“I recently got my test copy of Elx (Everyone’s Linux), which made it almost certain to me that Linux is going to be on everybody’s desktop much sooner than I ever expected. The complete system is so well crafted for users of Windows that it took my friend, who is a hardcore Windowsian, quite a while to figure out that its not just “another” version of his favorite Windows.” Is it some XP or something” came the reply before he could find out that it was Elx.” Read the rest of the editorial at DesktopLinux.com. However, NewsForge reviews a 29-pages .pdf file (228 KB) published at DeveloperWorks, written by an IBM Technical Writter. Mr Chapman says that “desktop Linux is good but not for everyone”.
Linux on your Desktop – Again
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
ELX’s website is by far the slowest I’ve ever seen. Still waiting for the main page to download :/
Umm .. okay. It’s KDE with a few minor enhancements, whoop-de-doo. So they’re taking what KDE has done and rearranging it slightly to make it less KDE-like. They ‘reorganized the K-menu’ to look more like the start menu — yeah, anyone can do that. Then they made a few directories off the desktop called “My Computer” and “Control Panel”, etc that have a few symlinks to easier config programs (umm … Mandrake has done this long before).
Sorry, Linux is Linux and you’re not going to impress anyone by renaming a few things and giving a few simple utilties that have already been implemented, tested and improved by Mandrake. If I wanted to use Windows, I’d use Windows. Just because Windows is nice and easy to use doesn’t mean that’s what Linux should be. Mandrake has already done a bang-up job improving the usability of the OS, anyone with any Windows experience should be able to grasp how to use it fairly easily, but Mandrake doesn’t make Linux feel like Windows.
I thought the right-click ‘Send to’ screen is new to Linux, but now I’m not sure. Their shutdown UI is confusing. If they’re still around in a year I might try them.
..when he tried to change the soundcard. Somehow, it just wouldn’t work! And then some friend told him he had to load a certain kernel module, with some arcane parameters. Better yet, he has to write a certain line that will load this module every time the computer boots, in a configuration file. Problem is, which configuration file? It depends on the Linux distro you have, and nobody seems to have experience with Elx…
Umm… ok, no soundcard change, then. But what about changing the mouse? That serial mouse looks really antique, let’sw swap it for a PS/2 mouse… What? You mean, I have to edit some f*cking config file again? XF86Setup? Huh???
Sorry dude, Linux is Linux….
From what I could see in the screenshots Androo’s absolutely
correct! This is nothing but KDE with a few icon changes and
to be honest it didn’t seem to be that much more different
than any other distro I’ve seen…the piece sounds to me like
either a bit of advertising fluff or perhaps just an extremely
uninformed reviewer! The quote: “..it took my friend, who is
a hardcore Windowsian, quite a while to figure out that its not
just “another” version of his favorite Windows…” makes me suspect
advertising gimmick.
Desktop and Loonyx are never to be seen in the same sentence together. If/when they are, I make sure I get a good chuckle out of it, if nothing more.
Never say never!
I started with RH Linux 5 and I see that Linux is getting better for desktop use.
…This is nothing but KDE with a few icon changes …
So what? If it helps to attract people to give a try to Linux it’s good. And if one can use more or less familiar desktop it’s also OK.
If it helps to attract people to give a try to Linux it’s good.
——
I guess that’s true if you consider loonyx a step forward for the desktop. I don’t.
Everething is gray after BeOS, but one have to look forward.
Actually, this isn’t as bad an idea as it looks. Whenever you change the interface (even if the new one is just as easy as the old one) you incur retraining. If you can make Linux look just like Windows, you get rid of the necessity of extensive retraining, plus get the benifets of stability, cost, etc. It might not please purists, but that’s okay, Slackware isn’t going anywhere. Its aimed at a different market entirely, and as it is, its a pretty nifty way of converting that market to Linux.
If some of these people working the TNUDL (the next ultimate desktop linux) would simply get rid of 90% of the crap that comes with a ditro they may prevail in coming up with something.
