Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 22:32 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu According to Canonical head honcho Mark Shuttleworth, Windows 7 presents the ideal opportunity for Linux to gain significant inroads into the desktop market. He said so in an interview with InternetNews. While I certainly do hope so, an eerie sense of deja vu creeps up on me: isn't this like the 923298th opportunity where Linux is supposed to make inroads into the desktop market?
Order by: Score:
Typo?
by darknexus on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 22:41 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Windows 7 prevents the ideal opportunity for Linux to gain significant inroads into the desktop market

Shouldn't that be: " Windows 7 presents the ideal opportunity for Linux to gain significant inroads into the desktop market?"
Note: not commenting on whether that's true or not, just pointing out the typo. According to shuttleworth, Windows 7 wouldn't "prevent" Linux from entering the desktop market, quite the opposite, and "present" is the word that comes to mind as the logical origin of the error.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Typo?
by Liquidator on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 08:44 UTC in reply to "Typo?"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

True. Please send your resume to careers@babelfish.yahoo.com - Thanks.

Reply Score: 6

No one had those lofty expectations
by jaylaa on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 22:42 UTC
jaylaa
Member since:
2006-01-17

So, let me get this straight. Linux was supposed to make inroads into the desktop market when Windows Vista proved to be a flop. Linux failed. Linux was supposed to make inroads when the netbook market emerged. Linux failed.

But Linux did make inroads on both of those occasions. More computers come with Linux now than ever before, and that's at least partially because of Vista and netbooks. What's the problem?

I guess if by inroads you mean "wipes out MS", then Linux failed. But who expected that?

Reply Score: 25

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

But Linux did make inroads on both of those occasions. More computers come with Linux now than ever before, and that's at least partially because of Vista and netbooks. What's the problem?

The problem is that NetBooks had made of linux the most uninstalled OS in the planet.

Reply Score: 2

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Proof?

Reply Score: 3

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Your proof of the contrary?

Reply Score: 1

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Kidding me? Tell us who is doing all the uninstalls and how you encountered them or shut up as you obviously don't have anything worthy to add to this discussion.

Reply Score: 9

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Stupid insults don't make it better, troll.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Your proof of the contrary?


No proof - but Windows is easily the most uninstalled OS on the planet.

This is because, due to Microsoft controlling the hardware OEMs, then unless you are Google and you build your own machines, most installations of Linux have uninstalling Windows as the first step.

Reply Score: 10

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You can only rest your case by saying "no proof" if you yourself have provided proof. Since you have not, stalemate.

Reply Score: 1

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

You don't have to be google to build your own machine. I don't know about your country, but in mine you can get prebuilt machines without Windows, which in the ends it's like buying the components and making someone knowledeable to assemble them.

Reply Score: 3

asgard Member since:
2008-06-07

I didn't in fact uninstall Windows, I just deleted them on my ASUS EEE 901 (they didn't sell Linux version here in Czechia). But the license actually came handy so I could install Windows on my old laptop I got without it for my grandmother.

Reply Score: 1

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

You claim, you proof.
or else...
"Linux is used in 84,4% of the computers without Internet"
I'm right until you proof the contrary.

Reply Score: 3

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

You're not right, because you don't have any proof.

Reply Score: 1

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Really? :S... I used irony to proof my point. You can't just make a bold claim with the only argument that the other party can't proof that your not right.

That whole guilty until proven otherwise thing just doesn't work.

(actually it is technicly possible to be right without proof)

Edited 2009-04-03 15:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Your proof of the contrary?


People return them , get a refund and ask for a windows netbook :

http://blog.laptopmag.com/ubuntu-confirms-linux-netbook-returns-hig...

http://blog.laptopmag.com/msi-wind-coming-to-major-retailer-new-mod...

Is Ballmer conceding victory to Linux Netbooks?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10201859-16.html?part=rss

The other fact you tend to forget is in certain area Microsoft push is netbook as lost leader ( like they do on XBOX 360 , where they make up for it in selling games ) , they pay for the OS , by offering it free and pay to have better parts , so the GNU/Linux user's buy the Windows version and install GNU/Linux in dual booth or wipe Windows completly , because the hardware offer is better and cheaper.

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

But Linux did make inroads on both of those occasions. More computers come with Linux now than ever before, and that's at least partially because of Vista and netbooks. What's the problem?

The problem is that NetBooks had made of linux the most uninstalled OS in the planet.


The distributions shipped with netbooks were almost universally garbage and all different... I have an eee 901 which came with xandros and hated the preinstalled os.

Reply Score: 2

I'll believe it when it happens
by darknexus on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 22:44 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Subject says it all, I guess. All the "year of the Linux desktop" hype has come to nothing.
That being said, if Microsoft goes ahead and forceably includes Windows 7 Starter with netbooks, Linux may have an opportunity to get a foothold here. But an opportunity is nothing by itself, without the will and/or the means to take advantage of it a mere opportunity amounts to exactly zero.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Subject says it all, I guess. All the "year of the Linux desktop" hype has come to nothing.

But it hasn't come to nothing. It has come to less than the most hopeful thought it might. The "year of the Linux Desktop" has always been a straw man argument. Does anyone grounded in reality expect one? Give me very slow, but but very inexorable progress any day. Linux dominance on the first netbooks out was unthinkable at the time. OK. So now MS is king of the netbooks. But they had to sacrifice. Because we were there as competition. The war of the ARM netbooks is not as easy for them to win. They might end up winning it. They might kill ARM completely. But even so, you can't just throw your hands up in despair. You have to fight.

Reply Score: 9

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I didn't mean to say there had been no progress made, I meant that the hype has been nothing but propaganda. Basically, we're in agreement here, as uncommon as that situation seems to be ;) .

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

There is also the price factor. You can buy for a few days an Acer Aspire One A150L for € 219 here in Italy. It is a mini-PC with all the specs you might need. But I suppose they can sell it so cheap because it comes with Linux.

Reply Score: 2

vonschutter Member since:
2007-04-30

You know... I keep saying this... but a member of my family is a small OEM for white boxes. He sells 80% Ubuntu desktops and all the customers are happy. He simply presents them with a choice: 90$ for Windows (OEM price) or nothing for Ubuntu. Customers then want to know more about Ubuntu... they discuss the advantages and disadvantages, and how the customer in question intends to use the PC/Laptop; and 8 out of 10 CHOSE Linux. Perhaps things would be different if Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. offered the same choice, and information; instead of hiding the offers in some remote corner of their web sites.

Reply Score: 4

It's Not Your Memory Thom
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 22:45 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

He said so in an interview with InternetNews. While I certainly do hope so, an eerie sense of deja vu creeps up on me: isn't this like the 923298th opportunity where Linux is supposed to make inroads into the desktop market?

Indeed, you're correct. We've had these predictions by lots of people for the best part of ten years now and bugger all has happened.

Mark seems to be great at telling us all that there are opportunities, but he's not so great at telling us what those opportunities are and how they can be exploited. He just seems to be completely out of ideas now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by kaiwai on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:29 UTC in reply to "It's Not Your Memory Thom"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed, you're correct. We've had these predictions by lots of people for the best part of ten years now and bugger all has happened.

Mark seems to be great at telling us all that there are opportunities, but he's not so great at telling us what those opportunities are and how they can be exploited. He just seems to be completely out of ideas now.


I think there is something even more problematic - the inability for the Linux community to take constructive criticism (this website being a microcosm of what happens when one dares to critique Linux (and the various components that make up a distribution)). Until there is an acceptance of needing to fix things rather than the usual rant over "look how far linux has come - obviously you don't know what you're talking about" which is the usual reply along with a various flames - things won't improve.

Edited 2009-04-02 23:31 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by darknexus on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Agreed. That, plus their seeming inability to work together and cooperate on a lot of the underlying technologies involved, though that at least is beginning to improve, finally.
Linux needs to be a platform, not just an os. Make it easy for developers to write and publish drivers, applications, and anything else they want. If that means settling on one distribution to be the standard for consistency's sake, so be it. The desktop front requires stability and consistency, not a zillion different choices and driver issues.

Reply Score: 1

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

If you ever happen to do software developing, you will see that what you say is not true. Open source software builds on a lot of libraries. Proprietary software tends to build "everything" (and often, literarly everything) in-house.

Cooperation could be better, sometimes much better. Still if I compare to the proprietary market, it is already huge.

Reply Score: 4

aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Proprietary software houses tend to license technologies from other companies than build them over again. Why reinvent when you can license what's already written?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by testman on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

If you ever find yourself doing real software development in the IT industry, you'll learn that what you said is so wrong it beggars belief.

Were I to, as you claim, build "literally everything" in-house, I would quickly find myself unemployed. I and most other good proprietary developers are happy to use COTS if it gets the job done.

Reply Score: 2

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Who is "the Linux community" for you? Who?

Guess what, I see a lot of constructive criticism taking place in free software development. It starts with peer review of code, and ends with prominent Linus Torvald's flamatory criticism happening--and being listened to--every day.


Perhaps the people flaming the critic are _not_ "the Linux community"? Perhaps the majority of the Linux community either does not care or is busy with fixing?

What I see is people who are bringing a revolution by evolution. Seriously. Open source is slow. But it is steady.

Whoever is flaming you--it is not the people bringing open source forward. Proof? Write bug reports. See how people react.


For one bug report I wrote it took them 2 years to respond with a patch and eventually fix it. TWO YEARS. Yet, I never got flamed.


I guess you get the idea. There are many severe problems in the open source software world. People arguing about them are not the people working on them. You should listen to the latter and ignore the former.

Edited 2009-04-03 00:03 UTC

Reply Score: 10

shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

Yeah ok, but that's all internal criticism. Windows and Mac users hate dependencies and the problems they cause with a passion. They just don't want to investigate the cause of the problem since it's easier to just go back to windows or mac. If you're not taking input from people who use windows and mac and go back, you're not doing anything at all to make Linux popular on the desktop.

Reply Score: 0

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You and your dependencies, seriously. That last comment you replied to had absolutely nothing to do with dependencies. The way you harp on about them, one might think they did you a personal injury.

Reply Score: 1

shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

Let me rephrase it: Windows and Mac users don't realize how great single file installs are until they use Linux. For the moment being, I'm using whether desktop Linux has them or not as an indicator of whether it's truly ready to succeed in the desktop world. If they're gone, then Linux has finally caved to demands of actual people and stops arguing with complaints with mundane technical detail x that no average person really cares about.

Edited 2009-04-03 01:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

For the moment being, I'm using whether desktop Linux has them or not as an indicator of whether it's truly ready to succeed in the desktop world.

First off, all software has dependencies, whether on components or a particular OS. The dependencies aren't the problem, it's the handling of them.

To give an indication. In the last 3 years I haven't encountered dependency hell with Ubuntu.

I'll have to put some qualifiers with that though. Normal use on released software, so no Alpha's, Beta's and RC's. No mixing and matching repositories, be it within Ubuntu or with other Debian variants, including Backports. No mucking about with packages that are based on other packaging systems like RPM. No compiling Alpha, Beta, RC or Released software from source.

Using released Ubuntu variants with their respective repositories, including Universe and Multiverse does not pose showstopper problems with regard to dependencies.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by bibe on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
bibe Member since:
2005-07-09

Who is "the Linux community" for you? Who?



I guess that's my main problem with statements like "this is the year of linix desktop". Knowing the infinitely complex internal structure of linux/desktop development it's just not clear to me who could speak for it... The whole thing smelled like a media hype from the beginning, so sad seeing so many people caught up in it.

The truth is that such "prophetic" media statements brought more harm than good to the "linux desktop" ecosystems by building up huge expectations that could not possibly be fulfilled.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

I read all the comments under this article , frankly I could not found one single constructive criticism.

I found lots of insult , mindless bashing , lots of painting and lying , but I could not found one single comment talking about a real problem that exist in reality that could be adresses and tackled by me pushing for it being solved.

GNU/Linux is the #1 OS by usage and #2 in sales , it's also an industry that as not yet reached full maturity.

The only thing left to say is that you and your ilk will never be happy using GNU/Linux because you want something else or something we can't provide as it's owned by someone who refuse to share it with us , we are sorry we cannot meet your need and wish you well on your usage of another OS.

