OSNews

I'm going to have to disagree. While the author obviously has some biased opinions, he did make some good points. Consistency has always been a problem with Linux. There's just too many distributions and ways of configuring things. That's what keeps Linux from really getting a strong foot hold in the desktop market. People like to use Windows or OS X as a comparison, but I don't think Linux can really be compared to them because of how different it is. While Windows and OS X are complete packages, Linux is basically a kernel where users have the freedom to throw whatever software they want at it. That freedom has led to hundreds of distributions and configurations. In the end, at least for the desktop world, it's what holds Linux back.

I have to disagree. So what if there are 100 different Linux distribution? Once you know one, you can be productive on nearly all of them. Also, who's stopping you from choosing Debian, or Ubuntu, or Red Hat and just sticking with it?

I don't know of any GPL clause that says you have to install a different flavor of Linux on every machine you own.

I've heard this complaint for almost 14 years now and I don't believe it stands up to scrutiny at all.

The Author didn't care how many distro's there is - he's mentioning consistency within the distro's themselves and specifically mentions how some working stuff breaks between releases of uBuntu - quoting scanners and wireless drivers, etc.

In other words, the distros need to make sure that existing things that work in one release continue to work in the next release. That is what he is criticizing there.

Here is an example.

I installed gOS on my laptop.

I installed ubuntu desktop, and right before my eyes the current gOS desktop was corrupting itself. Then I noticed the login manager got corrupted.

Don't ask me why, because I didn't understand it.

Edited 2008-03-11 21:37 UTC

I think that's the whole point of consistency. Ubuntu and Red Hat are very similar, but they're also very different. You can't configure things in the same places in both of them, even if to an average user they appear to be the same. If someone learns enough to fix a few of the problems they have in one, they may not be able to fix it in the other due to that specific configuration being different. Sure, it's easy for someone who may be very technical with Linux, but it's just not going to cut it for mainstream users.

You may disagree, but I think the only evidence one needs to look at is the numbers. You may say that over 14 years, the Linux usage rate has increased dramatically, but in reality you're still looking about a few percent total. If Linux were a bit more standardized and consistent, without hundreds of distributions and configurations, you'd see much higher adoption of the OS for desktop users, as well as anyone who has little experience with Linux in general.

Well, if it keeps coming back after 14 years then it probably means that for some (many?) people that is indeed an issue. I believe that the diversity of the Linux distributions is more of an asset than a problem, but I wouldn't blame people for not being comfortable with it.

Edit: language

Edited 2008-03-12 09:08 UTC

That's the point though. The argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. When you press the people who are claiming that choice is a problem, it always comes down to the fact that they are using the diversity of Linux distributions as an excuse for their not using it.

It seems people feel they have to have an excuse (or excuses) for not using Linux, which is just dumb. If you want to use it, learn it, if not, don't. Be proud of your choices.

In my opinion, Linux and BSD are the best operating systems out there. I'm happy with my opinion and it serves me well. I wish others could be equally happy about theirs.

I'm not sure about how commercial Apps fit into the wider picture of Linux Distros.

Often a commercial developer will (eg. Latest version of Maya 2008) standardize their App on one or two different distros. It may work with others but the developer will not provide support if anything goes wrong.

I read about an expensive engineering pro modeling app that simply refused to work on anything but the Redhat Distro. It turns out that it fails to load some libraries on Ubuntu because they're compiled in a different version of gcc.

The Distro fragmentation means that even though commercial Apps are made for Linux they are not guaranteed to work on other Distros and if they do work your often left with resorting to forums where users provide the advice (eg. converting RPMs to Debian packet manager etc) to make it install. Some Apps don't like wine others don't like xgl, Compiz etc.

The average mainstream user just can't afford deal with this.

>While Windows and OS X are complete packages

Yeah, yeah do not even try to use a driver from release to release - it will break! Even if you don't see the breakage at once. I'm using Mac OS too, it's possible to use a driver, sometimes, between different releases of the system, but don't count on it! So this is the usual FUD of people who are comparing marketing strategies instead of *reality*!

Not rubbish at all.