Dump X. Dump KDE. Dump Gnome. Just take one of your average floppy linuxs that doesn’t have X (HAL91 for example). Recompile it with the latest greastest kernel and filesystem with modern CPU optimisations. Port the superior GUI http://www.opentracker.org which if ported correctly sould make the “ease of use” factor vanish. Add a little eye-candy to it for those with OSX/WinXP envy. Write/port a handful of basic conig apps and obligitory apps (calculator, notepad, CD Player etc.). Once people try it and discover that X Windows is the MAIN thing holding Linux off the desktop, every Linux gfx driver and application made for X Windows will have a port quickly underway. It won’t happen though . . . God forbid Linux developers use something thats not slow and old, I mean “Why make a new GUI when we can just improve X?” BECAUSE X NEEDS TOO MUCH WORK!!!! Its been being improved for like a billion years with a gazzillion new GUI’s/WM’s and it STILL is slower than Exporer/Finder/Tracker and not as full featured! Give up and dump it! You’re time to prove it – is over so $h!t or get off the pot.
I seem to recall Eugenia or somebody saying that porting OpenTracker to Linux would be a bitch because of all of the threads and stuff or some kind of technical problems that would pretty much require a rewrite of OpenTracker. Eugenia, please correct me if i’m wrong.
dump X. But also, dump the Linux kernel. Because, see, recompliling a kernel just to support a soundcard, well, that’s the sign of a retarded OS.
To me it just looks like a bad copy of windows. Is all they want to do a windows clone with better uptime?
And to sum it up:
The worst of two worlds, Windows UI and Linux configuration? Two wrongs doesn’t make a right!
The http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=322&page=5“>answer . And to add to that, porting Opentracker, would be ‘easier’ to do so for AtheOS, which has a similar concept with BeOS in its API, it has a very similar filesystem and it is also C++ from the ground up too. A port to Linux would be times more difficult than it is for AtheOS. And don’t forget that an AtheOS port is already *extremely* difficult for the reasons I describe in the above link.
It really is laughable to suggest you need training to be a standard windows user. The whole point of a GUI is that it is intuitive. Hence the ‘start’ menu, so a new user goes straight to it.
Really, it’s time to be more adventurous and introduce something better.
But also, dump the Linux kernel. Because, see, recompliling a kernel just to support a soundcard, well, that’s the sign of a retarded OS.
Well… you don’t need – heard of modules?
But you can’t load a DLKM without having the correct simbols compiled into the kernel. So, yep dude, you do need to recompile the kernel.
Mario,
I’m interested. What recent distro doesn’t come with those symbols compiled already?
>>>….So what? If it helps to attract people to give
>>>a try to Linux it’s good. And if one can use more or
>>>less familiar desktop it’s also OK….
With the exception of the Linux bashers (loonyx ??? LOL!)
I don’t think anyone here is willing to argue against UI
cloning for the purpose of making a OS easier to use or
more intutive for someone from another platform. I think
what the most of us are complaining about is how superficial
the changes were. Hell, if the people behind this distro
REALLY want to make a UI that Windoze users can feel at home
in then they ought to work with QVMW as their default window
manager! They’d probably need to do a *little* bit more work
at it than simply changing some icons around, but…
Here’s a link to the QVWM homepage for more info: http://www.qvwm.org/
Here’s a few screenshots…(made\customized by users of course!)
http://www.qvwm.org/screenshots/ark.jpg
http://www.qvwm.org/screenshots/exitdlg.gif
http://www.qvwm.org/screenshots/iconful_startmenu.gif
http://www.qvwm.org/screenshots/screen2.jpg
what’s wrong in compiling the kernel?
is simpler than trying to install a driver in win2k
— what’s wrong in compiling the kernel?
— is simpler than trying to install a driver in win2k
Give me a brake!! Maybe for the Linux power user, but for the rest of us it just isn’t! Forgett it.
ELX kinda looks like Redmondlinux… A KDE only Linux with a “My computer” and a “Network Neighborhood” icon on the desktop.
Still prefer Mandrake as a “easy” Linux -though i like the fact that redmondlinux is DVD/DivX ready out of the box…
Gimme a disto who’s out of the box comes with Ximian GNOME, and i’ll give it the “wooo huu”
All the distros. That is, all of them don’t have the simbols compiled in for the piece of hardware that’s coming out right now.