Edited 2009-04-03 17:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Well, I welcome it anyhow. The problem is that it's rarely written as critisism; normally it's "Linux didn't do XYZ for me so it's broken for everyone and that's why my prefered platform is so much better." Or the often "Linux" meaning anything that happens to use the kernel rather than realizing the differences between Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva and other products assembled from the same can of bolts.

It's not onesided either, there are the people who can't keep from breaking into any conversation at the mention of Windows so they can point out some equally one sided point.

both sides of the religious war continue to spout long dead or disproven points as if it where scripture. 90% of the market is Microsoft so it must be the higher quality product. Linux based platforms measured through financial metrics (retail) are less than 10% of the market so it must not be in use at all except for five homeschooled ultra-nerds in a basement somewhere.

Why would any fan camp be compelled to politely discuss "opportunities" for improvement against an opening statement that presented one user's itch as a platform wide flaw. It's like slapping a Windows user then asking them to sit down and discuss the platforms inability to provide true privileged separation.

It's not just the folks who like Linux based platforms (or "Linux" if your a kernel dev), there are lots of brand blinded people in all the fan camps; enough in each to insure no two camps can get along anyhow.

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by bert64 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 08:37 UTC in reply to "It's Not Your Memory Thom"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

"He said so in an interview with InternetNews. While I certainly do hope so, an eerie sense of deja vu creeps up on me: isn't this like the 923298th opportunity where Linux is supposed to make inroads into the desktop market?

Indeed, you're correct. We've had these predictions by lots of people for the best part of ten years now and bugger all has happened.

Mark seems to be great at telling us all that there are opportunities, but he's not so great at telling us what those opportunities are and how they can be exploited. He just seems to be completely out of ideas now.
"

Plenty has happened, but the inroads are being made slowly... Linux usage and availability to the general public is gradually increasing and usability is improving. What you have to consider is that this is not a level playing field, it is a steep uphill battle against vendor lock-in. When competing against commercial unixes the field is far more level and Linux has done extremely well. In the most level field of all, commercial unix on x86 hardware, linux pretty much killed BSDi and SCO...

The only advantage Windows has right now is inertia couple with incompatibility. If it was possible to run 100% of Windows programs on Linux and open 100% of data files without any incompatibilities then Linux would be growing very rapidly indeed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by segedunum on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Plenty has happened, but the inroads are being made slowly... Linux usage and availability to the general public is gradually increasing and usability is improving.

Some very small inroads have been made, but the problem is that a Linux distribution as a platform is just not doing enough to sustain those inroads.

Yes, I know it's not exactly a level playing field, but with the internet and the ability for users and OEMs to download and install ISOs it should be a lot more level than the draconian OEM agreements everyone has had to get around in the past. The level playing field argument is used too much as an excuse sometimes I think.

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Some very small inroads have been made


In reality our very small inroads the other OS are envious we made them at all , and would trade position with us anytime.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by sbergman27 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 17:57 UTC in reply to "It's Not Your Memory Thom"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Mark seems to be great at telling us all that there are opportunities, but he's not so great at telling us what those opportunities are and how they can be exploited.

Mark, Canonical, and the Ubuntu community are pretty much the only ones actually acting to exploit them. Other distros are to busy either looking out for their parent corporations' business interests (Hi Fedora and OpenSuse!), or doing it with their heads so far in the clouds that their collective brains seem to be suffering from a lack of oxygen (Hi Fedora!).

Ubuntu considers the needs of the casual home user, explains the ethical considerations, and then helps the user as it can. The other major distros just pop up a modal dialog explaining why the user doesn't really need what he just said he wanted, and refuse to lift a finger to help them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by ssa2204 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Mark, Canonical, and the Ubuntu community are pretty much the only ones actually acting to exploit them. Other distros are to busy either looking out for their parent corporations' business interests (Hi Fedora and OpenSuse!), or doing it with their heads so far in the clouds that their collective brains seem to be suffering from a lack of oxygen (Hi Fedora!).

Ubuntu considers the needs of the casual home user, explains the ethical considerations, and then helps the user as it can. The other major distros just pop up a modal dialog explaining why the user doesn't really need what he just said he wanted, and refuse to lift a finger to help them.


Lol, I really have to agree with this, especially regarding what you said about Fedora. For me the thing that broke the camels back was just how poorly maintained repositories were for Fedora. I remember a few years back running into problems trying to install stuff from net-snmp to ntop, failing because the package was missing dependencies not in the same repository, and person X,Y, or Z who had his own personal Fedora repo up would have conflicting versions. So the solution to build from source defeated for me at least the whole point of having Yum. Yet due to the laziness of some developers who had these applications we had to install, we could use nothing but Fedora. When they finally developed versions we could install on Suse we cut our setup and configuration times by hours.

And you are correct in that with all the different "help" sources out there, quite often questions just get ignored. Whether they have been questions I have asked, or questions I see others have, it is quite common to just never get an answer. Often I have done a search for problem X, to see that people having same or similar problems have posted on the issue to never have a reply. In fact I have a current issue that I just did a Google search earlier today, to my displeasure I see that this exact problem has been asked and never answered on several forums and lists. So it begs the question why bother asking, so instead I chose to waste my time having to find a different solution.

I have often thought that Linux really needs somewhere to have a centralized repository of help. And to take a page, yes from Microsoft, and have Linux MVPs. Problem is that way too many in the Linux community would rather spend time bitching about Microsoft, fighting about KDE vs Gnome, or Ubuntu vs. Novell, etc. I have always thought that the fragmentation of Linux has it's strengths and positives, but as a direct competition to a Windows/OSX desktop it is not an asset.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I have often thought that Linux really needs somewhere to have a centralized repository of help.

We do have one. It is called UbuntuForums.org. It's a place where people can go for help and not be told to RTFM. I'm an old hand, having administered Unix since around 1988. And that is often where I go for support. Lot's of normal folk, their efforts put together, are far more helpful than the pitiful band of "Old Guard" whom I used to have to deal with.

It is unfortunate (or fortunate, depending upon how you look at it) that so many of the old guard don't seem to have figured out that the topology of the game board has changed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by sb56637 on Sun 5th Apr 2009 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

Sorry, but UbuntuForums.org is worthless. I use Ubuntu as my main OS, and for every problem I have encountered, I always Google it first and usually find a solution. The less conspicuous or interesting problems that I experience go unanswered on UbuntuForums.org. Within a few minutes the question disappears into the oblivion of "page 2" where nobody ever bothers to look, and you're left to fend for yourself.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: It's Not Your Memory Thom
by ssa2204 on Sun 5th Apr 2009 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's Not Your Memory Thom"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Sorry, but UbuntuForums.org is worthless. I use Ubuntu as my main OS, and for every problem I have encountered, I always Google it first and usually find a solution. The less conspicuous or interesting problems that I experience go unanswered on UbuntuForums.org. Within a few minutes the question disappears into the oblivion of "page 2" where nobody ever bothers to look, and you're left to fend for yourself.


Ubuntu forums would be of course worthless especially if you are using something other than Ubuntu. But, allow me to point out that just for giggles I looked up a post I made a week ago regarding ldap. To date 117 page views, on page 3, no replies.

In comparison, the last time I used the Microsoft Windows Server newsgroup, I posted about an error with the BDC, answered completely within 30 minutes of post. Prior to that it took about 10 minutes to get a correct reply to an issue with Exchange log files. I still never got a decent reply through forums, lists, etc.. regarding an issue with Opensuse's Apache virtual hosts. The main difference is that in the MS hosted newsgroups and forums they have active support through their MVP label program.

I agree that the less conspicuous or interesting the problem, the more it will go ignored. Over the years I have preferred Opensuse, but alongside that found the Novell/Opensuse forums to be the most active in terms of support. But even there you find issues get a response if it is dealing with basic or popular issues ("how do I get multimedia support") as opposed to more intricate or rare.

Reply Score: 2

bla
by sbenitezb on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:00 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

I remember when MS was developing Vista, and it was still called Longhorn, everyone was saying it would be the perfect time for Linux adoption. Time passed by and now most people use XP or Vista (heck, some people loves Vista, go figure). Of course it doesn't mean Linux hasn't gained some space, it did, but not significantly. Not like it matters.

So saying Windows 7, which is/will be a better Vista represents the perfect opportunity for Linux adoption is bogus and a bit naïf considering history. We should know by now the Linux year won't ever come, as the whole world won't ever migrate to Linux in just one year. It's going to be a slow migration. That comming from a businessman only means propaganda.

Reply Score: 3

RE: bla
by graigsmith on Sat 4th Apr 2009 11:23 UTC in reply to "bla"
graigsmith Member since:
2006-04-05

i actually love vista. i had heard so much negative about it that i thought i would absolutely hate it. going so far as to switch to linux for about 2 years.. eventually i realised that linux was not worth it. and ever release of ubuntu had more bugs and more broken software. when i got a new computer it came with vista, and i played with it. i thought, hmm. this is nice, and very cool. eventually i decided to drop linux for vista.

just goes to show you what negative word of mouth can do. really the DRM situation on vista is no different than it was on xp.

Reply Score: 1

Errm
by d0od on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:04 UTC
d0od
Member since:
2009-02-25

The expectations of 'failure' are what? Yoiu were expecting Linux to superseed Windows during the Vista debacle? Errm.. No.

Linux has not promotion outside of the internet so Joe Public getting pissed at his PC won't even have heard of an alternative.

I do think you totally fail to see what Linux has achieved - for a start major manufacturers around the world ship netbooks with it (granted they're not as popular, but surely the fact they do is some kind of success?).

Linux user share is always hard to quantify - espeically when most stats come from sites most Linux users wouldn't likely visit.

This article is just another one that's poorly thought out here on OSNews and as they continue, so does my finger over 'remove feed'.

Reply Score: 9

Linux koolaid
by runjorel on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:06 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

Hmm, what's the better combo:

a) Jobs + There is Apple and nothing else.

b) Ballmer + Vista ... no really it works and is the most popular OS in the universe.

c) Shuttleworth + Linux(ubuntu) ... no really, this is the year of Desktop Linux.

But of course...the winner is....The Internet..no wait, I mean the ominous "The Cloud".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux koolaid
by dragossh on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:15 UTC in reply to "Linux koolaid"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

d) Haiku + we want to develop the fastest OS ever

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux koolaid
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux koolaid"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I like very much Haiku (in fact i liked Be Os much more than Windows, Linux, Os X).

Sadly, we may wait another 10 years before the first fully functional version of Haiku appears. I said 10 years because the delelopment seems to be very, very slow.

Reply Score: 1

Just curious...
by whartung on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:14 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

Just, exactly, when was the "Year of Mac OS X"? So I know what to look for when it happens for Linux.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Just curious...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 16:41 UTC in reply to "Just curious..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

When Apple Bought Next in 1996 bringing Steve Jobs back to Apple as an advisor.

Not until 2002 was Mac OS X made the main OS.

Reply Score: 2

What is Apple doing?
by lqsh on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:16 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01

Marketing? A better product?

It seems that one Unix OS is actually making inroads, OS X. What is Apple doing to make this happen?

I for one am tired of working on my PC, instead of working with it.

Reply Score: 6

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Of the Windows, osX, Mandriva and Debian boxes I manage, I "just works" with them 95% of the time. Once it's setup, the thing just ticks on doing it's tasks. A regular maintenance check and they're all good.

How is it that your system needs constant maintenance instead of simply working with it? This, contrary to how it sounds, is an honest question. Are you constantly adding and removing software or hardware components?

Reply Score: 4

...
by Hiev on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:17 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by sbergman27 on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:21 UTC in reply to "..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.

Not to be rude... but you sound like a fascist.:-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

lol.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by ngnr on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:09 UTC in reply to "..."
ngnr Member since:
2008-01-16

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.


Maybe this is not good from a strict OSS point of view , but IMHO i think that is a necessary step in order improve the adoption process for the average user.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by pandronic on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:46 UTC in reply to "..."
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Watch out for the down-mod fest. Saying stuff like that equals heresy for Linux people and to be fair it looks like an impossibility in the OSS world, because there is no clear direction. Everybody works on what they like and not on what they should.

