashing and how it does not work as well as Ubuntu. I find these claims to be invalid and IF someone wants to work with Linux (as a career) Fedora is the stone to build on. To me I find Ubuntu to be more hype than what it actually is, if you compared Ubuntu to Windows XP/Vista of course Ubuntu is superior to any Windows release. But it is not king of all Linux distro's and this is a claim that has no factual data to back up this stance they are taking.

One last note, if anyone says Ubuntu did not hang the moon they instantly crucified and blackballed without merit.

The AWESOME concept behind OpenSource is OPTIONS not being LOCKED down to ONE distro!

Edited 2007-12-08 15:48

Reply Score: 3

Linux on the desktop...
by RHCE07 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 20:02 UTC
RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

The facts plain and simple, my Mom is 65 years old and she has been using Linux since Red Hat 9.0 and does not know anything about computers or Windows.

She uses FireFox, Evolution (email) and I have the system setup and it JUST works, no reboots, no lockups, no problems. In fact I just go through installing Fedora 8 on her machine (one I had built) and no complaints.

The old argument of 'Linux Distro (fill in the blank) is not ready does not HOLD water... I use Fedora 8 at work and use Evolution (exchange connector), administer about 250 Linux servers with no problems. The only Windows XP machine I have is at work and it performs ONE function for the I3 phone client software. My next project is running it on my Linux workstation then I will completely wipe that machine and install RHEL5.1 Server for testing purposes.

Another note, what is the all of the hysteria about ATI cards not working??? I use only ATI cards and I have never had any problems with my cards and I will not use no Propitiatory drivers.

I think what it boils down to is someone has a problem with something and tells everyone about it. The good stuff you rarely hear about it is just the negative comments about for instance Fedora does not do this or ATI does not work with this. A lot of companies have looked at a rollout of a Linux (distro) on ALL desktops as a serious solution to replace the current Windows desktop world. I started out with Red Hat 6.0 and I had no clue of what I was doing with it or how to use it but with time comes knowledge and learning. Today I can install a Fedora/RHEL box with no problems it is easier for me because that is what I use. However with Windows I find it more complicated than a linux distro.

To each his own, some people will be set in their ways of saying this or that but the numbers of users and the use of for instance Red Hat in the Enterprise speaks volumes. I am fortunate to be able to run Fedora/RHEL on my work station/laptops at work.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux on the desktop...
by islander on Sat 8th Dec 2007 21:06 UTC in reply to "Linux on the desktop..."
islander Member since:
2007-04-11

"However with Windows I find it more complicated than a linux distro."

Before I started using Linux full time I thought it was/would be more complicated.Then I realised I was confusing simplicity with familiarity.You are right , I find Windows more complicated to use but doesn't seem so because its more familiar.

For example installing software.Unless you are compiling software yourself , it is basically a one click experience as opposed to Windows *click *next* *click *next.Even on source based Arch , pacman -S "package-name" and thats it.No worries.

Reply Score: 5

Asus is taking the marketplace by storm
by buff on Sat 8th Dec 2007 21:46 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I finally was able to order my Asus Eee Linux appliance. I had to wait a week since they ran out 2 days later after they received a shipment! This has to say something about Linux since the mini-laptop comes with a custom version of Xandros installed. It seems like Windows users are quite happy on it. Perhaps Linux on the desktop has arrived for Linux appliances. I just think it is interesting how the article starts off describing how Linux is not ready for Windows users but the Asus Eee is selling like wild. I know people are putting Windows XP on it too but the majority of users are keeping Xandros on it.

Edited 2007-12-08 21:56

Reply Score: 2

Expectations
by h3rman on Sun 9th Dec 2007 11:05 UTC
h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

Many Linux users think Linux is very cool and it is, mostly, but partly because they have the patience to keep it running nicely. Things do break more than they need to in fresh releases of popular Linux distros (please don't give me the "but it works great for me!" treatment). It's not a problem at all as long as mostly fans of the system are running it.

However, if you have someone whose basic attitude is hostile to computers (and believe me, those people exist), you would do well to set up a more thoroughly tested distribution. So no, in that respect Ubuntu or openSuse are not "RFTD". Debian Stable and CentOS, on the other hand, are.

It's not safe to create expectations about the coolness of Linux based on the assumption that the people you want to convert will end up being "Linux enthusiasts" too. They may end up liking the OS, but they will probably not be willing to solve things that break.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Expectations
by ichi on Sun 9th Dec 2007 14:39 UTC in reply to "Expectations"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

"Things do break more than they need to in fresh releases of popular Linux distros (please don't give me the "but it works great for me!" treatment)."