Moldava,
Do you mean you want a break? I have some old brakes that you can have if that’s really what you want.
Anyway, I have an ATI Radeon card. To install it under Linux took me about 3 minutes. To install the same card under Windows took at least a month because the drivers suck.
Also, I would much rather recompile a kernel than have to dink around in the Windows registry (which I had to do to get the card to work in Windows).
Another plus is that by recompiling my kernel, I can remove things that aren’t needed. The result: A faster machine and more efficient use of my system resources. With Windows, you are stuck dragging around a bunch of useless garbage in your OS.
I don’t have a lot against Windows (in fact, I’m using it right now), but being very familiar with both Windows and Linux, I can say that Linux is the superior of the two.
Many people ask, “Is Linux ready for the desktop?” Other’s make statements like OpinionBoy, “I guess that’s true if you consider loonyx a step forward for the desktop. I don’t.”
To answer these kinds of questions, I have to say yes, Linux is ready for the desktop. I base that on the fact that I have been using it as such for a long time.
There are many nice features that Linux offers to users. Many of these aren’t available in Windows. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing that I can do in Windows that I can’t do in Linux, but I can think of many things that Linux can do that Windows can’t.
Like I’ve said before, I use Windows quite a bit, but Linux is the superior OS.
sounds like another lame distro. i mean kde only, looks like windows, and “easy to use”? Sounds alot like Redmond and Corel GNU/Linux, which both weren’t really that good of a “desktop” distro in the first place, So what really makes this one differnt?
i mean yes corel was good for how cheap you could get it but, come on! the file manager sucked, and the corel update could never install most rpm’s right, or even debian packages which it’s based on.
redmond wasn’t that good either, the only plus i could see was that it used mozilla (which rocks) and wine which actually worked good. but my problem with it was that it’s got alot of work to go before if becomes a stable desktop GNU/Linux operating system, the first encounter with redmond was pretty disapointing when i keep on getting this pop up that pretty much said that it saved me from crashing my computer, course all i was doing was going into my windows partition. I also think this is going to be alot of hype like Lindows, Windows ME, and windowsXP were.
i suggest anyone really want’s to use the GNU/Linux operating system to use mandrake. which isn’t like windows, but that’s linux.
my 2 cents.
To all the people on this list who complain about configuration in Linux, have you even tried some of the newer distributions? I don’t think configuration could be easier that programs like Yast2 and Webmin make it.
If your hardware isn’t some cheap crap that nobody’s ever heard of, most distributions auto detect it for you during install anyway. I don’t see what the big deal is.
i don’t complain about linux configureation. actually i like it. the new distro’s have a whole lot of configuration. the only problem i had was trying to change my pointer from an arrow to an X like kde used to have, and to change my res with out having to screw with fcx86blahblah.
what’s wrong in compiling the kernel?
is simpler than trying to install a driver in win2k
So make fails for no obvoius reason, and your left with no idea on whats going on, or ‘insert CD ROM, press next’… The failed make is easy? Hmm…
Guys, if you think that the need to recompile the kernel is a good thing, you are living in the dark middle ages of computing. The need to recompile the kernel is EXACTLY why Linux won’t fly on the desktop.
Well… don’t then.
You do NOT need to compile your own kernel, you can have someone else do it and use their binaries (most dists come with packaged kernels)
FYI most software need to be compiled before it can be used, no matter what platform.
It’s just a matter of who will do it – most linux users (I hope) are skilled enough to want to do this by themselves.
You must be kidding rite?? Unless you use a sound card that is *so new* and is *really* just out into the market, all distro that I have tried (Redhat, Mandrake, Caldera, SuSe and Slackware) HAVE compiled them as modules. So you don’t need to recompile your kernel. Just do a simple ‘modprobe’ or whatever tools that comes with the distro.
Of coz’, unless you download the latest kernel (not from your distro installer), you will have to compile and install the kernel yourself. But this consider as OS upgrade. If you are not sure how to do that (compile kernel), then don’t do that. Wait for the updates that comes from the distro website.
But anyway, compile kernel *is* fun!!