The only serious OSS projects are those big corporations get behind (ironically), because they add focus to the project.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Watch out for the down-mod fest. Saying stuff like that equals heresy for Linux people and to be fair it looks like an impossibility in the OSS world, because there is no clear direction. Everybody works on what they like and not on what they should. The only serious OSS projects are those big corporations get behind (ironically), because they add focus to the project.


If there are down-mods (which I don't do myself) then I don't think they would be due to "heresy".

Here was the OP claim: "Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.".

Windows doesn't have anything remotely close to a "single package format"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software#Microsof...

Nor does Windows have "universal executables" (e.g.Vista drivers vs XP drivers, or 64-bit drivers, or even a lack of 64-bit applications because old XP applications that people have are binary only).

OSX doesn't have "unity between desktops"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X#Compatibility

Edited 2009-04-03 06:04 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: ...
by dragossh on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Windows doesn't have anything remotely close to a "single package format"

So .exe/.msi is not a "single package format"? Most installers use Windows Installer for their tasks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by ichi on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 07:50 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

The only serious OSS projects are those big corporations get behind (ironically), because they add focus to the project.


That depends on your definition of "serious" but still, how would that be ironic?
As if OSS was about hippies.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by bert64 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 08:44 UTC in reply to "..."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.


Neither Windows nor OSX have a single package format... Both have packaging formats, but they are poorly managed in the default setups and most applications aren't provided in those formats. Any major Linux distro has far more packages available in it's native format.

Universal executables exist too, the problems people have is that most binaries are dynamically linked and they don't have the libraries they are linked to...
Windows and OSX solve this by having a fixed and well defined set of target versions with a small set of guaranteed libraries... Third party libs are typically shipped with an application and installed alongside it. This results in duplication of libs on OSX, and "DLL Hell" on windows.
Linux can do application bundles just like OSX, or it can do static binaries... It's just that all these methods are inefficient so Linux users typically prefer to have native dynamically linked packages.

Reply Score: 6

RE: ...
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 10:57 UTC in reply to "..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.


A lot of that could be solved by Linux embracing Mach-O and drag and drop installation of software. The problem is that open source would rather keep rehashing the same ideas over and over again instead of looking at their competition and recognising a good idea that they should adopt and possible build upon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by sbergman27 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The problem is that open source would rather keep rehashing the same ideas over and over again instead of looking at their competition and recognising a good idea that they should adopt and possible build upon.

Yes! That's the path to success. Change Linux's binary format just for the heck of it. And start strewing copies of different versions of all the libs throughout an arbitrary number of application directories. (A twisty maze of passages, different on every system.) While we're at it, maybe we should shop around for another libc, as well?

Edited 2009-04-03 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes! That's the path to success. Change Linux's binary format just for the heck of it. And start strewing copies of different versions of all the libs throughout an arbitrary number of application directories. (A twisty maze of passages, different on every system.) While we're at it, maybe we should shop around for another libc, as well?


And yet again you re-enforce what I said about the Linux community in a previous posts. You Linux fanboys never seem to amaze me, a christ like complex on one hand and yet demand people to contribute input.

"just for the heck of it'? I gave a reason for the change, hence, your pathetic and illogical post has just been destroyed by the fact that you couldn't be bothered actually reading and digesting what was written.

Edited 2009-04-03 23:56 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: ...
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

And yet again you re-enforce what I said about the Linux community in a previous posts. You Linux fanboys never seem to amaze me,

Come on kaiwai. You jump to a different fanboy camp every 8 months or so. Linux fanboy. Then Solaris fanboy. Then Apple fanboy. (You are still in the Apple camp, right? Or have I lost track?) Your current love can do no wrong. And all your previous loves you cast as Satans.

your pathetic and illogical post has just been destroyed by the fact that you couldn't be bothered actually reading and digesting what was written.

Here is your post. The one I responded to:

"""
A lot of that could be solved by Linux embracing Mach-O and drag and drop installation of software. The problem is that open source would rather keep rehashing the same ideas over and over again instead of looking at their competition and recognising a good idea that they should adopt and possible build upon.
"""

That's it in it's entirety, kaiwai. Please point out the part where you defended your bizarre recommendations.

Edited 2009-04-04 00:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: ...
by kaiwai on Sat 4th Apr 2009 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Come on kaiwai. You jump to a different fanboy camp every 8 months or so. Linux fanboy. Then Solaris fanboy. Then Apple fanboy. (You are still in the Apple camp, right? Or have I lost track?) Your current love can do no wrong. And all your previous loves you cast as Satans.


I've been using Mac's since 2002, and FreeBSD full time from 2002 to 1997, and Linux from 1995 to 1997 (with some dabbling on an old computer to keep up to speed with the changes).

Before I was kaiwai, I was a variety of other names before osnews had an login system (back in 2001) - I have always been a Mac fanboy; I do however come in when I see things being said about a given platform that are patently false; that doesn't make me a fanboy, it makes me a person who wants to see a robust debate that is based around reality rather than lying about the current state of affairs regarding the said alternative operating system.

Here is your post. The one I responded to:

"""
A lot of that could be solved by Linux embracing Mach-O and drag and drop installation of software. The problem is that open source would rather keep rehashing the same ideas over and over again instead of looking at their competition and recognising a good idea that they should adopt and possible build upon.
"""

That's it in it's entirety, kaiwai. Please point out the part where you defended your bizarre recommendations.


*YOU* stated the following:

"Change Linux's binary format just for the heck of it"

"just for the heck of it" implies that I advocate the change of the format for no other reason than I want to. Take a reading class. You clearly claimed that I wanted to change it for no other reason than for the sake of changing it, in your words, 'for the heck of it".

I provide *SOME* (but not all) reasons as to why it should be changed but YOU ignored it. It is YOU who fails to grasp the basics of english through your lack of understanding when using a turn of phrase such as "for the the heck of it".

As for your critique of Mac OS X, you obviously know NOTHING about how Mac OS X works; the fact that your zealotry blinds you from seeing a good technology when it exists demonstrates that you've turned your operating system from just that, an operating system, into a religion.

Edit: interesting, and the original poster uses one of his many sock puppets to moderate my post down rather than entering into a discourse over the flaws in his posts. Really shows the nature of the Linux zealot on osnews.com - when faced with the flaws in his post - he creates several sock puppet accounts and moderates the post down.

Edited 2009-04-04 01:32 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: ...
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

As for your critique of Mac OS X, you obviously know NOTHING about how Mac OS X works; the fact that your zealotry blinds you from seeing...

But I haven't commented upon MacOS.

BTW, I thought your post (the one I'm responding to) was more fun before you heavily edited it and took out the 23 exclamation points. (Yes, I counted them before you posted the edited version.) :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by kaiwai on Sat 4th Apr 2009 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As for your critique of Mac OS X, you obviously know NOTHING about how Mac OS X works; the fact that your zealotry blinds you from seeing...

But I haven't commented upon MacOS.


Yes you did; it was the second part of the post (my post only addressed the first part):

"Yes! That's the path to success. Change Linux's binary format just for the heck of it. And start strewing copies of different versions of all the libs throughout an arbitrary number of application directories. (A twisty maze of passages, different on every system.) While we're at it, maybe we should shop around for another libc, as well? "

Focus on this part:

"And start strewing copies of different versions of all the libs throughout an arbitrary number of application directories......"

Provide evidence that such things occur. Then you raised:

"While we're at it, maybe we should shop around for another libc, as well?"

Which has nothing to do with changing the binary format; your post sounded like a hyperbole laden knee jerk reaction to something you have an emotional attachment to - in this case, the ELF binary format that Linux uses.

BTW, I thought your post (the one I'm responding to) was more fun before you heavily edited it and took out the 23 exclamation points. (Yes, I counted them before you posted the edited version.) :-)


I heavily edited it because it was done in haste, frustration and didn't carry the message I wanted it to.

Edited 2009-04-04 06:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 4th Apr 2009 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Edit: interesting, and the original poster uses one of his many sock puppets to moderate my post down rather than entering into a discourse over the flaws in his posts. Really shows the nature of the Linux zealot on osnews.com - when faced with the flaws in his post - he creates several sock puppet accounts and moderates the post down.


Jesus Christ, kaiwai, your post was moderated down by two respected users of OSNews, both of whom have nothing to do with Steve. Why can't you just accept that sometimes, you come across as an arrogant insulting twat, and get downmodded for it.

And rightly so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by kaiwai on Sun 5th Apr 2009 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"Edit: interesting, and the original poster uses one of his many sock puppets to moderate my post down rather than entering into a discourse over the flaws in his posts. Really shows the nature of the Linux zealot on osnews.com - when faced with the flaws in his post - he creates several sock puppet accounts and moderates the post down.


Jesus Christ, kaiwai, your post was moderated down by two respected users of OSNews, both of whom have nothing to do with Steve. Why can't you just accept that sometimes, you come across as an arrogant insulting twat, and get downmodded for it.

And rightly so.
"

How the hell is it 'rightly so' when they deliberately distort what I say?

Pull your head out of your ass Thom - your moderation system sucks and needs to be put out of its misery like AIG should have been.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:27 UTC in reply to "..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.


I fully agree. I even think that linux is some kind of a disaster for Unix world. If it wasn't for linux, BSD would take the role of linux, but with emphasized unity, central development team and a much better license.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by r_a_trip on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 13:00 UTC in reply to "..."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

You just want to exchange one mono-culture for the other. Mono-cultures are easy. You don't have to think, you just accept the default. Everybody accepts the default.

No matter how well or ill suited the default is, nobody will criticize you for going with the status quo. Everybody supports the status quo.

There is are severe problems with this "one-size-fits-all" system. It fits badly, it retards progress and it gives a minority entity control over the digital lives of the majority.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by Michael on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 15:59 UTC in reply to "..."
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

Ubuntu already has all that. Linux never will. It's the nature of the beast. Linux is the source code for a multi-platform kernel used in servers and embedded systems as well as desktops. It has no package manager and no desktop of any kind.

What we all recognize you mean is that the big Linux distros - Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc. - should unify on these things. And, of course, it's politics more than technology that prevents that. But that will never change.

That said, the LSB has given us universal binaries for those very platforms. And "package management" is only needed for OS components. Most stuff can just be installed to a subdirectory of /opt, with maybe a symlink in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin.

Firefox, Adobe Flash and a whole list of other applications (that I get fed up with repeating) all get by just fine with a single .tar.gz binary distribution for all flavours of Linux. I don't think the problem is as bad as you paint it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by JeffS on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"Firefox, Adobe Flash and a whole list of other applications (that I get fed up with repeating) all get by just fine with a single .tar.gz binary distribution for all flavours of Linux."

Good point.

However, it took Adobe a long time, and development effort, to work the kinks out.

Remember, up until Flash 9, any release of Flash for Linux was always upwards of a year behind the release of the Windows and Mac versions.

Adobe actually blogged quite a bit about that. They have developers in their ranks that are big Linux fans, and the company generally wants to be as cross platform as possible.

But bottom line is that it took considerable effort on Adobe's part to get Linux versions out. They've worked out the kinks now, but it took a major commitement to get there.

They blogged about how they could not rely on the versions of gcc, glibc, various libraries, config files, and the actual locations of all those things, for producing a binary distribution that would actually work properly across as many major Linux distros as possible.

Adobe is a huge company with deep resources, and it was hard for them.

The point is, it can't be hard for an ISV, or IHV, to target Linux, if Linux is ever to be a true desktop platform. It has to be both easy to target Linux, and there has to be a good busines case to target Linux.

And it's not a true desktop platform, it will never make it as a major player in the desktop market. True, it's made inroads, and true, it has a loyal following (including me) and strong niche.

But as a platform, Linux is a mess.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by sbergman27 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

They blogged about how they could not rely on the versions of gcc, glibc, various libraries, config files, and the actual locations of all those things, for producing a binary distribution that would actually work properly across as many major Linux distros as possible.

So they should stop blogging about their self-inflicted woes and collaborate with the distos to get the damned thing into whatever "nonfree" repos the distros have.

Work within the system that the OS provides rather than fighting it. Of *course* swimming upstream is more difficult than swimming with the current. No surprise there. Duh?

Edited 2009-04-03 17:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by JeffS on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"So they should stop blogging about their self-inflicted woes and collaborate with the distos to get the damned thing into whatever "nonfree" repos the distros have."