All of his points are valid. They are real issues that regular, and geek, users face with Linux usage. And when "regular" users face those issues, they run away screaming.

I'm a huge Linux user. It's my preferred desktop. I'm also a programmer by trade, and I've used Linux since 2002, and I've used a huge variety of distros, from the more techie side with Slackware, to the more newbie friendly like Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS. And I do continue to have issues. Some I can work around, some just requiring apt-getting something, but others require too much time and effort to make it worth my while.

I have a Dell 1526 Laptop with an ATI grahpics card, an AMD Turion, and a wide screen. I've tried Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Fedora, Mepis, and openSUSE on this laptop. The only one that worked 100% (all hardware working and properly configured, and software mostly working) is Ubuntu. The rest of them has varying degrees of success, and varying degrees of effort to what did work, working.

Nevertheless, I have Ubuntu working 100%, and dual booting with Vista. I prefer using the Ubuntu side 95% of the time, as it fits my needs very well. Although it does have real bug issues as the article mentions.

But I'd like to add to the guys list, or actually expand on the underlying issues that cause the issues that he is talking about:

1. Lack of a consistent, stable ABI. Linus has said many times that lack of a stable ABI is good for the rapid progress and extreme flexibility of the Linux kernel. But it's a double edged sword. It makes it much much harder for third parties to make drivers for Linux, and it makes it harder for distros to make everything work, and it makes it so that we have the situation of having to compile modules (a stable ABI would mean more precompiled modules could be used).

The lack of a stable ABI, while having it's benefits, undoubtedly makes hardware market adoption harder, and harder for users to get things working.

2. Lack of standards across distros. Distros all have their versions of the file system, config files, libraries, glibc, and so on. This makes it much harder for software developers and ISVs to target Linux. They have to put in a lot of extra effort to compile and deploy to all the distros, for a tiny market share. This makes it not economically viable for ISVs to target Linux.

Linux Standard Base (LSB) tried to solve this issue, but distros pretty much ignore LSB.

You do know what an ABI is don't you?

Application Binary Interface

Get ready to feel like a complete idiot...

Lack of stable ABI only affects out-of-tree drivers (which are unfinished and experimental most of the time).
And binary drivers, but that is the problem with their vendor's philosophy.

Don't be naive and think there would be much more available drivers were there a stable driver ABI. On the other hand, much of developments in kernel would be impossible while simultaneously keeping the ABI backwards compatible. That philosophy is absolutely valid, given how many problems crappy unfixable drivers cause in Windows and how MS had to rewrite the driver model and ABI (which required rewrite of most drivers) in Vista just to band-aid the terrible situation with XP driver quality.

I didn't say he was incorrect, but valid technical gripes are not the same as hurdles to adoption of the platform. These are not hurdles and similar or worse problems are evident on more popular operating systems.

Only 1 correct point??? Totally correct about the driver modules, and on brainstorm my ideas were voted down to fix it, on the basis "it takes too much effort". Linux users don't want proper hardware support, or they aren't logical thinkers.

They want the drivers added to the kernel instead, but some people need the drivers to install, and install CD's may take 6 months to be updated, so thats why linux has no future in my opinion. People want better hardware support, but they hate the mechanisms needed to support it, because they might aid closed source companies (never mind they help open source ones too).

If you want to vote for fixing this the right way, some relevent brainstorms are:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3932/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3868/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3843/


Things have gotten so incrediby stupid in the linux world, that even when ubuntu does finally start supporting my new computer in 2 months (and yes, I'm not going to buy a out of date system just for linux), I may not even bother. Vista may be closed source, but Microsoft have their head screwed on better then some linux coders at the moment

Why do all of the Debian based distros have to call Firefox Iceweasel? Based upon the large percentages of web users whose user agent is some version of Firefox I think that it really hurts user comfort when purists like the developers of Debian who want to everything to follow their licensing terms refuse to work with the Mozilla Foundation to just accept Mozilla's licensing of the trademarked portions of the browser.

I find that pretty petty.

