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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
We don't see articles about how Windows XP and MacOS X suck because they are here at the average user's desktop and they perform well for that average user's needs. Parhaps they are not perfect, but really usable on their native hardware.
The whole OS world is now about searching for a Windows replacement. You can't change it. The first alternative was OS/2, first aimed to replace DOS, and then -- Windows. Due to marketing issues (IBM's faults and Microsoft's big wins) OS/2 failed. We have been left with Windows only.
The next one was BeOS. While the BeOS developers had seen it as a niche multimedia and content creation OS, the public tried to use it as a Windows replacement OS, especially when it became available for free. But BeOS failed, too. Unfortunately.
Now, there's only Linux left to fight with Windows. And I think that because of the Windows monopoly there's no reason to say "Linux is not aimed to replace anything". Even if someone decides not to use Windows right from the start, installs Linux only and is sure that Linux is ready for his or her desktop, in fact he/she has replaced the industry standard OS -- Windows -- with Linux. And there are lots of people who are willing to replace Windows -- in reality, by switching from it -- in the moment Linux offers the same features set with similar GUI. Noone can deny it, we just have to accept it and either keep Linux different and hear "Linux is still not ready for the desktop" voices once every week, or change it so that it seems closer to Windows and make more people switch.
And about FreeBSD, SkyOS, AmigaOS and the rest mentioned: they just don't seem to be an option for a Windows user. And that's why hardly anyone writes about them.
I am a day-to-day Linux user and Linux server administrator, and I see many points where Linux is far from catching up with Windows, especially on desktop. While it may be sufficient for some people, it doesn't mean that it should not be enhanced.