Self-inflicted woes? C'mon.

They wanted one binary distribution to work on as many distros as possible, to avoid having a different binary for every distribution. It sucks to have to do a different compile and package for every possible targeted OS.

That works okay for purely open source software, where distro packagers take the source from upstream and package it for their own distro. But that has a drawback in that it creates massive replication of effort, over and over.

Also, your attitude of "I don't give a sh!t about your needs, Mr ISV, you should just conform to the 'Linux way', no matter how contrary to your business needs it is" is ridiculous. Grow up.

Don't get me wrong. I love open source software. I love opening up Synaptic in Ubuntu, and downloading whatever from the thousands of selections of great software titles.

But I'd also like to be able to download a title from some ISV's website, and just install it in whatever distro I happen to be running at the time (currently PCLinuxOS).

That's what Adobe did, and I love it. And they didn't have to produce a bazillion different separate, but redundant, packages just to support the multitudes of distros.

But doing so was hard. It needs to be easy.

Don't forget one of Ballmer's infamous monkey dances - "Developers, Developers, Developers!!"

MS's first and foremost customers are ISVs, OEMs and IHVs. They do everything they can to make Windows as easy as possible for those businesses.

Linux distros need to move as much as possible in that direction. Otherwise it's DOA as a general desktop - beyond geeks like us ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by Michael on Sat 4th Apr 2009 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

The point is, it can't be hard for an ISV, or IHV, to target Linux, if Linux is ever to be a true desktop platform. It has to be both easy to target Linux, and there has to be a good busines case to target Linux.

Well that's true. It's possible versus easy. Linux needs to be easier than Windows. I don't think that can ever happen for the whole platform. Individual distributions need to step out on their own. Never mind that Linux is difficult to develop for because our distro's the easiest OS in the world to develop for. That's where Ubuntu needs to be. Right now, they're a very long way off that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by ssa2204 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

[/q]Well that's true. It's possible versus easy. Linux needs to be easier than Windows. I don't think that can ever happen for the whole platform. Individual distributions need to step out on their own. Never mind that Linux is difficult to develop for because our distro's the easiest OS in the world to develop for. That's where Ubuntu needs to be. Right now, they're a very long way off that. [/q]

Historically for a product to break into a market that is dominated by another it takes more than a few basic elements. The best example that I could give would be the Japanese entry into the U.S. auto market in the mid 1970s. They introduced cars that were: lower cost, more reliable, better fuel efficiency, and lower ownership/maintenance costs. Companies such as Fiat, Peugot, Renault, and others all could lay claim to a few of those aspects, but would suffer from lack of at least one. Renault had everything except reliability. Peugot had everything except maintenance costs. Etc...

For something to break another's market dominance they can not simply be just "good enough" in a few areas, while lacking in others. More importantly it is how the consumer as a whole views the product, not the supporters obviously. Linux fans may feel that Ubuntu is everything in the world, but the market at large sees elements that are missing or unfulfilled.

Point is, have the questions every truly been asked, and have they been answered in regards to whether Linux truly fulfills the consumer expectations for a desktop OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by Thomas2005 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 16:54 UTC in reply to "..."
Thomas2005 Member since:
2005-11-07

Linux needs unity between desktops, one single package format, universal executables, all those litle basic things Windows and OSX have.

Wouldn't full hardware support of graphics cards be the hurdle that needs to be overcome for Linux and *BSD to truly advance? I know there are a lot of cards that have various amounts of support, but having full support for 2D and 3D acceleration would open a lot of doors for FOSS "professional" applications.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ... - which brand?
by jabbotts on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 17:54 UTC in reply to "..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

So, is Red Hat the brand to unify around? Maybe Novell has the one true Linux based desktop platform? Maybe Mediaix if we can agree that all desktops need to unify around media processing tools. Ubuntu should be nothing more than a different set of logo images on Suse? Should they all include SELinux MAC support and ultra-hardened security?

I think it bears repeating that Debian is not the same as Ubuntu, Mandriva or any other Linux based distribution. They all have different goals that require different default app selections and configurations.

Also, the competition between distributions is essential to the continued evolution of the platform. Heck, osX would improve if a third party was allowed to also develop and sell it in competition with Apple. Suse improves because RHE improves and Novell would like to keep competitive with Red Hat. Ubuntu improves because Connonical is going after the average user desktop market. Mandriva improves for the same reasons.

As for package management, I love apt and urpmi but why should everyone unify around a single package management type? It's the different package manager approaches competing that results in improvements.

It's not about making a one-size-fits-all backon burger. It's about using available commodity parts to assemble a custom system for your goals be they individual or corporate goals.

Reply Score: 3

well duh
by poundsmack on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:19 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

"According to Canonical head honcho Mark Shuttleworth, Windows 7 presents the ideal opportunity for Linux to gain significant inroads into the desktop market"

of course he would say that, he is currently running a company that has been loosing money since its inception. If he said what most people are well aware of (but likely wont admit due to fanboyism) it wouldnt look good for him. "Ok, windows 7 is actually looking pretty good. This... this could be a problem." See, now that looks less impresive comming out of the mouth of a CEO.

I really think the linux on the desktop initiative is underestimating windows. sure they (and Mac) had a great opportunity to pick on MS due to vista, but the reality of it is this: 7's improvements over vista currently trump the improvements of desktop linux from the time when vista came out to now. Linux can't use the "everyone look how easy is it to rip on Microsoft" game any more. I expect better out of the linux community as a whole. With all the companies pouring money into linux and the sheer number of developers it has in various forms, it should have been the coolest most amazing thing on the planet by now. But we're still "getting there" ...It's not how it should be.

Edited 2009-04-02 23:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: well duh
by darknexus on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:47 UTC in reply to "well duh"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I think one of the problems is those who are paid to work on Linux are typically either working on the kernel or on the server/enterprise end of things. The desktop side has been left to fend for itself for the most part, and those working on it are either donating what spare time they have or are so concentrated on eye-candy like compiz that they don't look beneath the surface to see where improvements really need to be done. The kind of structural and low-level work that really needs doing isn't fun, and there aren't a lot of programmers willing to do that work for free at least, not full time. So it's proceeded slowly, I'd dare say at a snail's pace. The desktop just isn't the focus of those big corporations pouring money into Linux.
That alone is far from the only problem, but saying that Linux has had tons of money put into it and hasn't improved is an oversimplification. It has improved a lot in the areas that tons of money have been poured into. It's just not the areas we'd like to see improved the most.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: well duh
by shadoweva09 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE: well duh"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

A lot of the necessary technology already exists, it's just that the people are always caught up in political discussions, "If it's so good, why isn't it very popular," etc... Take the theory behind PCBSD's pbi software installers. It provides the needed single file installs users of windows and mac wouldn't live without and isn't popular because BSD's have terrible hardware compatibility. The community would rather wait until it's popular, but the community is satisfied with their system and doesn't see problems. So most of the design decisions go into self satisfying loops of the current community and no one else.

Reply Score: 2

RE: well duh
by ssa2204 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:03 UTC in reply to "well duh"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

With all the companies pouring money into linux and the sheer number of developers it has in various forms, it should have been the coolest most amazing thing on the planet by now. But we're still "getting there" ...It's not how it should be.


Except out of all these companies pouring money into Linux, how many targeting the desktop as opposed to the enterprise level server?

Outside of fanboy world, where is Linux really accepted? The server, appliance, and service model. Routers, firewalls, NAS, Web, etc.. this is where it's true strengths lie. Someone else brought up the point a while back here that it is a statement that so many professional Linux developers end up using OSX or even Windows for their desktop OS.

At this point post of what has so far been written, at least here even, about Windows 7 has been very positive. So how this relates to being an opportunity for Ubuntu is beyond me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: well duh
by PlatformAgnostic on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE: well duh"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

To respond to you and darknexus:

I think you need to look at what Intel is doing with MobLin and its X/DRI efforts. Intel appears to be contributing a whole lot of code to the Linux ecosystem that is decidedly not targeted only at the server.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: well duh
by darknexus on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well duh"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

They are now. It seemed the OP was trying to point out that, despite all the money put into Linux over the years, there had been little progress on the desktop. Intel's efforts are very recent, and don't qualify as "over the years," at least not yet. Only now are we beginning to see some of the real desktop progress that is so badly needed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: well duh
by cadcrazy on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well duh"
cadcrazy Member since:
2009-02-03

Latest News:

Intel has abandoned Moblin project. What else can you say now. I am a hardcore linux supporter( or you can say fanboy) but still i must admit that linux sucks big time will always suck.
Sad I'll not be able to see anything like year of linux in my entire lifetime .

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: well duh
by darknexus on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well duh"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Source please?

Reply Score: 2

Sad: Intel Has Abandoned Moblin
by cadcrazy on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well duh"
cadcrazy Member since:
2009-02-03
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Not sad. Good. Intel has loosened its control of Moblin, placing it into more vendor neutral hands. Now we might see Moblin support a wider range of processors and chipsets.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/intel-hands-over-the-keys-...

Edited 2009-04-03 14:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I didn't see this on Moblin's site. They mentioned that linuxfoundation will provide the hosting, but they made it sound as though only the web site would be affected.
I'm not sure whether this is good or not. Intel's never been known for making operating systems, after all, but at the same time, one could read into this move in several ways. Perhaps Intel thought a more neutral approach was best for Moblin, or perhaps they gave it up as hopeless, or perhaps... anything in between. It's yet another move by a major company regarding Linux that could mean many things, and interpretations will be as vast as the possible meanings.

Reply Score: 2

Maybe it's just me...
by jbauer on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:35 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

... but I think we've heard that one before.

Reply Score: 3

v Quick Recap
by shadoweva09 on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 23:39 UTC
Fail?
by puelocesar on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:02 UTC
puelocesar
Member since:
2008-10-30

I just don't understand all these "Linux failed" BS.. I think it's pretty successful, considering all the odds

Do you really think any OS have any chances of surpassing Windows on the Desktop? People are trained to use Windows on schools, and the great majority of average joes just think that a computer and Windows are the same thing, so many can't even understand the concept of an Operation System..

Alternative OS like Linux and Mac are confined to niches, at least for now, and I think they are doing a really good job at these niches.

Linux for me is just great for development, for Thin clients, for mobile devices, and many other appliances, as Mac does a nice job on it's high end niche, but don't expect a world without Windows desktops anytime soon.

But this isn't really a problem, because desktops won't exist forever. As phones are becoming more and more powerful, mobile computing will became much more important then desktop computing, and that's a place where Linux have a great chance to score.

One more thing, I'm really excited about those ARM netbooks with 10h+ of battery life and with linux pre-installed!

Reply Score: 7

Time for a new OS
by mrAmiga500 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:14 UTC
mrAmiga500
Member since:
2009-03-20

I was a Linux fan... until I actually used it. I had such a loathing and hatred of Windows (at work, I'd never have that shit in my home), that I jumped to Linux the first chance I got. I was utterly, mind-bogglingly disappointed. I didn't think anything could suck worse than Windows, but I had found it. I tried many, many "distros" over the years, but they all had problems. I had to reinstall Linux because of major problems even MORE than I reinstalled Windows. Linux is unresponsive, convoluted, buggy bloat. (However, the fact that it's free makes me hate it marginally less.) If other people had similar experiences, then it's no wonder it's not making inroads in the desktop market.

I think it's time for an entirely NEW desktop OS - one that puts user interaction as TOP PRIORITY, a streamlined, optimized for speed, kick-ass OS without bloat or legacy bullshit - something like a blending of BeOS and Amiga. I know, it'll never happen.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Time for a new OS
by sbenitezb on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 01:11 UTC in reply to "Time for a new OS"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Haiku might be the answer in the future.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Time for a new OS
by mrAmiga500 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Time for a new OS"
mrAmiga500 Member since:
2009-03-20

Yes, I have hopes for Haiku, but I don't think it'll ever get beyond hobby status. I'd like to see a company like Google attempt an OS. They actually have the resources to get something going (although their only reason to make an OS would be to kill Microsoft). If they made a snappy responsive lightweight OS, we'd see something interesting.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Time for a new OS
by sbenitezb on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time for a new OS"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

It is not only the OS, also the applications.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Time for a new OS
by mrAmiga500 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time for a new OS"
mrAmiga500 Member since:
2009-03-20

Yes, yes, I know. But for the average schmo, all they need is a good browser, email, music player and a couple other programs to start. If it got popular, the applications would come.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Time for a new OS
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time for a new OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It is not only the OS, also the applications.