Furthermore, the excessive amount of distros doesn't help mass uptake of the OS either. We have a lawsuit going again Microsoft because people were confused about the difference between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium. How are you going to navigate the half a dozen major commercial distros? Nobody wants to know the difference between Ubuntu, Linspire, Red Hat, Suse, Xandros, etc.

Ubuntu is starting to become pretty popular as a desktop distro, but if you ask what the easiest Linux distro is you will get several answers, which isn't good.

Hardware and software support issue will vanish as soon as commercial companies show serious support for Linux. For an application like Photoshop a native port would be no small task. Unless there is a big enough user base to purchase said product no one will adopt it. Having more hardware list Linux support on the box and include complete stable drivers in the box will happen just as soon as more companies besides IBM, Novell, and Sun treat Linux as an important platform.

Firefox insist that patches are authorised by them before being released if you want to use the FF brand, which Debian found unacceptable from the POV of security fix release time. There's also the issue of incompatibility with the Debian 'constitution'. So the decision to rebrand wasn't entirely political.

It isn't purism, it's legality. Is it "purist" not to ship DVD support when doing so is illegal? Most distributions don't ship DVD support by default, or at all, because it is between probably and definitely illegal, depending on jurisdiction.

Debian has two choices: Install Firefox as-is without modifications, which would cause some fairly serious management problems and Debian Policy violations, or rename the browser. Mozilla does not give Debian any other options.

Not renaming the browser and continuing to distribute it in modified form is *illegal*, so that is not an option. Not modifying the browser presents serious technical challenges, to say nothing of security concerns; the effort expendature needed would not be worthwhile when an option exists which makes so much more sense.

If you want to gripe at someone for this, go talk to Mozilla people. Their position is reasonable, but it is still their fault that Debian can't call what they ship Firefox.

Try this:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/BluRayAndHDDVD

It's on Ubuntu's web site, but it should be applicable to most Linux distributions.

Use terminal commands like this:

mplayer -vc ffvc1 /media/KING_KONG/HVDVD_TS/FEATURE*EVO

... only to watch the movie ?

Get a life, man!

Or just set the ffvc1 codec in the mplayer options and click on the files to watch the movie?

I do not have a Blue-ray drive myself, but I can bet everything else that watching BD movies on Windows is exactly the same "procedure" like watching usual DVDs

Do not change anything, do not type any commands at command prompt.

It's funny how people set different hurdles for Linux, I wouldn't think tax returns are a issue on desktops.

Some people set hurdles that get higher with Linux yet Windows is allowed to push right through them. The same old hurdles keep coming up and Linux has jumped over them, perhaps linux has to jump over them twice or three times before people actually take note.

I think people confuse linux desktop hurdles with having every piece of software work under the sun before it becomes desktop worthy. Linux is not desktop worthy because it dont have X application is just not the way to think, but even if a app is offered people still turn their nose up at it.

It's very clear this is opinion. The use of that word is debatable. He could have meant, to him.

OK sure, he may not be providing evidence to support his claims, and he may be a bit loose with the word 'indisputable', but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

I think he's right on almost all ten points:

1. Consistency. I upgraded my PCLOS distro to 2005, and my wireless driver just stopped working.

2. Mobile Device Support. I have an HTC Artemis (WM6). There is NO support for this device, and it's very unlikely that there ever will be.

3. Compatible Software. The GIMP sucks. I'm sorry, but it does. Everything is there, but it is an unholy mess and a chore to use once you have used Photoshop.

4. Wireless is a Mess. See earlier for wireless breakage example. Even once I got wireless working, it would drop out and not reestablish a connection. I now use ethernet to connect to a wireless bridge.

5. Hardware Compatibility. Almost none of my peripherals work as well as they do in Windows. They work, but I've either had to search high and low for an obscure solution, and even then the feature list is less than impressive.

6. Driver Modules. Windows: Right-click -> Install Driver. Linux: Right-click -> Commit Hari-Kari.

7. Commercial Interest. Don't agree.

8. Off-the-shelf software. Don't agree. You have to download, but I consider that "off the shelf".

9. Workarounds. The linux release cycle is too frequent. This gives the impression that everything is always in development (which it is). For those in the know, that's fun because there's always some new feature round the corner. For businesses and regular users, that sucks. Linux flavours in general need fewer, more stable releases.