It's kind of funny that you don't want a "it works great for me" while giving a "it breaks for... uh... someone".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Expectations
by h3rman on Sun 9th Dec 2007 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Expectations"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Isn't the difference obvious?
You can tell for yourself how much is breaking by just taking a look on the dozens of forums out there. You can not tell if someone is just making things up or making things look nicer than they are when (s)he says, "it all works for me".

Yes, I know that one should contribute by filing bug reports, etc. and that virtually no software is ever "done" (perhaps Sendmail? :-) ), but it's another thing to claim that when it comes to testing, openSuse, Ubuntu, etc. are on a par with CentOS or Debian Stable (to stick to binary, dependency-resolving systems).
They are not.
Sure, it's a trade-off between well-tested stuff and the latest and greatest. Still, I think many Linux fans underestimate how many people are discouraged by show stopper bugs.

Reply Score: 4

Thats average joe guys
by WyldStylist on Sun 9th Dec 2007 14:59 UTC
WyldStylist
Member since:
2006-12-30

We modders who still use windows have either Nlited or beyond Nlited a minimal install.

Reply Score: 1

RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

Overall, the few problems I have had are small bugs and they are resolved in one word [FAST].

I am a member of the bugzilla community and I have helped out quite a bit with information to resolve really minor annoyances and the same can't be said for Windows.

Being able to communicate with a developer is like being able to talk to your doctor without an appointment these guys are experts and they know it inside and out.

The secret to the entire OpenSource movement is the speed at which it operates, on different than Linux (distro A) in the Enterprise lets take Red Hat for example look at the impact it has today...

This will be the way it happens on the desktop, maybe 1 or 2 boxes at a time but eventually the tidal wave will start rolling and it will be unstoppable...

Just like Servers in the Enterprise, Red Hat steamrolled a lot of Windows NT 4.0 boxes out of the way, (Linux distro x) will steam roll a lot of Windows XP/Vista boxes out of the way in the future. I can perform ALL of my work functions running Fedora 8 at work and on my laptop in a Windows Domain...

Let the naysayers preach this will not happen, it has already gained huge, HUGE momentum overseas and the tidalwave will hit not if but WHEN.

Reply Score: 1

What would it take to dethrone Ubuntu?
by thavith_osn on Sun 9th Dec 2007 21:37 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

Step 1. Put it on the throne first...

;-)

Reply Score: 1

Windows has passed on in my book
by RHCE07 on Mon 10th Dec 2007 00:31 UTC
RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

Considering the fact that my current career move is one that will be around for a while. MS has had its day in the sun, it is only a matter of time before the foundation crumbles it already has. Ubuntu is superior for one of the base concepts 'networking', Windows Vista code base is outdated and is at the end of the road.

Fedora/RHEL will be my home for a while, Linux distro x is accelerating to fast for MS to even compete with a desktop OS. Sure they are loaded by default on pc's but that does not insure a future one fact that cannot be dethroned is Tech changes like the weather [FAST] and being king one day (MS) you can be gone the next.

Reply Score: 1

Dethroning Ubuntu?
by Novan_Leon on Mon 10th Dec 2007 21:59 UTC
Novan_Leon
Member since:
2005-12-07

The geek community has been claiming the end of Microsoft and the rise of Linux for over a decade. I see no signs of this happening anytime soon.

If Windows disappears and Linux takes over, it'll be because of Microsoft's mistakes, not Linux's success (unless something in the Linux community changes drastically).

Reply Score: 1

Missing things
by Novan_Leon on Mon 10th Dec 2007 22:03 UTC
Novan_Leon
Member since:
2005-12-07

There are two things that the open source community lacks, and as long as this is the case Linux will remain niche:

- Business sense, understanding what drives a product for mainstream acceptance.
- Understanding the wants of the average user, this includes grandma, little Billy, and the girl next door.

The only exception to this would be Mozilla I believe. I think the best chance Linux has for mainstream acceptance within the near future would be for Mozilla or Google to begin their own Linux distribution.

Reply Score: 1

distros in disguise
by berciXcore on Tue 11th Dec 2007 11:26 UTC
berciXcore
Member since:
2007-12-11

gOS won't "dethrone" Ubuntu, simply because it is based on Ubuntu itself. it's development depends on Ubuntu core development.

Zonbu won't "dethrone" Ubuntu, because it's based on Gentoo. a desktop user requires at least the latest stable version of every desktop app. gentoo is source based, so update would be painful for an average user.

these are only distros in disguise.

i myself use Ubuntu on my desktop. i'm totally satisfied with it.
the only distro that has great potential is Foresight, with it's "transparent" package update management: Conary.
the only problem with Foresight is that it's localization is far behind Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 1