There are over 10,000 applications available for Linux in the distribution repositories alone (over 20,000 packages, but most applications require multiple packages).

If you were to try out 3 new applications each day, every day ... in 10 years you would get through all of those that are available right now.

But of course, by that time, there would be at least 10,000 more made available in the interim.

The point is ... Windows people on forums who try to disparage Linux for having a lack of applications rarely mention any actual real-life lack, and even then, if they do, they are often many years behind the times when it comes to what current desktop applications for Linux are actually like.

There is even a classic on this thread:
"Some linux apps don't cut it. Abiword becomes really slow with large docs (OpenOffice works better with them) but it's fine for smaller docs."


It is (I imagine) meant to leave you with the impression that somehow Linux Word Processor options "don't cut it". However, in reality, Abiword should be compared (apples with apples) with Wordpad, in which contest Abiword soundly beats Wordpad in every way imagineable, including the size of document it can reasonably handle, and including cross-platform availability and interoperability. OpenOffice should be compared with MS Office ... and of the two, OpenOffice is easily the one which handles large documents better.

Linux applications can "cut it" all right ... no problem whatsoever.

Edited 2009-04-03 04:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Time for a new OS
by sbenitezb on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Time for a new OS"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

And what the hell has your comment to do with my comment about haiku? Read the parent comments too >:\

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Time for a new OS
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Time for a new OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And what the hell has your comment to do with my comment about haiku? Read the parent comments too >:\


Sorry. The thread was about Linux, and your post to which I replied in and of itself gave no hint that it was (earlier in the thread) about Haiku.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Time for a new OS
by DrillSgt on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Time for a new OS"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"The point is ... Windows people on forums who try to disparage Linux for having a lack of applications rarely mention any actual real-life lack, and even then, if they do, they are often many years behind the times when it comes to what current desktop applications for Linux are actually like."

Can you point me to a Personal Financial Software with the same features as Quicken Home and Business? kmymoney doesn't compare feature wise, neither does guncash. Moneyance has possibilities, if they would include that feature. Also I use a blackberry, and I really need to be able to sync all my programs, not just dates and contacts. Can you point me to that? I didn;t think so. These are just 2 of many where Linux falls behind. I like and use Linux, but you asked for an example, and there you have 2.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Time for a new OS
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Time for a new OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The point is ... Windows people on forums who try to disparage Linux for having a lack of applications rarely mention any actual real-life lack, and even then, if they do, they are often many years behind the times when it comes to what current desktop applications for Linux are actually like." Can you point me to a Personal Financial Software with the same features as Quicken Home and Business? kmymoney doesn't compare feature wise, neither does guncash. Moneyance has possibilities, if they would include that feature. Also I use a blackberry, and I really need to be able to sync all my programs, not just dates and contacts. Can you point me to that? I didn;t think so. These are just 2 of many where Linux falls behind. I like and use Linux, but you asked for an example, and there you have 2.


Surely these are areas where Quicken and blackberry, respectively, fall behind.

Quicken and Blackberry, after all, are the ones who are limiting the people they can sell to. If there is no Quicken for Linux or Mac ... that hurts only Quicken. If a blackberry cannot sync fully with a Linux desktop client ... why not? It isn't like Linux desktop clients are bathed in super secret sauce or anything. Standards are used everywhere. This is, again, a case of Blackberry needlessly constraining the potential size of their own market.

If Blackberry could sync fully with a Mac but not with Vista ... would you blame Vista?

Or more real-life ... when Vista came out and it was changed so that it no longer worked (unlike XP) with Linux NAS devices ... were your complaints directed at Vista?

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Time for a new OS
by ssa2204 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Time for a new OS"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Quicken and Blackberry, after all, are the ones who are limiting the people they can sell to. If there is no Quicken for Linux or Mac ... that hurts only Quicken. If a blackberry cannot sync fully with a Linux desktop client ... why not? It isn't like Linux desktop clients are bathed in super secret sauce or anything. Standards are used everywhere. This is, again, a case of Blackberry needlessly constraining the potential size of their own market.


You really have no clue to anything related to business do you? Tell you what, when you grow up and work your way up to a position in management at one of these companies, then propose that they invest the money into supporting an OS that has null marketshare on the desktop...see how long your job lasts. Are you really this delusional to think that Quicken is being hurt by not porting to Linux? But wait, why would they. According to your world, Linux has a FOSS version that is a gazillion times better right?


Or more real-life ... when Vista came out and it was changed so that it no longer worked (unlike XP) with Linux NAS devices ... were your complaints directed at Vista?


No longer worked? Or more like Samba just needed to be updated? Oh wait, I guess Microsoft has no right to use NTLMv2, so everyone can just keep on using the oldest version of Samba written in 1809.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Time for a new OS
by testman on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Time for a new OS"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Can you point me to a Personal Financial Software with the same features as Quicken Home and Business?


In other words, "no".

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Time for a new OS
by DrillSgt on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Time for a new OS"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Or more real-life ... when Vista came out and it was changed so that it no longer worked (unlike XP) with Linux NAS devices ... were your complaints directed at Vista?"

Well, if this scenario had happened I would have blamed MS and Vista, just as I blame blackberry and intuit for not supporting Linux. Too bad the above scenario did not happen, and Vista worked with the Linux NAS devices without issue, or at least the 6 I used it with.

It is still a Linux shortcoming whether it is the fault of Linux or a third party. The blame belongs on the companies that refuse to support Linux, not the Linux developers.

Now can you answer the question I posted, which was what are some real alternatives to Quicken Home and Business and the Blackberry for a smartphone? I need the phone to work in full capabilities for sync, not half assed, and I need the finance software to be easy to use and handle business related items such as receivables, payables, etc. I am guessing you can't, so instead you did like normal and obfuscate the post so you could use it to preach your anti-MS beliefs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Time for a new OS - here you go
by jabbotts on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Time for a new OS"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=520

You'll notice the first included article "10 financial tools..."

Quickbooks is definitely one of the industry celebrities but, like photoshop, most don't use 90% of it's functions.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Quickbooks is definitely one of the industry celebrities but, like photoshop, most don't use 90% of it's functions."

I agree, which is why I just use Quicken, not Quickbooks. Different pieces of software.

Either way, thanks for the link. There are 2 on there I have never heard of or tried, MyBooks, and NolaPro. As long as one of them can connect to banking sites to download data, we will have a winner.

GnuCash will do that, with hours of manually configuring the banking connections. As for Photoshop, don't know really..never have used it. The Gimp does most of what I need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Time for a new OS
by ssa2204 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Time for a new OS"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

There are over 10,000 applications available for Linux in the distribution repositories alone (over 20,000 packages, but most applications require multiple packages).

If you were to try out 3 new applications each day, every day ... in 10 years you would get through all of those that are available right now.

But of course, by that time, there would be at least 10,000 more made available in the interim.


Oh give me a damn break. How many of these "applications" are actually user apps that are actually worth using? Sorry but a compat-lib RPM is not an "application", at least not in the real world.
I am not talking about excellent programs like Apache, Bind, etc...But the fact is most desktop apps for Linux are the "just good enough" variety, or exist solely because there is nothing else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Time for a new OS
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Time for a new OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"There are over 10,000 applications available for Linux in the distribution repositories alone (over 20,000 packages, but most applications require multiple packages). If you were to try out 3 new applications each day, every day ... in 10 years you would get through all of those that are available right now. But of course, by that time, there would be at least 10,000 more made available in the interim.
Oh give me a damn break. How many of these "applications" are actually user apps that are actually worth using? Sorry but a compat-lib RPM is not an "application", at least not in the real world. I am not talking about excellent programs like Apache, Bind, etc...But the fact is most desktop apps for Linux are the "just good enough" variety, or exist solely because there is nothing else. "

Your lack of evidentiary support for your statements is overwhelming.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Time for a new OS
by -oblio- on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Time for a new OS"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

Dude, do some analysis of your 10.000 "applications". The repositories of a large distribution, like Debian, contain something like 5000 application, out of which 60% are textmode (mostly utilities or fun stuff - fortune FTW!) and the rest are dependencies. I don't care about libapache2-mod_php or its ilk.

And many of those remaining desktop applications are crap, many unfinished, basically underpowered. A text editor which is unable to print? WTF? Leafpad - till not long ago. An image viewer which can't print? (many of the basic ones couldn't, and I believe many can't to this day - Mirage & co).

Numbers matter only when you have the basic functionalities in place. Start doing something serious with your OS, and you'll see what happens. Like start a business and use only Linux on all your computers...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Time for a new OS
by Mellin on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 10:45 UTC in reply to "Time for a new OS"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

you should have bought a mac ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Time for a new OS
by Coxy on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:12 UTC in reply to "Time for a new OS"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Funny, your experience of Linux has been exactly my experience too.

Linux users always claim windows they have nothing but problems and BSOD with windows... I haven't seen any blue screen since using Windows 98. I just got a new laptop with Vista and I like it. I don't see why everyone says it is so bad. I installed Ubuntu in Virtual Box and have used it twice. I can't see any reason to use it. Linux seems better than when I was in Uni., but I still have to force myself to use it. It has Firefox and email clients and everything else, but so does Vista. So why would want to switch to it? Everything I want and NEED to do for work with windows I can with Vista. Not with linux because the software doesn't exist and the hardware isn't recognised or doesn't function correctly. I have OOo installed so that i can write manuals for TYPO3 extension I write, I showed my wife. She hates computers and uses them only when she has to - really only just word and a browser - a prime candidate you would think for Linux if you believe what the fanboys say. She had to use OOo at uni and even she thought it sucked - she wasn't the only one - and made me install the Office trial that came with my new laptop.

She's just the kind of average person Linux users claim could easily switch to something like OOo, she spent a year being forced to put up with incompatabillity and swore never to use the thing again.

I shan't hold my breath waiting for Linux to make inroads... and I don't need to hold my breath waiting for this post to get modded down to -20... it's probably already started by the time you read my reply.

Edited 2009-04-03 12:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

uh.. I'm a Mandriva, Debian and Backtrack user who also uses Windows and osX daily. I think your claim is a little flawed:

"Linux users always claim windows they have nothing but problems"

My Windows box runs pretty well for it's required tasks, my osX box has had no issues and unless it's one of my testing or training builds, my various Linux based OS installs take minimal maintenance. Are you sure it's "All Linux user" your talking about?

I'd be more interested to hear what problems you had rather than hearing you have a Linux-basher commisseration. Your issues may be very valid or you may find out someone here has the solution that takes less than two minutes to implement. You may have no interest and be very happy with Vista for your needs and that's perfectly fine also.

I just think that stating all users who happen to prefer a Linux based platform are nothing but blind fanboys may be incorrect.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Time for a new OS
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Time for a new OS"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Glad to hear that all OEM can drop Windows support , according to you it don't exist and Windows works everytime ...

Reality say OEM get less support request for GNU/Linux then they do for windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Time for a new OS
by Coxy on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time for a new OS"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Reality say OEM get less support request for GNU/Linux then they do for windows.


Reality also says that most oems ship the vast majority of pc's with windows, ergo more support requests for windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Time for a new OS
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time for a new OS"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

First your contradicitng your own false point. You claimed zero fault on windows OS and now say there is more call due to more users ...

Also your trying to say that Windows get more help request because more are sold. That's not the case.

Second OEM do cost analysis per one user support request. Most GNU/Linux user have zero request call. Where as Microsoft windows users have request call on the OS all the time , due to the faulty OS , faulty driver and faulty security wich lead to re-install.

GNU/Linux is not without problem and receive support request calls , they just happen to be for less things and less numerous.

Finally most of the problem people have is they try to install GNU/Linux , when they clearly never succeeded or received proper teaching or trainign on how to do it , on there older computer that don't work with newer windows anymore. Installing Apple MAc OS X rescue CD/DVD on Apple systems and Microsoft Windows recue CD , is not the same thing as installing a general OS on hardware.