To follow up my previous post. There is no reason for average user to recompile their kernel unless they try to download/install the latest version themself. All distro has already enable in their kernel with (almost) all the stuff as module.
If a person are not well understood how to compile a kernel. He should just wait for other people to compile for them. Get the binaries from their distro website/ftp.
[PS: My previous post is about for Mario as well…]
All the arguments are irrelevant. The question is not “Is Linux ready for the desktop?”
It’s “Is Microsoft ready to let OEM’s sell other OS’s?”
Recently I was trying to install linux on my Thinkpad 600. I’ve tried _all_ major distributions: RH, Mandrake, SuSE, Progeny, Debian that were avaliable by the middle of November. None of them would work on my machine: it’s either sound card, modem, PCMCIA network or power management. OTOH Windows 2000 or XP work out of the box (and windows _IS_ faster!!!). BeOS works fine too (of couse no modem or APM). May be in 10 year linux is goung to be usable for ordinary people, but modern distributions are as painful to install as was slackware, that i’ve been using in 1994.
Having new hardware is a very likely thing to happen during the lifetime of an OS. How long has Win95 been around? And during those 6 years, how many new hardware devices came out? We are talking aobut thousands of devices that need drivers. Companies and people don’t want to install a new distro every 6 months, or compile a new kernel just as often.
This is so simple, I am surprised I need to explain it. Is the problem in the way I explain it, or is the problem in the receiver?
Anyway, I have an ATI Radeon card. To install it under Linux took me about 3 minutes. To install the same card under Windows took at least a month because the drivers suck.
Hmmm… Maybe that is ATI’s fault, and not Microsoft’s? The true extent of my Linux experience was trying to get it running on my UMAX Supermac S900/180 (PPC604e). In short: it sucked. It was VERY hard to get Linux installed, and once I did get it on, it did NOT support my video card. What did this mean? No X for me, that’s what it meant.
To be fair, this was 2 years ago, and things could be vastly different in LinuxPPC today. In actuality, they are not. About a month ago, I attempted to install LinuxPPC on two seperate machines, and both irritated me into failure. I attempted install on both a Performa 6116/60 (PowerMac 6100) and a Daystar tower with a PPC604 130. The LinuxPPC disk would not boot in the Performa. It did boot in the Daystar, but was unable to find the USCSI bus where the HD lives, and so couldn’t install. I find Linux hardware support far too lacking for mainstream users.
To all the people on this list who complain about configuration in Linux, have you even tried some of the newer distributions? I don’t think configuration could be easier that programs like Yast2 and Webmin make it.
Again, you miss the point. The user should not have to do ANY configuration! I used to take tech support calls, and I know first hand how hard it is to get people to enter IP routing/nameservice information into a configuration dialog. Heaven help us if they have customized their computer into a configuration where you can’t talk them through finding that dialog!!
Anyway, Linux is definitely not designed for the average user. I’m talking about my grandma here. She doesn’t know what a ‘kernel’ is or ‘RAM’. Heck, I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard non computer-literate people refer to their computer case as their ‘hard drive’. The Linux community is severely overestimating the computer savviness of the average computer user. Until Linux is as easy to use as BeOS, MacOS, or Windows, it will not be a viable alternative for Jane and John Doe.
Oh, I forgot I had already responded to your previous post…. well the thing is that all major dists put out new packages of kernels as they are released.
These packages with the newer kernel also have support for the newer symbols – exactly like if you do it manually you need to get a newer kernel for newer hardware.
This is so simple, I am surprised I need to explain it. Is the problem in the way I explain it, or is the problem in the receiver?
“Hmmm… Maybe that is ATI’s fault, and not Microsoft’s?”
No, it was not ATI’s fault. If Microsof wouldn’t hide so much of the OS from the user, I could have entered the correct scan rates for my monitor. Because they do hide that information, I am stuck using one of their drivers (which obviously contains incorrect information about my monitors abilities).
Without screwing around in the Registry manually, I could only get 800X600 and 16 Colors. Anything higher and my monitor would go blank with an “OUT OF SCAN RANGE” error.