10. Apologists. Linux attracts more zealots (with more animosity) than other OS' in my opinion. Linux has loads of problems, and is not sufficiently better than Windows/OSX to provide any kind of meaningful reason for regular users to migrate.

This has nothing to do with the fact that it's not installed OEM, but more is about the question: "Why should I change?". The only answer Linux can provide is: "Because it's free (libre)".

For some, that's enough. For others, they want to see a tangible return on their investment of time, effort and pain in learning a completely new operating system.

Edited 2008-03-12 04:44 UTC

Apologists are an issue. I should know, I am one myself. If we could get fewer people making excuses for why things don't work and more people trying to actually fix the problems, we'll be better off.

That said it is important to note the difference between an uncaring Zealot ("You only have to write a small shell script to make that work, so what's the problem?") and someone who, Linux Is Not Windows-style, tries to explain why it makes sense. Too many people expousing on what Linux needs to change lump these people together, which I find to be unproductive. Different, when it works, is not worse and expecting it to work the same way is not cool, as long as it does work. When it *doesn't* work pretending that "You shouldn't need that," or saying "Stop complaining, it's free," or similar, is not cool.

As someone who had to install XP Professional on a Toshiba Satellite bundled with Vista Home, I have to agree. Getting XP as functional as Vista when it comes to optimizing/recognizing hardware was irritating because the US Toshiba site (and its tech support staff) will not tell you that the A215 is virtually identical to the A210 they sell only in Canada, where they're required to support XP on it. As soon as I found the Canadian Toshiba site, I was able to download all the necessary drivers for sound, video, trackpad, hotkeys, etc.

It's business at its worst.

>If your OS is pre-loaded at the OEM, it succeeds. They make sure that the hardware works

At what date did you lost contact to reality?

Apparently the people who bought the EeePc to use Windows XP with it disagree with you. People are well aware of Windows as a platform and for whatever reason (familiarity, software supply) won't easily accept a new, unfamiliar operating system even if it is preloaded by the manufacturer.

Edited 2008-03-11 17:40 UTC

Apparently the people who bought the EeePc to use Windows XP with it disagree with you. "

Sure some did, but the question is: how many person did change the OS of the EEE PC to Windows?

I bet that this is a very small percentage, like the percentage of people who ditch the preinstalled Windows with Linux (something around 1% I think).

Now I have no idea how to get the real figures..

Well, I don't have any concrete numbers either but here is my train of thought: Windows is a known entity to most users. Someone who buys an EeePC will probably have come in contact with Windows already and it's likely that Windows is his main OS on other machines. And the EeePC is similar enough from a design point of view (looks) that he (the user) will probably recognize it as a device which should be able to run Windows and opt for the known environment which will satisfy his needs as other Windows installations already do. People might accept another OS if a device looks sufficiently different from a desktop PC or notebook (e.g. mobile phones, organizers). But this is not the case for the EeePC. So my guess is that the conversion rate from Linux to Windows on the EeePC is much higher than vice versa.

Asus' decision to sell the new EeePC directly with Windows might even accelerate this trend as people will be made directly aware that Windows runs on it. If my memory doesn't fail me the Linux version will have a harddrive with larger capacity for the same price so some people might buy this version and install Windows on it afterwards.

Anyway, it's all fishing in the dark to a certain degree but that's what discussions boards (or comment sections) are made for :-)

Everything mentioned in the article is credible but only a couple are really worth noting.

Linux has a plethora of problems as far as hardware support goes. This is almost exclusively attributed by the fact that Windows is dominate on OEM channels.

Being pre-installed ensures that everything is configured and guaranteed to function with all the hardware installed on the computer. Linux rarely has this luxury, except on servers. That said, Linux hardware support is fantastic with it's weak market position.

Commercial software support is arguably the biggest deterrent. Windows has all the love of the commercial software market. In addition, Windows has access to most of the free software found on Linux because developers are actively porting them to Windows.