Reply Score: 2

Why not just stop to compete ?
by nbnds on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 00:57 UTC
nbnds
Member since:
2009-04-03

Mark mentions the competition beween Linux and Redmond. But how there can be a competition if the opposite side didnt accept the competition? Redmond's primary competitior now is Apple. And it will be apple in future years, I suppose. Linux goes its own way, and it should ! If you compete, you lose part of your power for fighting rather than for developing. If u dont fight, you can use 100 % of your power for your primary goal.

What is the primary goal of linux ?

Redmonds primary goal is to keep market share. apples primary goal is to gain market share and keep market share. What is the primary goal of Linux ? It builds up of millions of personal goals of the contributing community members.

Linux ist not a third platform - its an alternative platform. To make it the third platform it should go its own way.

I hope i could explain my thinking acceptably clear.
Thank you.

Reply Score: 2

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

You make some very false assumptions there.
Recently, Steve Ballmer commented that their largest competitor was pirated windows, and after that it was linux.
He didn't see apple as a threat, which it isn't.
There is no reason for people to use the overpriced rubbish which apple makes, and the fact that outside of the US/UK/AUS, hardly anyone uses apple computers proves this.
We are seeing more and more countries installing linux as their national OS, in order to break free from the americans, and this is likely to cause MAJOR profit losses for redmond.
As these countries still use windows in its pirated form, and use linux where they would have to pay for windows (governments, schools, internet cafes), we are seeing that microsoft is losing a massive amount of money overseas.
Linux has a large part in this.

Reply Score: 3

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The only popular apple products in Australia are ipods and iphones. You will rarely see an apple computer used even in universities. Apple computers are only sold in major cities. There are at least 50x as many white box PC sellers as Apple retailers.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I saw it explained brilliantly a while back:

"Microsoft is in the business of making money for shareholders. Software just the tools it uses towards that goal." (software being the retail product)

The ultimate goal of the company is to provide shareholder returns and anything like increasing product quality budgets or cutting the legacy code detracts from the goal; profits. In the same way, Apple's ultimate goal is profits for shareholders. This is true for Novell, IBM, Red Hat, Mandriva, Connonical and any other for profit business. It is perhaps more pronounced by the business model employed at MS and Apple but they are all responsible to the shareholder.

Linux.. well, it's an OS kernel not a company so it's goals are to run rock solid and support as much hardware as it can to make available to the userspace stacked on top of it. The various retail distro vendors will have to do what they feel best supports company goals and the non-profit distros will continue to do there own thing based on project goals.

For me, I hope it goes more like the auto industry; One can buy a prebuilt car from many different brand vendors. They can know nothing more about the platform than when they need to see the mechanic. The gearheads still have kit-cars they can assemble or blowtorches if they choose to reassemble a prebuilt. I see there always being a self-built community around computers also.

My original point though, so often these discussions ignore the fact that a profit business has profits first and products second on the list of goals. It's never comparing two things on an equal basis with it's a profit vs a non-profit. (well, unless discussing the specific topic of non-profit org vs profit org of course)

Reply Score: 3

A red herring?
by benir0 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 01:40 UTC
benir0
Member since:
2006-07-26

Certainly some will always want Linux to be the most-used OS in the world. Canonical certainly does. I wonder if that isn't beside the point for most of us.

I think that Linux has been an unequivocal success in providing a legitimate alternative to commercial OSes. I can now had a disc to someone and they can try it and install it without knowing more than the idea of point-an click. More than likely, Linux will do everything you need and more.

Rejoice, the year of Linux on the desktop is upon us! ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: A red herring? - well said
by jabbotts on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 18:33 UTC in reply to "A red herring?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Market share dominance is not the ultimate goal for everyone.

Reply Score: 2

benmhall
Member since:
2006-03-08

"So, let me get this straight. Linux was supposed to make inroads into the desktop market when Windows Vista proved to be a flop. Linux failed. Linux was supposed to make inroads when the netbook market emerged. Linux failed."

Thom, Linux hasn't failed in any of these examples. Yes, it hasn't overtaken Windows or even Mac OS by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly hasn't failed.

Linux has made inroads into the desktop market, helped largely by Vista being a flop. I work at a university as a sysadmin (CS department.) We have far more Linux-only desktop machines than we have Vista machines in the department. We also have a sizable population of dual-boot machines used in research. All of our undergraduate lab machines are now dual-boot XP/Ubuntu. Some students prefer XP, some prefer Ubuntu. Interest in desktop Linux is certainly on the rise here.

I can buy an HP laptop with SLED Linux installed, a Dell laptop or desktop with Ubuntu installed, and occasionally a Lenovo with Linux preinstalled. This wasn't the case a few years ago and is to say nothing of the smaller OEMs or Linux' impressive server penetration. (Another discussion for another time.) When I call our local PC shop now I can ask for Linux compatibility as a requirement for components and they take it up with the manufacturer. This wasn't the case a few years ago.

The netbook market wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for desktop Linux. Asus' EeePC with Xandros defined the netbook. I have purchased it, the HP 2133 with SLED, and an HP Mini Mi with Ubuntu 8.04.1. All Linux, all netbooks, the last one purchased a few weeks ago at Future Shop. Yes, there are many XP netbooks, but even that is because of Linux. MS had scheduled to stop selling XP and only relented because of Linux' fast uptake on netbooks.

Linux is holding MS in check. They no longer get a free pass. As it is now, with applications shifting to OSS and web front-ends, the underlying OS is becoming largely irrelevant. MS has a heck of a cash cow with Windows and Office, but there monopoly is effectively over. This is largely because of Linux.

When Firefox began taking users away from IE, IE had over 90% of the browser market. This is where we are today in operating systems. IE is now sitting at less than 70%, their monopoly broken. Alternatives are taken seriously and MS once again has to innovate to avoid bleeding market share. Macs and Linux laptops are showing up on campuses in greater numbers. (I mention Macs because as soon as any alternative to Windows is shown, people begin to look at their options.)

Outside of work, over several years now, I have setup many Linux laptops and desktops for people who could no longer take the virus and malware problems associated with Windows but couldn't afford Macs. Even if Linux becomes the poor person's second choice, it's still often chosen. (At least from where I sit.)

I have a Windows 7 laptop at work. It's a Pentium Dual Core that dual boots between Win7 and Ubuntu. Yes, Windows 7 is less bad than Vista was on the same machine, but it's still far less pleasant for me to use than Ubuntu on the same hardware and is still heavier than XP. I think Mark is right. I think that netbooks will still make more sense with Linux than they will with Windows 7.

Be patient, Linux will get there. It will take years, but it and OSX look like the only truly viable and scalable systems for the future of personal computing. Windows Mobile appears to be going nowhere, Windows XP/Vista/7 also appears fairly stagnant and Linux' usability gap is closing fast.

Reply Score: 7

shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

The old hope the world will change to more fit Linux eh? As long as the dialog with the non users goes something like this: "User complaint x," Response: "Mundane technical detail only we care about", there are much deeper problems that will stop it from ever happening.

Reply Score: 1

Spot on here
by polaris20 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 02:46 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

And now, Shuttleworth believes Linux can compete favourably with an operating system of which the beta release has been met with nothing but universal praise? I use Linux myself, and I enjoy it very much, but I find this a very odd train of thought, and I can't help but be extremely cynical about it.

Absolutely. It didn't make inroads with a crappy OS, but it will with a good one? Er.....okay.

Don't get me wrong, I really dig 8.10, and use it every day. but I'm not holding my breath for a massive market share change. Or even a little one.

But then again, I don't really care about market share. Same goes for OS X. As long as people keep making the OSes I like, who cares how many other people use it? I'm a computer user, not a disciple.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Spot on here
by tweakedenigma on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 03:35 UTC in reply to "Spot on here"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

Gotta agree with polaris20. I'm sure more people will start using Linux, and OSX as time goes on but I very much doubt their will be any massive swing. But does it really matter if there is?

Reply Score: 3

Yes you can
by gfx1 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 04:04 UTC
gfx1
Member since:
2006-01-20

use linux on a day to day basis.
For the last couple of weeks I did, got a bit fed up with Windows XP slowing down due to bit-rot.
I did prefer BeOS in the old days but for me xubuntu does most of the things I want from an OS.

But it's not only the OS it's also the applications that are important. Some linux apps don't cut it. Abiword becomes really slow with large docs (OpenOffice works better with them) but it's fine for smaller docs.
I do like picasa on windows and the linux(wine) version is allright but I would prefer it if they used a bit more linux stuff and a bit less wine.

Edited 2009-04-03 04:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yes you can
by bnolsen on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 04:51 UTC in reply to "Yes you can"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

I expect the LGPL Qt release to start kicking in and having effect starting later this year and increasing in following years.
Applications are a big deal and Qt for what it's worth with all its warts is more than good enough as a cross platform tool.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yes you can
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Yes you can"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I expect the LGPL Qt release to start kicking in and having effect starting later this year and increasing in following years. Applications are a big deal and Qt for what it's worth with all its warts is more than good enough as a cross platform tool.


If you are an independent software vendor, with Qt being available now under the LGPL license, it becomes easily the best, easiest, most powerful and cheapest way to write an application just once to target OSX, Windows and Linux desktops.

Java is slow (and a bit ugly) in comparison, and .NET just isn't a way to create decent cross-platform applications.

Here is a current example of a cross-platform-targetted application written using Qt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#Interfaces

So, as an application developer, why limit your target market to just those people still running Windows? Why not sell to everybody? Especially when it won't cost you to develop for cross-platform using decent technology such as GCC/C++/Qt.

Edited 2009-04-03 05:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Holy future events in geek mythos
by Verenkeitin on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 04:56 UTC
Verenkeitin
Member since:
2007-07-01

1. The Year of The Linux on Desktop.
2. The Second Coming of Amiga.
3. The Coming of Apple Tablet.

Any day now. Yep. Any day now.

Reply Score: 3

Linux will
by hraq on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:13 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

be always useful for some people or companies.
But when it comes to desktop things are different.
Desktop users need applications with high quality, which lacks alot in linux. Linux do have alternatives for everything; if you cannot run photoshop then use gimp, if you cannot run Indesign then use ___ if you cannot run quickbooks use ____ if you cannot run 3dsmax then use linux alternative _____; if and if and if.
Most people and businesses don't like that.
Linux users cannot get the quality of software and software support and features of applications like they can get when they use windows or mac. Of course there are alternative to this too (use wine or vmware) but you know the disadvantages of these to solutions.

Linux hardware drivers and hardware applications are poorly written and shallow. Can I get a software that will program my mouse 8 buttons or that will give me advanced interface for my webcam or will support a TV tuner card with recording feature while I am away(preprogrammed) ..No
Can I get my laptop standby successfully with any linux ..No ( now a guy will ask me to just enter code to allow sound to allow the system to standby) this is not practical for alot of users.

Oh, can I get my intuos tablet to work with pressure brushes or the eraser..No
Windows and macs are popular because they are highly supported by manufacturers of decent products

Linux will never improve unless it will make huge inroads into the high quality applications and drivers (Professional level) untill then its just a development platform or geeky toys in the desktop sector.
Server wise the story is different; Linux rocks.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux will
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 05:27 UTC in reply to "Linux will"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

be always useful for some people or companies. But when it comes to desktop things are different. Desktop users need applications with high quality, which lacks alot in linux. Linux do have alternatives for everything; if you cannot run photoshop then use gimp, if you cannot run Indesign then use ___ if you cannot run quickbooks use ____ if you cannot run 3dsmax then use linux alternative _____; if and if and if. Most people and businesses don't like that. Linux users cannot get the quality of software and software support and features of applications like they can get when they use windows or mac. Of course there are alternative to this too (use wine or vmware) but you know the disadvantages of these to solutions. Linux hardware drivers and hardware applications are poorly written and shallow. Can I get a software that will program my mouse 8 buttons or that will give me advanced interface for my webcam or will support a TV tuner card with recording feature while I am away(preprogrammed) ..No Can I get my laptop standby successfully with any linux ..No ( now a guy will ask me to just enter code to allow sound to allow the system to standby) this is not practical for alot of users. Oh, can I get my intuos tablet to work with pressure brushes or the eraser..No Windows and macs are popular because they are highly supported by manufacturers of decent products Linux will never improve unless it will make huge inroads into the high quality applications and drivers (Professional level) untill then its just a development platform or geeky toys in the desktop sector. Server wise the story is different; Linux rocks.