In Linux, however, I simply told the system what my monitor was (just like I did in Windows), only the information for my monitor in Linux was correct. The nice thing is that even if the information had been incorrect, I could have manually corrected it in less that a minute.
“Again, you miss the point. The user should not have to do ANY configuration!”
Then don’t. I can install a number of Linux distributions and be up and running, fully functional, as soon as the installer is done.
“Anyway, Linux is definitely not designed for the average user.”
I agree. It’s designed better. My grandma can use it just as well as she can Windows, but it offers a lot more to someone like me, who is frustrated by the limitations of Windows. That’s the best of both world don’t you think?
Just a story to make my point. I am taking a programming class right now for work. The structure of the class in one hour of lecture and one hour of lab time. Just about everyone in the class already works as a developer somewhere, but there is one person in the class who has no idea what she’s doing or what is going on.
If you had invested a lot of personal time and money in this class, would you rather the teacher teach the tough concepts that you went to learn, and helped those that didn’t understand during lab time, or would you rather the teacher teach to the lowest common denominator and never advance beyond basic concepts and syntax? My teacher chose to cater to the lowest common denominator. I haven’t learned a single thing in the class.
Windows is like that. It caters to the lowest common denominator and eliminates my ability to do more with it than someone’s grandma will. Linux on the other hand, can be used without much effort to write documents, send email, etc, but it also offers me the ability to do many advanced things too.
I prefer to have that choice. Perhaps some don’t. To each his/her own.
I just do not get it. Linux is a server OS, made for command-line work, with a semi-GUI on top for those that want it (yet it fails to actually be a true GUI layer, IMO since the user must still recompile crap, change config scripts and restart the X server… all actions that are NOT for average users and that, ideally, are retarded and undesirable).
Why do people keep trying to convince others that Linux is something it is not? There are already operating systems out there for the desktop. BeOS, MacOS, Windows. MacOS used to be for the lowest common denominator (which, Camel, IS the target of the desktop OS, at least at the surface); now OSX is eroding most of what was good about MacOS (which isn’t a ton of things).
Windows is for the user that wants every toy they can imagine, some amount of technical control and user-configurable options (beyond MacOS’s offerings) and whome does not care about the loss of efficiency or quality they must take in compensation; Most Windows users don’t even know that crashing and freezing are FAILURES of the computer, NOT standard operating procedure. This simple and ignored fact is paramount to understanding why computers are NOT improving.
BeOS is for the user that believes that the efficiency of the MacOS UI can be had but with more flexibility and technical control (when desired) and the stability of a Unix. It’s like all the best things from each OS into one… except no one cared. No apps? Screw it, right? Not free? Forget it. Not open source? Who needs it, right? The users that should have embraced it were too busy feeling threatened because “their OS of zealotry” was Linux. Bash BeOS because it isn’t open source. Whatever. You people created a self-fulfilling prophecy. More acid for you later…
In the end, the computer is still where it was in 1980: a royal pain in the ass to use. Only now it is far more complicated and there is less choice for the end-user (though, through the marvel of modern marketing might, users believe they have endless choice in both the OS and application categories).
elx is another Linux distro that thinks all that is involved in making a user-friendly OS is for the surface to LOOK like MS Windows or Apple MacOS. Make the icons have similar names. Give X a window-manager that looks like win98. Wrong. Careful observation of their web site, screen shots and texts allows any experienced and user-centric computer person to see that it is still the same old Linux. Even without booting it. Why bother?
Look on their web site. You can see it for yourself. Most of the readers here have not been fooled. Icons are named inconsistently. The text lables are wrapped into unreadability. The “task bar” equivalent is cluttered (the end user needs simplicity, not a thousand options on the first screen) and has the most important objects (the application switching buttons) relegated to the smallest portion of the bar with titles meaningless to end users who care nothing for file system structure and everything for “their stuff.”