In summary, Windows has gained virtually all the commercial market and nearly all the popular FOSS solutions as well; whereas Linux might only have the latter.

In contrast, Linux users cannot tap into vast array of Windows-only commercial software products without relying on Wine, remote desktop, or virtualization solutions--all which have their own set of limitations and quirks.

In reality, Linux, like ALL other non-mainstream desktop OSes, suffer from the "double-edge sword" problem. The platform is currently in a troubled position due to the lack of popularity and support. Yet, its unable to fully redeem itself and improve enough to become attractive without gaining major popularity and support in the first place.

Edited 2008-03-13 00:03 UTC

Wal-Mart just announced it is going to quit offering all Linux pc's. The demand just was not there for them to justify continuing selling pc's with Linux preloaded.


http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9890880-16.html?tag=bl

Edited 2008-03-11 21:07 UTC

Walmart has decided not to sell the gpc on retail shelves. Sales through their online store were apparently much better, and they will be focusing on that. In fact, the online sales were never in question.

If my local Superstore is any indication, Walmart sells few PCs at the local stores. They never seem to have much stock or selection.

Edited 2008-03-11 21:20 UTC

Geeks tend to buy online so that may be a factor in continuing with sales there only. The point is that regular Joe Shmoe was not buying these PC's to begin with. I love Linux, but I still feel it is no where near ready for the average user.

Unlike you, I think the GIMP UI is quite nice, actually.
I usually don't have more image files opened at the same time, though. My max. is usually three, maybe four images.

And I wouldn't really throw Pixel as an alternative.
It's unfinished, the releases are getting delayed by months now, users who have purchased a license or two often feel that it's almost like Pixel is a hobby project for its author.

A stable 1.0 release was supposed to be out a long time ago and Pixel's author is still struggling to get a Beta 8 out.

I have bought Pixel myself, but as it is now, full of bugs and unfinished features, it's mostly useless.
It's very disappointing and it's no wonder people don't suggest it often - there is no good reason to do so. Not for me and apparently not for some other people as well.

By the way, VLC supports DVD menus.

The reason why most distributions can't play DVDs out of the box is license issues.
If you're willing to pay for those licenses, you can grab e.g. a Xandros or some paid Mandriva pack.

Edited 2008-03-11 16:50 UTC

>Yet I don't know of a single Linux distro which does play DVDs or such without user having to first learn to enable additional repos and then finding out what software to install.

Slackware?

>Oh, and Linux DVD software suck. There's like a gazillion pieces to choose from under Windows and OSX but I know only of 2 apps under Linux which even supports menus: Xine and Ogle.

Well, well VLC is able too and of course Kaffeine - there are more applications out there.

Oh and I do know at least five free operating systems (including some Linux distros) which can play DVD out of the box. But as usual, most of the time the lack of knowledge is the real hurdle.

You do not gain much if you're fighting FUD with FUD.

Well, well VLC is able too and of course Kaffeine - there are more applications out there.

Oh and I do know at least five free operating systems (including some Linux distros) which can play DVD out of the box. But as usual, most of the time the lack of knowledge is the real hurdle.

Okay, I will add VLC and Kaffeine to my list of working players too then Anyway, I still stand by my opinion that the actual DVD player software for Windows are usually more stable and easier to use than VLC/Ogle/et al. I always have atleast one crash every time I try to play a movie with Ogle, usually 2-3 crashes though.

But which Linux distros do you know of then that do support DVD playing out of the box? I learned that Mandriva does, if you buy and install the Mandriva Powerpack (which costs a bit more than I would like but it's still a lot cheaper than Windows or OSX)

At what point did Windows support it out of the box, while we're at it? I've always had to dig around for a CD of PowerDVD so that I could play a DVD with VLC.

At what point did Windows support it out of the box, while we're at it?

Sorry, I am not capable of answering that. I just thought that Vista does support DVD playback on default install but since I don't own Vista nor do I use Windows for anything else but playing and surfing the web occasionally I just don't really know for certain if it does require anything additional. If Vista does not indeed support DVD playback then I do admit that I was wrong