You are seriously out of date.

Firstly: you would buy a system built with Vista in mind if you wanted Vista, or you would buy a Mac if you wanted OSX. Buy a system that is designed with Linux in mind, and not one of the "issues" that you pretend exist with Linux drivers would arise.

Secondly: try to run Vista on a system that was not designed for it. You will have far, far more problems with drivers and applications that did not work than you would have with Linux.

Finally: you would not need to use alternatives if, for example, Adobe simply released Photoshop for Linux. Adobe has the source code and Linux has compilers galore. If you cannot buy Adobe for Linux then that is an issue you might have with Adobe, not with Linux. (PS: this issue is really overstated anyway ... use something like digikam and krita for photography on Linux, and you will be not far short of Photoshop functionality for zero outlay).

You can get software functionality and features on Linux. As for support ... it is usually better for open source software. Just try to get a closed-source software vendor to support you if your need does not match their agenda ... such as Massechusetts (sp?) government wanting Microsoft to add proper support for OpenDocument as the default file format for MS Office ... fat chance.

Edited 2009-04-03 05:41 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Linux will
by Coxy on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux will"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Secondly: try to run Vista on a system that was not designed for it. You will have far, far more problems with drivers and applications that did not work than you would have with Linux.


This is dumb argument. Why would any normal person use something on a system it wasn't designed to be run on?

Would you take a Stretched limo off-road over the outback in Australia? Or go snowboarding over water?

Finally: you would not need to use alternatives if, for example, Adobe simply released Photoshop for Linux. Adobe has the source code and Linux has compilers galore. If you cannot buy Adobe for Linux then that is an issue you might have with Adobe, not with Linux.


As someone who uses adobe products everyday, my problem is not with Adobe, but linux. Adobe have the software for the platforms used by most of their software users.

(PS: this issue is really overstated anyway ... use something like digikam and krita for photography on Linux, and you will be not far short of Photoshop functionality for zero outlay).


hahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhaha hahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha hahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaha haahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaah ahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahah ahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahah hahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhaha hahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahaha hhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhah ahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahhahahah ahahahaahahahahahhahahahah

Sorry I have my breath back now... you really have no idea about programmes adobe makes if you compare the alternatives with those or the Gimp. There are no adequate aternatives on Linux for Adobe apps - if there were I wouldn't need to use the alternatives because Adobe would then release linux versions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux will
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux will"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

There are no adequate aternatives on Linux for Adobe apps - if there were I wouldn't need to use the alternatives because Adobe would then release linux versions.


There are no alternatives but you could run Photoshop with wine.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux will
by darknexus on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux will"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

There are no alternatives but you could run Photoshop with wine.

And what would be the point of that when one already has a fully functioning Windows installation that is already running photoshop? Why exchange a buggy Windows environment for an even buggier Wine?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux will
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux will"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would any normal person use something on a system it wasn't designed to be run on?


Why do people use vista on lower speced computers.

Why do you discuss Adobe product on GNU/Linux ...

Edited 2009-04-03 18:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux will - more support from hardware vendors
by jabbotts on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 18:47 UTC in reply to "Linux will"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

For any platform, more hardware vendor support would be a good thing.

"
Oh, can I get my intuos tablet to work with pressure brushes or the eraser..No
Windows and macs are popular because they are highly supported by manufacturers of decent products
"

With this one though, I'd suggest that "they are highly supported by manufacturers" because "Windows and macs are popular" not the reverse. Microsoft has the momentum already to be the first supported platform when vendors start writing drivers. They've had to employ some questionable business strategy in the past to insure the kind of dominance that can dictate driver support. Apple has a company selected library of hardware so it's just down to supporting addon hardware like printers; being a part of publishing, why they choose to support Apple systems should be obvious. Your scanner also; Windows is the retail leader and Apple is publishing/artwork. If truly interested in why it's not supported on other platforms, you'd have to look at the hardware vendor more closely.

Reply Score: 3

What community?
by -oblio- on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 06:47 UTC
-oblio-
Member since:
2008-05-27

There are multiple communities, with different interests, involved in FOSS and Linux. And none of them, taken separately are as strong as Microsoft. So, basically, they have no chance of overcoming Microsoft and its ecosystem.

Many times their interests are different or totally contradictory. Quick example: Fedora vs Ubuntu vs openSUSE. If they could work together they'd have 3x the manpower for doing what needs to be done: bug fixing, integration work, hardware support improvement. However, we have Ubuntu, which has the right attitude - relatively stable releases at short intervals, stable releases at long intervals, but which lacks the manpower to take it all the way. We have Fedora, with tons of great ideas and improvements, but which has positioned itself as a cutting edge distro leading up to RHEL. As a normal user, I can run neither Fedora, nor RHEL. We have openSUSE, which is a sort of mix, but is hurt by the smaller community (versus Ubuntu) or company/company support (versus Fedora).

So, basically, I can pick neither distro. Fedora tends to allow breakage to force improvement, which I find unacceptable, Ubuntu has lots of unfixed critical bugs because lack of manpower, openSUSE doesn't have the kind of repository Ubuntu has (thanks to Debian).

So if you could mix and match, you could make a killer distribution. It will never happen though.

This kind of thing (80% done syndrome) happens for applications, toolkits, whatever, too.

A FOSS proponent.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by risbac
by risbac on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 06:49 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

Thom, I missed you missed the point here.

Why would Windows 7 be an opportunity on netbooks? Because currently XP is being given for free or almost to netbook manufacturers. So if you compare the price of a netbook with Linux and one with XP (same computer, same manufacturer), very often the difference is minimal. Why would the user consider Linux then?

Shuttleworth just explained that Windows 7 will surely be more expensive for netbook manufacturers ("which has a price attached to it"), so it should slightly raise the bill for those models, making the Linux version more interesting if you want to save some bucks. Windows XP is still the current biggest competitor for Linux. The end of his life could indeed be an opportunity. I don't think his analysis was based on any other consideration (like the quality of the OS°.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by risbac
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 07:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by risbac"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thom, I missed you missed the point here.

Why would Windows 7 be an opportunity on netbooks? Because currently XP is being given for free or almost to netbook manufacturers. So if you compare the price of a netbook with Linux and one with XP (same computer, same manufacturer), very often the difference is minimal. Why would the user consider Linux then?

Shuttleworth just explained that Windows 7 will surely be more expensive for netbook manufacturers ("which has a price attached to it"), so it should slightly raise the bill for those models, making the Linux version more interesting if you want to save some bucks. Windows XP is still the current biggest competitor for Linux. The end of his life could indeed be an opportunity. I don't think his analysis was based on any other consideration (like the quality of the OS°.


I think the point to realise is that a full Linux distribution works very well indeed on a netbook.

Microsoft are all but giving away XP Home in order to compete, but clearly Microsoft aren't amking money out of that (because they are giving it away).

So Microsoft have decided to push the meme of Windows 7 on netbooks. The problem with that is that Microsoft can go several ways:

(1) Give away heavyily-reduced functionality Windows 7 on netbooks.
(2) Give away full functionality Windows 7 on netbooks.
(3) Charge full price for full functionality Windows 7 on netbooks.

(1) and (2) involve giving Windows 7 away. No money for Microsoft.

(1) isn't going to impress customers, and may even tarnish the Windows 7 brand.

(2) is going to upset desktop customers for Windows 7 who are paying a premium price for it in comparison to netbooks.

(3) isn't going to be price-competitive with Linux on netbooks.

Hmmmm.

I think all of this is Shuttleworth's point.

Reply Score: 3

Linux need advertising
by GODhack on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 07:46 UTC
GODhack
Member since:
2008-05-16

Linux need advertising.
Like those huge ~3 m "buy Mac" posters in my city now. Nothing more.

Linux do not have money for large scale advertising so only rumors remain and rumors are misleading or confusing only. No pure "go to download".

Reply Score: 0

Why should a consumer run Linux?
by Fergy on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 08:34 UTC
Fergy
Member since:
2006-04-10

I think the problem lies within the community itself, but where, how, and what - I really have no idea.

I think that there are not enough reasons to run Linux over windows.
Windows on a netbook gives you easy access to a lot of games, codecs, mediaplayers and familiar programs. Windows uses your videocard better to play video so it feels smoother. Firefox on Windows runs faster than on Linux.
Linux gives you easier security, program installation, updating and OS installation. Linux needs less diskspace and memory. Linux gives you more choices in how you run your computer. But it looks and feels old to normal users. It isn't as flashy and smooth as Windows or Mac.
So I would only recommend linux over windows for a normal user if he is willing to learn and wants to have a system that just keeps going and going but will never feel or handle like a Ferrari.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Rohan
by Rohan on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 09:15 UTC
Rohan
Member since:
2007-01-02

Linux don't have any chance till some people will make all what possible to stop Linux
first example --> http://stoplinux.org.ru
So I think it's much better to write article why Linux don't have any chance on Desktop. I have read site above, and I agreed with author by many reason.

Reply Score: 0

Failures of the netbook makers.
by gustl on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 10:10 UTC
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

They DID make huge mistakes when it comes to Linux usage on those devices.

1) Not all drivers they wrote went upstream. Big mistake, it decouples them from the community of developers they so badly need.

2) This caused the hardware to only work perfectly with this ONE specialized distro. Hence, no additional software can be installed from a repository.

3) Which in turn limited the netbooks to the software which came pre-installed. With the windows-installations you can install every software you want in just the way you are used to.

4) And then came the mega-stupidity: Instead of keeping the hardware-specs the same for windows- and Linux versions, they increased flash sizes for the windows-machines and let the linux versions stay "low grade".

Now imagine, you are a potential customer, and do not really care about operating systems. The guy who sells the machine also just tells the truth.
He tells you that for an additional $50,- you get a system which has twice the storage space, and can get every software additionally installed, contrary to the Linux variant which has none of these advantages.

You know what the average customer OF COURSE will do? He will buy the larger storage system which is upgradable, and his decision is perfectly correct.

I am telling you this as a long-time Linux user, small application programmer who himself bought a Linux netbook and likes it.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Failures of the netbook makers.
by agnus on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:50 UTC in reply to "Failures of the netbook makers."
agnus Member since:
2006-05-10

Maybe it is the other way around. Had the kernel developers supported a stable ABI then manufacturers would have bene able to build distro-independent binary drivers in exactly the same way they do for every other OS except Linux.

Some things don't make sence business wise. For example, why would ASUS release as open source any driver they wrote for EeePC and help criticaly their competitors?

We agree about the hardware specs though..

Reply Score: 2

What's important
by 3rdalbum on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 11:19 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

What's important is that Mark Shuttleworth is treating Windows 7 as an opportunity for Linux. The press has been saying that Windows 7 will "destroy" Linux or stop people from using it. This is the first time I've read in the media that Windows 7 is not going to hinder Linux adoption.

There will be people, lots of people, who are underwhelmed with Windows 7 or who flat-out don't like it. I imagine the same number of people who sought out Ubuntu due to their dislike of Vista, will seek out Ubuntu because they don't like Windows 7.

Reply Score: 3

get ahead without catch up
by dominik.holler on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 11:26 UTC
dominik.holler
Member since:
2007-05-24

"get ahead without catch up" is a slogan from GDR in bad English words.
Maybe this is a good way to gain market share. USe the flexibility of linux to conquer new pc-like niches like phones, car-infotainment, arm netbooks instead of fighting in the traditional pc market.

Reply Score: 1

Again?
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 11:49 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Linux profets (RMS, ESR, etc) were predicting long time ago that in next "x years", linux will gain a significant market share.

Remember the bullshit called "World Domination 201", written by ESR?

I think that Shuttleworth is terribly wrong. Linux may gain some market share, but the amount gained will be very small in the next future.

The "linux vs windows" thingy is noy about windows or linux or some qualities that they might have. Is more about what software you can run in an operating system.

