Linked by Sean Oliviero on Wed 28th Jul 2004 05:54 UTC
The promise of Desktop Linux (DL) has been long coming. It's made significant progress since the mid-90s when GNOME and KDE came out, giving Linux users a somewhat modern desktop to work upon. However, it's been 7 years and DL hasn't progressed much at all since then. Today, DL is still nothing more than a UNIX-clone with a task bar, a start menu, and a desktop with some icons on it. But why has DL evolved at such a glacial pace?
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
When will be see real working solutions to desktop Linux unreadiness rather than rants.
How come we don't see opinion articles about how FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OS X, Window XP, Amiga, SkyOS, Menuet OS, RiscOS, OS/2 etc suck? And how some of them look like tricycles instead of concords.
No, it's always about how Linux isn't desktop ready. It's like Linux is the only OS that isn't desktop ready. And guess why it isn't desktop ready?
Because it doesn't work like the author's favorite "desktop ready" OS. Opinion articles are exactly what they are, opinions.
If you had to know my opinion on these so called "desktop ready" operating systems, I'll probably be skinned alive. I'd rather read patches, bug reports and desktop reviews than rants and bogus "opinions."