Text runs over controls and gets clipped by edges (which I admit BeOS has problems with too). The title bar on the “My Computer” window is rediculous. Clearly it is a plain old folder on the drive with a bunch of links… the result is a title bar (and taskbar button) that makes zero sense to a real end user. And on and on…
Though I do not hold any prejudice against non-english speaking people, elx’s web site and distro is a perfect example of when a developer fails to understand its target market. They target english speaking users but have not provided proper english in the site’s PR or the OS. Unprofessional. If I were providing a product to the Japanese or French markets, I would ensure that all of my information and texts were created by an expert and native speaker of those languages. I would not rely on translation or my own knowledge. Try to get work in translation and you will see what professionals think about this.
It seems to me that those people who use Linux for what it was intended (serving, home-brew or proprietary in-house development, scientific research, system control, etc) are on the right track and are content with the OS as it is (no doubt, some of them would rather their compatriots stop trying to convert Linux into Windows). Most everyone else seems obsessed with the idea that “their chosen OS” is the best in the world; that there are no possible alternatives, and that Linux can do everything that end users need (despite the obvious fact that these zealots do not even know what an end user is, and, in fact, hold much distaste and even hatred towards those types of users for not being “savvy enough” to edit scripts or recompile the kernel or their apps). Oh, I forgot to mention: “and it is open source!” [read that while pounding table]
There was a chance to actually make computers into standard and usable tools, once… but it seems that most of you “savvy experts” are afraid to lose the stream of revenue generated by supporting “lamers who are clueless about computers.” Those “lamers” are people. They deserve to have quality tools as much as you deserve to have a quality car or refridgerator. Those of you that argue for recompiling and editing scripts to change settings or add/remove hardware… you sound like the people who revolted against machines during the industrial revolution; fearing that you’d be unemployed if everyone could do things for themselves. You are holding back progress because it suits you and applying mean-spirited lables to those who want computers to just be the tools they should have been by now; easy to use and technically capable (without the need of a programmer’s degree, which really doesn’t help anyway).
It makes me sad to see something like elx; a waste of time, IMO. It is another MS-style attempt at getting attention and support for a product that claims but does not actually provide substance to those claims. The Linux community’s zealots (and you’re not all zealots, I know) have taken to MS-style tactics in order to convert others to your god-sent OS with claims of “easier to use” and “easier to configure” and “ready for the desktop” and “ready for your mom” … and each time I get excited.. I open my eyes and take a look… and I am disappointed to find the same old Linux underneath a stale candy coating… a coating that only fools the people who made it because they do not truely understand what an end-user is or wants or what “Mom’s” capabilities even are. You (the zealots) have created what you THINK is needed and therefore it must be so. Wrong.
The only real advancement in computer comfort I have experienced since I grew out of DOS (make no assumption that I am afraid of a CLI) has been BeOS. Thanks to the media (which only supports the status quo or the buzzword of the week instead of reporting new things and supporting progress), Microsoft (which made deals with OEMs impossible), Linux zealots (who swore up and down, left and right, that BeOS was pointless because it wasn’t open source, or because it wasn’t Linux – and the media believed them and propegated their sentiments because the media was obsessed with the Linux buzzword) and, yes, some failures on Be Inc’s part (inconsistency of goals, pulling out on developers, etc), the future of computing for those of us who want technically savvy yet SANE computing environments is as dark as ever. My parents can use the microwave, VCR(!), cordless answering machine/phone and television but they cannot stand dealing with the computer (they run Windows). I have attempted to bring my mom to BeOS because I know she cannot handle complexity. Sadly, there seems to be a lack of understanding that she has to make due without some toys and comforts in order to enjoy less complexity, less crashing, no virus concerns, etc… and NO, Linux wouldn’t come CLOSE to being Mom-usable. Not for my mom. She is the end user. The bottom rung of computer user.
Will this stagnation and downward plunge of the computer industry ever end? Will there never be a force for positive change? Are half-hearted and naive exploits like elx and other “Windows-like Linuxes” the only alternate flavour to this stagnation?
My only hope at this point is that Palm considers BeUnited to be a sensible partner in their future business or that OBOS’s developers are more aware of what an end user is than Linux’s “many thousands of” developers.
-Jace
I’m interested in hearing somebody that actually tried both Redmond Linux and elx. I’m planning on switching my wife’s computer from XP to linux and I want something that she would be comfortable using out of the box but I would like better system (performance/stability/etc.)of the two.