And windows means MS Office (Open Office remains far behind MS Office), Visual Studio, Adobe Photoshop (please, don't mention Gimp), Autocad, and a very large amount of games and professionally used software.

When youl'll run the same software on linux, you can bet it will gain significant market share. But until then...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:23 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

People underestimate the extent to which Microsoft has the desktop locked up. It will take more than Mark Shuttleworth (or half a dozen Mark Shuttleworths) to break that lock. Why do you think Microsoft is most scared of outfits that don't approach it head-on - easily seen off - but from the side? That will be Google with online apps and the Cloud and Apple with the iPhone and iStuff generally.

Second, the question has always been the same: how do you sell something that costs nothing? Traditionally, the answer has been "support and services". That works for business, but consumers aren't interested. And retailers that sell to consumers aren't interested either. They are part of a huge ecosystem that entirely depends on paying for everything to do with Windows.

I think folks read too much into netbooks. They are not good news for either Microsoft or Intel because these are low-end, low-margin products. And the only reason Linux ever got on them in the first place is that at the time there was no suitable Microsoft OS, Vista being too demanding and XP being officially end-of-lifed. Does anyone really think that outfits like Asus, Acer or MSI give a stuff about Linux? Their Linux offerings reeked of "any old Linux will do". And the moment Microsoft appeared with a baseball bat in one hand and a wad of bills in the other, they meekly fell into line. The only outfits that have made a decent show of putting Linux on netbooks are those that would have done this anyway, like Dell or HP.

I suspect Linux will continue to grow but only as the result of Microsoft becoming weaker and less important generally as online applications become more and more the thang. Linux will not grow as the result of taking on Microsoft directly. That one is protected by 1001 OEM agreements, a semi-legal monopoly and a zillion businesses which depend on making money off Windows. And, dare one say it, because some things on Windows are pretty darn good, among them 3D gaming, Microsoft Office and connectivity with things like cameras and mobile phones.

Reply Score: 3

For disappointed and unhappy.
by quarkvanlepton on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 12:25 UTC
quarkvanlepton
Member since:
2008-03-08

I very sincerely suggest you, please sirs, lower your expectations and make them adequate.

Reply Score: 1

It's *exactly* a million to one chance
by da_Chicken on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 15:25 UTC
da_Chicken
Member since:
2006-01-01

isn't this like the 923298th opportunity where Linux is supposed to make inroads into the desktop market?

Hmm... I think it's a million-to-one chance, but it might just work!

http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Million-to-one_chance

.

Reply Score: 2

I'll provide a little example
by Troydm on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 23:46 UTC
Troydm
Member since:
2009-04-03

I'll provide a little example why I don't use linux for desktop..

I've installed Ubuntu 8.10 on my laptop FS Amilo Pi 1556... Everything works (not out of the box I've had some issues but fixed them overall) except one thing... microphone.. it's not working... I've tried almost all possible and impossible alsa configuration hints,fixes,upgrades... It's not working it's not supported by alsa drivers.. thus it's not working... I can't use skype I can't talk with my boss when he calls me...

Why do I need a desktop system like that?

I think in my point of view offcourse...
First of all Ubuntu needs a better desktop/laptop systems hardware/drivers support... Only after that they can talk about gaining a share in desktop market

And I'm not talking only about Ubuntu I'm talking about all the Linux distros...

And I'm not going to reverse engineer my laptops sound chip and fix that issue in order to use Linux on it... It's too much time and I don't have much freetime anyway..

Reply Score: 0

RE: I'll provide a little example
by Jokel on Sat 4th Apr 2009 06:45 UTC in reply to "I'll provide a little example"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Wow - that must be a big hurdle hm? You must be very poor. I mean - buying a little USB sound card for about $3 to $7 and a cheap microphone that DOES work with Linux is way to expensive for you? You must really been under-payed by your boss then. No job I would like I guess...

You know - I use the phone for that kind of things, but I think my clients and I are a bit primitive, but really no hurdle here.

Sometimes I get the impression people don't WANT Linux to have even the smallest success. Even if you are drooling with the words Windows and Microsoft please remember there is a BIG reason why Linux should have more market share.

And that reason is we are all costumers. Even the majority of people here shooting at Linux are in reality shooting themselves in the foot. All consumers would gain by an increasing market share of Linux (And OSX).

Take Internet Explorer as an example. Before the rise of Firefox the development was virtually at a stand-still. Here the consumer suffered, because they are paying for a product (IE is part of the OS and you are paying for it as you purchase the OS - make no mistakes), that was not longer being developed. After the rise of Firefox finally the consumer got where he payed for.

The same thing is happening with Linux. Sure - Linux still has little market share, but Microsoft is feeling the threat - make no mistake about that. As a result Microsoft is now developing new windows versions that do not need big irons to run (although Linux still beats windows on all fronts here). Do you really think this "speedy low-profile" Windows would be here if Linux did not make any inroad in the netbook market? Think about that!

So - even the people that really hate Linux would benefit greatly if Linux would take more market share. I stead of fighting Linux tooth and nail they would embrace Linux, because and increasing Linux market share is giving them what every consumer would like ... cheaper, faster and more innovative versions of MS Windows!

Think about that!!!

Edited 2009-04-04 07:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You, my friend, are an idiot and completely miss the point. His internal microphone works in Windows. It works, get it? And in Linux it doesn't work. Why should someone have to buy a USB sound card and microphone, yet another thing to carry around, to compensate for an incomplete and half-assed Linux driver? If Linux-based oses want to take off in the non-geek desktop, they need to understand that half-working isn't good enough when it comes to hardware. The reason behind it: lack of vendor cooperation, lack of resources, or just plain old laziness, whatever it is is irrelevant. The only relevant fact, to the desktop user, is that their microphone doesn't work in Linux and does work in Windows. Linux, therefore, is broken. Half an effort is not good enough, all hardware functions must work, or it is broken.

Reply Score: 2

Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy....

You my friend are all over the edge...

What a difference does it make to carry one tiny extra piece of equipment if you can get a fully working laptop? For only $7 and a little tiny bit of inconvenience you get a free OS thats usable for anything you want. Now what are you ranting about? Did I strike a weak spot or something? Did it hurt your feelings when someone says Linux can be usable?

I am afraid you making a big mountain out of a molehill. And you totally missed the rest of the arguments (or choose to ignore them because you don't like the ideas).

I should say - calm down my friend. You are barking against the wrong tree. It is not Linux that is at fault over here, but the one that is making the hardware. You have a crappy notebook that is not capable to support Linux. Just a steaming pile of non-compatible garbish. You do not have any problem wit Linux at all.. You have a problem with your hardware. Face it and get over it...

I really do not get it when people ignore a cheap and simple solution just to to get their ranting. As I explained in my earlier post above it is in the interest of the consumer Linux get more adopted. The way you are acting looks like you are on the payroll of somebody that is trying to squeeze every cent out of the consumer without giving anything back.

Oh well...

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And you have missed the point once again, like many fanatics on all sides. You ignored my argument because you didn't like what I said either.
I went with the USB sound card because you provided the perfect example. A USB sound card isn't a big deal, but why should anyone have to buy an extra bit of hardware?
Because you seem fixated on the USB sound card, rather than the logical arguments I was putting forward, I'll provide another example that will hopefully make it more clear and, with this one, you won't be able to say "it's just $3" and ignore the point.
What if, for instance, Linux doesn't support someone's scanner and they need to use it (scanner support is one area where Linux is seriously lagging). Are you going to suggest to someone, who owns a $200 scanner, to go out and buy another one so they can switch to Linux? The scanner they have is good enough for their purposes, would you tell them "oh, it's just $200, suck it up?"
My point wasn't the cost of the USB sound card, or how combersome it would be. My point was simply that, if Linux doesn't support someone's hardware, saying "oh just replace it" is not a solution as so many Linux lovers seem to think it is. It's markedly similar to the "oh, you don't need that feature" syndrome I sometimes see happening when someone complains about a lacking feature in a foss program as compared to a commercial counterpart.
This is precisely what is meant by a lot of the Linux community being unable, or unwilling, to take criticism for what it is: constructive feedback.

Reply Score: 2

Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

And you do not get it either...

First of all - I am hardly a fanatic, so don't try to make one out of me. You see - I have been servicing computer systems for a long time and I have been servicing several operating systems too. I do not have any objections against Windows as an OS, just like I have any objections against Linux, AIX, RiscOS, Solaris or whatever. I have used all of them (and more). I am completely OS-agnostic, but I have to react when things goes off-balance.

I only want to argue against the strange concepts you have about what is good or not. Let me give an example.

There where times people where using Laptops, hardware and Windows98. Then came Windows XP. People accepted some hardware did not run under Windows XP. They did not blame Windows XP but the hardware maker. Then came Vista. People accepted some hardware did not run with Windows Vista. They did not blame Windows vista but the hardware maker. Same story again.

In neither case someone said Windows XP is not usable or Windows Vista is not usable and in neiter case the OS is blamed for nor running the hardware. In all of these cases someone found an alternative or dished the hardware. They take the inconvenience and keep using Windows. They even bought a completely new hardware just to run the OS!!!!!!

Now - when using Linux everything is suddenly different. When a piece of hardware does not run an alternative is not acceptable, and Linux get the blame for lazy hardware makers. Not the tiniest bit of inconvenience is acceptable.

And that is very strange...

Why do people jump trough hoops and spend massive amounts of money just to run Windows, but are going totally over the edge when they have to accept a little inconvenience to use Linux? That -my friend- is what I am saying.

And that is what you do not seem to grasp...

I said enough - if you don't get it by now I guess you never will.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

This is precisely what is meant by a lot of the Linux community being unable, or unwilling, to take criticism for what it is: constructive feedback.

Well, there's useful constructive criticism, and then there is less useful constructive criticism.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Gnome's "Spatial Mode" was hurting Linux adoption. Which is not to say that it is. But let's just pretend it is, as an example. Pointing it out might be constructive and useful because it might result in a decision to change it.

On the other hand, moaning about poor hardware support in this or that area might be constructive... but it's not really useful unless you are ready to cough up a better driver, or have some concrete plan to present for making one appear. No decision can be made to improve support for various hardware that does not involve a lot of hard work. So simply pointing out the obvious doesn't help much.

It's probably worth noting that OSNews is probably one of the *least* effective places to try to make such a point. Because for the most part, OSNews participants don't do the work. We hang out and complain about the work that other people do.

You might want to make your appeal to some of the larger distros. But I suspect you will find that they already know what hardware they don't support.

Edited 2009-04-04 16:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Linux is Ready to Step Up
by iveen on Sat 4th Apr 2009 13:00 UTC
iveen
Member since:
2009-04-04

I see the Vista flop not as a Linux failure, on the contrary, I see it as a big success, thanks to this MS major failure, many people turned their heads to Linux, and even though, Linux hasn't wiped out Win, it put it on the map, and made it an alternative for a lot of people that before that wouldn't even tought of it as a viable OS.

Netbook was a painful yet rich experience for Linux, the first netbooks came with Linux bundled, and now we see only WinXP-based netbooks, this happened because the people's natural resistance and fear of changes.

They were used to see their desktops in a way (the MSWin way), and from all of the sudden, they stomped on a Linux Desktop, which was completely different, and that feared the crowd, and they went screaming and crying back to Windows.

Now the game is different, Linux has had more visibility, and it has matured as a project, there are a lot of different distributions, they all have their pros and cons, but the desktop has been getting closer to the "Windows experience", specially KDE, which will ease the transition for the MS crowd, and I mean this as a compliment, not as a critic, however I find KDE sleeker and more visually attractive to Vista's not to mention XP's.

This will be the time for Linux, as I have seen Windows 7 previews, as a refurbished Vista, it doesn' add that much in terms of desktop design, but to avoid all the awful flaws Vista came in with. However, Linux is a rock-solid OS, that has transitioned from a geeky-OS to a mainstream OS.

Reply Score: 2

Linux will win
by shiva on Sat 4th Apr 2009 15:39 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Linux will win not when its market share is bigger than of windows but when Microsoft becomes with less money to spend in windows development and market locking practices.

The netbook success decreased the fat margin of profit and even if windows remain dominant in netbooks, in the long term Microsoft will have less control of market and hardware companies.

Reply Score: 2